11-13-00 PC Agenda
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, November 13, 2000
7:00 P.M.
I. Approval of Minutes - October 23, 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 an existing duplex also to be situated on its own lot.
A. Variance from the Subdivision Chapter of the Golden Valley City Code -
Golden Meadows P.U.D. No. 89
Purpose: The applicant is requesting four variances from the Subdivision section
of the City Code for the Golden Meadows P.U.D.
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 ofthe Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning
Appeals and other Meetings
V. Other Business
VI. Adjournment
Regular Meeting af the
Galden Valley Planning Cammissian
A regular meeting af the Planning Cammissian was held at the Galden Valley City. Hall,
Cauncil Chambers, 7800 Galden Vaney Raad, Galden Valley, Minnesata, an Monday,
Octaber 23,2000. Chair Pentelcalled the meeting to order at 7:00 RM.
Those present Were Chair Pentel Emd COmmissJonars Eck,Groger, McAleese,
Rasmussen and Shaffer. Cammissioner Haffman was absent. Also. present were
Director of P.lanning and Development Mark Grimes and City Plpnner Dan Olsan.
I. Approval of Minutes - September 25~ 2000
Cammissian Shaffer stated that he did nat secand the motian recarded at the battam af
page sixaf the minutes. The minutes should be amended to. read:
Hoffman then Fe-stated his matian as a positive motion to. accept the staff
recofnmendation far this subdivisian with the fiveconditians stated in the memo..
Seconded by Ebk.
.Cammis$ioner Grogerint:lioatea that the secand paragraph an page three af the
minutes .attributed a questian to. him, which was asked by Cammissianer McAleese.
The minutes shauldbe amended to read:
McAleese asked if the existing plat, HaneyweJJ Golden Valley Additian, was
platted and registered with Hennepin Caunty.
Chair Pentel referred to. the sixth paragraph an page two. af the minutes. Her question
shauld be stated as fallaws:
Pentel asked if it was apprapriate to. have the entire site meet water quality
standards at this time.
. Chair Pentel indicated that the ward infill shauld nat be in italics in the minutes.
Chair Pentel'alsa referred to. the secand sentence in the fifth paragraph an page.five.
She stated that the phrase at the end af the sentence, "their back daar" shauld be
carrected to dtheir backdaar".
Movedby Grager, seoonded by Eck and mation carried unanimausly,ta appravethe
September 25,2000 minutes as amended.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 23, 2000
Page 2
~l
II. Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan -- Golden Meadows
P.U.D. No. 89
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.
McAleese stated that a motion should be made to bring this item off thetable since it
was tabled at the previous meeting. He asked that staff address the following
questions before proceeding with the motion: .
McAleese stated that, according to the P.U.D. ordinance, certain datamu~tbe included
in the preliminary plat or the Planning Commission cannot consider the item. He
indicated that he was unable to find the following items in.the preliminary pliiit:.
1) Existing zoning classification (requirement of Section 12.11, Item 28)
2) Total approximate acreage (Item 2C)
City Planner Dan Olson responded that the zoning classification and the total
acreage are not on the plat but that this information is included in the application.
3) Minimum front and side street setback lines (Item 3G)
4) Location of existing streets and structures
Grimes responded that there is not currently a street platted through the
property.
5) Boundary lines of adjoining property identified by name and ownership.
McAleese stated that he would be in favor of revising the existing code if all of the
information it requires on the preliminary plat is not necessary. However, he stated that
the Commission is required to follow the current code, which clearly states that if all of
these items are not included in the preliminary plat it cannot be considered by the
Planning Commission. City Planner Olson stated that he would take steps to ensure
that all of the required information was included in the future.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 23, 2000
Page 3
Pentel stated that it should be clarified that the Plahning~Cbmmissiol1 has already
recommended denial of the request to rezone the existing duplex to a triplex.
Rasmuss~n aske<;twhose responsibility it is to make certain thaUhe required items are
included on the preliminary plat. Grimes responded that it is the' 'staff.
He stated that all of the required information is included in tneapatiofl bu e of it'
may not , on the plat document itself. He Sl,l ested that tre code could be.
revised to 1st all items that could' potentially be incl '.' d on the preliminary plat without
requiring that all items actuallyappear on the plat for each case.
Groger stated that he would be in favor of proceeding on this item. He indicated that
the items missing from the plat are not critical to the decision of the Planning
Commiss.ion aJ)d that it would be a tremendous waste of time for people who have
appeared to discuss the issue to leave it tabled. McAl,eese respohded that proceeding
with the P.U.D. . , the Commission does not have the authority to do so could result
in the decision b, g challenged.
Moved by Groger, seconded by Eck, to bring the matter back on the table. McAleese'
opposed. Motion p~ssed.
. Olson stateq that. after reviewing the rev
submitted by K, the Planning Commission had recomTTl
to the City Council. He stated that the rezoning has not y
He inciicated t et with City Engineer, Jeff
Planni ' r, Mark Grimes, and h . ' '. .
Prelimi . n for review by the Planning Comm n. Isonsta' t
Oliver, who as concluded that the major issues have been resolved, has reviewed the
revisecj plan. qhair el as for fLJrther detail regarding what issues s . cally
ha "e ed ose t remain unresolved. Olson stated that
"" _ _' "_"'_-: ,-_,,; :",_'_> ",,', ,',_.,',--',",,,,-_:'-"--; ,"--:,:~ ,,'_", ":',"'--,'C',n_': ','\_<; :':,:,'",'\-,'f,.""
outstan(:ii issues .are ' nicel m.inof design issues thafd '" ot im act t
ChaiTPentel.asked spectcaUyabout the ponding' issue, · .
pondingissue .has been. resQ'ved with the revised design,
applicant has re, ,1'he site plan to inctude a 50-foot st .
this right-of-way narrowed toa 38-foot right of way near t
zoning r. irem~nts of the Resid~ntialzoning district, OlsQ
single-fa hQmes.must be at least 10,000 sqLi~refeetin ,", .'
wide at the front' "', Ii' , e stated that lots 6, 8 and 10 still do
requirememts.. at.el 3,7,9 and 10 m the ea
Ol$on stated ,th it the ' the existing sin ()
the single-famies.m e 3 t front yard set requIre ., . '
setbacksT!3ng 1510 feet. The rear yard setbacquiremeht , 20% of lot
depth ", 'it of the,l<;>ts meet this setback requIrement.' He stated that the side
setbac uirernents vary depending on the lot width and thai lots 2, Gand 10 do not
meet the side yard setback . '
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
Octoper 23, 2000 .
Page 4
requirements. Olson stated that staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design
Plan for Golden Meadows Addition, P.U.D. No. 89 subject to the fOllowing
recommendations:
1.
2.
3. DediGation 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 mote restrictive
property regulations than those in City Code, but enforcement of such provisions
shall be the responsibifity 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 P.U.D. permit.
5.
" ,.', ".'
6. Proof of recording. for the plat must be provided to the City before any
construction permit~ are issued.
Olson suggested that tile additional items address.ed by McAleese be added t6 the
recommendation. CtlairPentel suggested that the recommendations of the City
Engineer as found in his memo dated August 10, 2000 also be included in the approval.
. .
Groger question~dwhiph lots meet the minimum width requirement. He atedthat it
appears that none of the lots, with the exception of Lot 10, meet the urn width
requiremE!nt. Grimes st~ted that the lot width is determined at the 35-footfack
line. Pentel questioned if thi,sis an accurate method of calculating thelbtw
requirement for these .Iots wben the,fr6nfsetbacks to pe used range Trom 15t021 feSt.
Olson responded that he would review the setback requirements on the lots.
. - - - . , . '. '.. . . . - .
McAleese stated that the approval of the p.u.b. does not mean that theCbmmission'
has the authority to waive the re<;;Juirements of other City codes such as the ivision
codes. He stated that street width requirements are included in the subdi . . code
and that the proposed street does notmeetthe requirements. Olson respo hat.
according to the City Engineer a 50-foot right of way is sufficient fot this dav nt.
.. McAleese stated that according to the code the P,U.[). must comply wit
subdivision requirements. He indicated that only the City Council hasthe authority to
waive compliance with the sllbdivisi<!>n code. To request such a waiver, th€fa.ppHcant
must apply in writing for a variance when the preliminary plat is submitted to the
Planning Commission.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 23. 2000
Page 5
ested that the Commission table the item until the required information can
be includ . He stated that it would be in the best interest .of al ~. involved t6
have all oUhe required information before proceeding with a recommendation to the
City Council. " '. . '.
The applicant is requesting a subdivision of the main parceJ of land
in' order to c " . two new lots along Sandburg 'Road at the corrier
of Sandbur d and Douglas Drive
. '
Moved by Shaffer, seconded by Groger and passed unanimoUsly, to table the review
until the required information can be included. .
III.
','.' _.C -. ,'.. u' ........: ':.... .. .:' .... ,'. ,," ...... ,', ,', '_ .. -.,:'
Grimes stated that, at their September 25 meeting, the Planning' Commission had voted
to recommend to the City Council this application be denied. He .indicatedthat the
City C"uncil reviewed the re 'on at their October 10 me e stated that
he had suggested four poss' s that could be taken by the. . ncil:.1)
follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the . ati'on; 2)
approv.e the proposed plat, 3) ap ove the revised plat, or 4) refer k to the Pl'anning
Commiss,ion. He stated tha" ncil decided to refer it hack to Planning
Commission for their review felt that the revisions to the ptat were fairty
significant. Grimes stated that HoneyweJl has tried to address the concerns of the
Planning COfTlmission in their' . He indicated that they have chan ed the
proposec;;l eiJriveway cuts, rn ' drive so that it is 400 feet from .
Drive. Me stated that the is on Lot 2'(Westtot) but also provides access
to Lot 1 .'.. lot). A 132,0 ,quare oat office/warehouse building isproposedt
2. A 32, square foot office building is proposed for Lot 1. Grimes statedth .
proposal includes sufficie but recommended proof of par since all of the
parking is'l1ot needed a . Grimes stated that the Ptam1ihg 'mmission had
questions regarding the ori.ginarezoning of this property in 1956. Grimes indicated that
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 23, 2000
Page 6
he had researched the original rezoning and reported that there was some controversy
around the, original deGision, which was opposed by 1200 people. He indicated that,
one oUhe main. reasons for the opposition was access to the site. At the time, Douglas
Drive ended at Golden Valley Road and Duluth Street did not yet exist. He also .
indicated that there were some restrictions put on the development for 10 years. These
restrictions stated that no building or other structure would be built within 200 feet of the
e,asterly boundary or within 100 feet of the northerly or southerly bounda'.. arid that.
no more than 34 acres of the entire site would contain structures.
, .
Grimes stated 'that the,Commission had also been concerned.with the odd configuration
of the lot where the existing Honeywell building is located. He stated that Honeywell
feels it is necessary to own the property where the utility building is located which
results in an odd shaped lot.
Pentel asked how trucks would move around the building on Lot 2. Grimes responded
that the City Building Officials and the City Engineer would review the plan to make sure
it meets all requirements for fire and safety.
Pentel stated that there are test wells on the property and asked if they will be'removed
to allow for the new construction. Grimes responded that this is an issue that
Honeywell willl1eed to resolve with the Pollution Control Agency. MoAleese asked if
the lots would still be buildable if the test wells cannot be moved. Shaffer responded
that wells could be located in parking lots and even inside buildings, if necessary.
Pentel suggested that the Commission recommend that a sidewalk be located along
the south side of Sandburg Road. Shaffer stated that the sidewalk should be part of
the development. Grimes responded that, generally, the City prefers to maintain
sidewalks and would ask that the sidewalk be located on a street or utility easement.
Pentel recommended that a berm be built along the east side of Lot 2 to prevent views
of semi-trucks from Douglas, Drive. Groger responded that he did not believe there was
room between the two lots for berming. " .. .
Groger expressed concern with inaccuracies in the prop
that, according to the plan provided, the applicant falls
requirements by approxi,mately 500 spaces. He stated
that this is the largest industri,alproperty in Golden Valley and it is important that City ,
Code requirements are met. He stated that the applicant should provide a detailed plan
showing proof af parking for 2,500 spaces. He added that the size of the existing
parking spaces does not meet City code.
McAleese expressed concern regarding parking should warehouse s 96 becor1Verted
to office space in the future. Grimes stated that any conversion to. 0 space would
require a building permit and, to obtain the permit, the applicant would be required to
show proof ofparking~
Minutes of the. Golden Valley PlanniOQ Commission
Ootober 23, 2000
Page 7
Pentel expressed concern regarding increased traffic on Sandburg Road and Douglas
Drive. Grimes stated that the buildings will be located on streets where there is
capacity to handle the added traffic. Pentel added since aU the parking lots will. be
connected, traffic could enter and exit on both San rg Road and Douglas Drive at the
main Honeywell entrance. .
McAleese asked for clarification on the difference between a driveway and a private
street. He indicated that the driveway on Lot 2 appears to be a private street. He
stated that he felt the access on the south side oUhe lot to the Honeywell lot creates a
private street. Grimes responded that there is only one driveway cut and it provides
good access for emergency vehicles. McAleese stated that he would prefer closing the
access between the lots.
Jerry Duffing, attomey for Industrial Equities, was present. He stated Mr. Allen was
unable to be present due to flight difficulties. He stated that they meet aU the
requirements for a preliminary plat and have the legaJ right ta have it approved. . Pentel
stated that the Commission must address their concerns at this time, since the
applicant does' not come before them after the preliminary .plat is approved: Duffing
responded that he could not answer the questions in regards to the parking. He.'
.suggested that the apprOval be conditioned on meeting the parking requirements.
Chair Pentel opened the public hearing:
James R. Olson, representing 2210 Douglas Drive North stated his concern regarding
the uncertainties 'created by the fact that the buildings are speculative and it is unknown
at this time who the tenantswiJ1be. He expressed concern regarding the maximum
potential truck traffic, general traffic and parking. He suggested that an environmental
impact study might be appropriate. He expressed. additional concern regarding the
purchase of Honeywell by GE, which may result in further changes to the ownership
and occupant of the existing Honeywell building.
Armand Maanum of 2300 Douglas Drive North stated his obJection to the proposal. He
expressed concern with the size ofthebuilding, the p'arkingsituation and the increase
in traffic. He stated that the City notifies residents within 500 feet and that this will affect
residents in a larger surrounding area. He suggested that these residents wouJdbe
attending th earing to object if they knew about the proposal. He further objected to
the appeal"; oftruCk loading docks, which will be visibJe from Dougla.s Drive. He
added that, in the winter, piles of snow generally take up a large number of parking
spaces, making them unavailable for parking.
Chair Pentel closed the public hearing.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 23, 2000
Page 8 .
In response,. Grimes stated that this project would not meet the threshold for an
environmental impact study. He stated that the City is required to notify residents within
500 feet by State law. He indicated that the City notifies residents within 650 feet. In
regards toouts.ide storage at loading docks, Grimes stated that outside stbrage is
prohibited by City code. Pentel asked how the code is enforced. Grimes responded
that it is enforced on a complaint basis.
Groger referred to the restrictions in the original rezoning, specifically thatno building
could be built within 200 feet of Douglas Drive. He requested an opinion from the City
Attorney regardirlg whether or not this restriction is governed by the 10-year provision.
McAleese s.tated that he would be voting against this proposal since it does not meet
the requirements of the subdivision code due to the parking issue.
Groger requested verification of the size of the existing structure to .ensure accurate
calculation oUhe parking requirement. He stated that he would not be comfortable
approving a project of this size with a condition in regards to the parking,
Moved by Rasmussen, seconded by Eck, to approve the preliminary plat contingent
upon resolution of the proof of parking issue before it is presented to the City Council.
Shaffer asked if the item could be tabled. Grimes responded that this item must be
before the City Council by December 5th. He indicated that the City has alreadY
requested one 60..day extens,ion. He. stated that it may be possible to obtain an
additional60-day extension but he would need to discuss this with the City Attorney.
Groger summarized the issues of concern: proof of parking, verificatior:t of square
footage of the existing structure, legal opinion regarding driveway vs. private street,
legal opinion regarding the original rezoning from 1956 and whether or not all
restrictions are governed by the ten year clause. He indicated that these issues should
. - .'. -'. - - -- .-., - ..' -.' - - - - -'.: - - .." - ....".. .;"'. - .'. - .'. " ,'-- - -_:'. <.-
be addressed before making a recommendation to the City Council. Shafferagreed
thatthe item should be tabled untll we have the information that is needed.to make a
recommendation.
Rasmussen stated that proof of parking and the square footage of the building is
information that can be gathered quite easily. She stated that the Commission
frequently recommends approval with certain conditions.
.I:' 1
. Minutes of the
October 23, 20
Page 9
Grimes stat~d that the Council has until the 5th of December to approve the preliminary
plat. The Planning Commission will meet again on Monday, November 13th and the
City Council meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 21st. .
Motion was withdrawn by Rasmussen.
Moved by Shaffer, secQnCied by McAleese and passed unanimously; to table this item
based upon lack of information regarding proof of parkihg, square footage of the
building; legal opinion regarding the definition of a driveway vs. a private street, and a
legal opinion regarding the original rezoning from 1956 and whether all restrictions are
governed by the ten year clause.
IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
. Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
None
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Richard Groger, Secretary
.'f- 'I "!7,-...f..
"'" ~k..:..
.
Hey
Mem randum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Dan Olson, City Planner
Subject: Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan for Golden Meadows Addition, P.D.D. No. 89,
South of 23rd Avenue North, between Valders and Winnetka, SVK Development, Applicant
Date: November 9,2000
Background
The Planning Commission reviewed a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application for this site at its .October
23, 2000 Meeting. This was the third review of a PUD for that site (see previous city staff memos attached for
your review). At the October 23rd meeting, the Commission tabled the review of the PUD so that additional
~nformation could be placed on the site plans and so that the applicant could apply for variances for the PUD
~om the Subdivision Section of the City Code.
Resubmitted Preliminary Design Plan
At the October 23rd meeting, several items were identified as missing from the PUD Preliminary Design Plans.
With the exception of the proposed name of the street, all of these items are now located on the site plans.
Normally, the City's Building Inspection Department gives streets names. Planning Staffhas verified the street
name "V alders Court" for this PUD with the Inspections Department. Placing the name of the street is a
requirement for the PUD General Plan.
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 lot
area requirements. Only lots 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.
. Variances from the Subdivision Code
For this PUD, the applicant is requesting four variances from the Subdivision Code, Chapter 12 of the City
Code.
L-" c.. The first requested variance is from Section 12.20, Subd. 2 (A) relating to right of way widths. Thi~J ...
Section of the Code requires local streets and cul-de-sacs streets to be a minimum of 60 feet in width.
The applicant is requesting a right of way width of 50 feet.
· The second requested variance is from Section 12.20, Subd. 5 (A), which states: "All lots shall meet thA
minimum area and dimension requirements of the zoning district in which they are located. The front 0'"
each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public street, and the minimum front setback line shall be
established thirty-five (35) feet distant from the street right-of-way line". The applicant is requesting
front yard setbacks for this PUD which range from 15-21 feet In addition, lots 6,8 and 10 do not meet
the 10,000 square foot lot area requirement.
· The third requested variance is from Section 12.42 Subd. 1 (C) relating to street surface. The
requirement for local streets and cul-de-sacs is for the improved surface to be a minimum of30 feet in
width. The applicant is requesting a 28 foot width.
· The fourth requested variance is from Section 12.20, Subd I relating to cul-de-sacs. The requirement
states "the proposed cul-de-sac street is 190 feet or less in length, the subdivider may apply for a
reduced turnaround having an outside roadway diameter of at least 90 feet and a street right-of-way
diameter of at least 100 feet". The applicant is requesting a cul-de-sac right-of-way of 100 feet with an
outside diameter of 90 feet.
Attached for your review are the requirements of City Code Section 12.54, which details the conditions under
which variances are granted from the Subdivision Code.
Time Limits for pun approval
As you are aware, there are State Statutes which govern how long a City may take to review and approve
various zoning applications. According to Minnesota Statute 15.99, the City has 60 days to approve a zoning
application. This statute also allows the City to request an additional 60 day extension without the written
permission of the applicant. Any extensions beyond this 120 day period must be granted by the applicant in
writing. The original 60 day period ended on September 23,2000. Before that 60 day period ended, the City
extended this deadline another 60 days until November 22, 2000.
In order to meet these deadlines, the Planning Commission must recommend either approval or denial of the
Golden Meadows PUD at tonight's meeting. This PUD will then be forwarded to the City Council for
approval or denial on November 21st.
.
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 memos dated August 10,2000 and
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. The street name "V alders Court" be placed on the PUD General Design Plan.
4. Dedication of 7 feet of additional right-of-way for Winnetka Avenue as has been requested by .
Hennepin County.
2
.
.
.
5. The homeowner's association for the development may establish more restrictive property regulations
than those in City Code, but enforcement of such provisions shall be the responsibility of the
association. The association shall not establish property restrictions in violation of applicable federal,
state or local regulations including the terms of the approved PUD permit.
6. The notation of "P.U.D. No. 89" shall be made a part ofthe plat name.
7. Proof of recording for the plat must be provided to the City before any construction permits are issued.
Attachments:
Minutes of the October 23,2000 Planning Commission Meeting
City Code Section 12.54 (Variances)
Staff Memos to the Planning Commission dated October 18, 2000 and August 9, 2000
and attachments
Oversized Site Plans (4 sheets)
3
.. .,.__( L ....-
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 23, 2000
Page 2
) '-.\
..
II.
Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan -- Golden Meadows
P .U.D. No. 89
.
Applicant: SVK Development
Address: 2125 Winnetka Avenue and 2205-09 Winnetka
Avenue, which is part of 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.
McAleese stated that a motion should be made to bring this item off the table since it
was tabled at the previous meeting. He asked that staff address the following
questions before proceeding with the motion:
McAleese stated that, according to the P.U.D. ordinance, certain data must be included
in the preliminary plat or the Planning Commission cannot consider the item. He .
indicated that he was unable to find the following items in the preliminary plat:
1) Existing zoning classification (requirement of Section 12.11, Item 2B)
2) Total approximate acreage (Item 2C)
City Planner Dan Olson responded that the zoning classification and the total
acreage are not on the plat but that this information is included in the application.
3) Minimum front and side street setback lines (Item 3G)
4) Location of existing streets and structures
Grimes responded that there is not currently a street platted through the
property .
5) Boundary lines of adjoining property identified by name and ownership.
McAleese stated that he would be in favor of revising the existing code if all of the
information it requires on the preliminary plat is not necessary. However, he stated that
the Commission is required to follow the current code, which clearly states that if all of
these items are not included in the preliminary plat it cannot be considered by the
Planning Commission. City Planner Olson stated that he would take steps to ensure .
that all of the required information was included in the future.
.
.
.
.. I
T' I' __ ')
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 23, 2000
Page 3
Pentel stated that it should be clarified that the Planning Commission has already
recommended denial of the request to rezone the existing duplex to a triplex.
Rasmussen asked whose responsibility it is to make certain that the required items are
included on the preliminary plat. Grimes responded that it is the responsibility of staff.
He stated that all of the required information is included in the application but some of it
may not appear on the plat document itself. He suggested that the code could be
revised to list all items that could potentially be included on the preliminary plat without
requiring that all items actually appear on the plat for each case.
Groger stated that he would be in favor of proceeding on this item. He indicated that
the items missing from the plat are not critical to the decision of the Planning
Commission and that it would be a tremendous waste of time for people who have
appeared to discuss the issue to leave it tabled. McAleese responded that proceeding
with the P.U.D. when the Commission does not have the authority to do so could result
in the decision being challenged.
Moved by Groger, seconded by Eck, to bring the matter back on the table. McAleese .
opposed. Motion passed.
City Planner Dan Olson stated that after reviewing the revised Preliminary Design Plan
submitted by SVK, the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the rezoning
to the City Council. He stated that the rezoning has not yet gone to the City Council.
He indicated that the applicant met with City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, and the City
Planning and Development Director, Mark Grimes, and has submitted a revised
Preliminary Design Plan for review by the Planning Commission. Olson stated that
Oliver, who has concluded that the major issues have been resolved, has reviewed the
revised plan. Chair Pentel asked for further detail regarding what issues specifically
have been resolved and those that remain unresolved. Olson stated that the
outstanding issues are technical minor design issues that do not impact the P.U.D.
Chair Pentel asked specifically about the ponding issue. Olson responded that the
ponding issue has been resolved with the revised design. Olson stated that the
applicant 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, Olson stated that all lots for
single-family homes must be at least 10,000 square feet in area and be at least 80 feet
wide at the front setback line. He stated that lots. 6, 8 and 10 still do not meet these
requirements. He indicated that lots 3, 7, 9 and 10 meet the lot area requirement.
Olson stated that, 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. The 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. He stated that the side
setback requirements vary depending on the lot width and that lots 2,6 and 10 do not
meet the side yard setback
(' -4 ".. l'-
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 23, 2000
Page 4
l __
requirements. Olson stated that staff reCQmmends approval of the Preliminary Design
Plan for Golden Meadows Addition, P.U.D. No. 89 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 P.U.D. 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.
.
Olson suggested that the additional items addressed by McAleese be added to the
recommendation. Chair Pentel suggested that the recommendations of the City
Engineer as found in his memo dated August 10, 2000 also be included in the approval.
Groger questioned which lots meet the minimum width requirement. He stated that it
appears that none of the lots, with the exception of Lot 10, meet the minimum width
requirement. Grimes stated that the lot width is determined atthe 35-foot front setback
line. Pentel questioned if this is an accurate method of calculating the lot width
requirement for these lots when the front setbacks to be used range from 15 to 21 feet.
Olson responded that he would review the setback requirements on the lots.
McAleese stated that the approval of the P.U.D. does not mean that the Commission
has the authority to waive the requirements of other City codes such as the Subdivision
codes. He stated that street width requirements are included in the subdivision code
and that the proposed street does not meet the requirements. Olson responded that
according to the City Engineer a 50-foot right of way is sufficient for this development.
McAleese stated that according to the code the P.U.D. must comply with all the
subdivision requirements. He indicated that only the City Council has the authority to ..
waive compliance with the subdivision code. To request such a waiver, the applicant
must apply in writing for a variance when the preliminary plat is submitted to the
Planning Commission.
~
.
.
.
,_ I
.., c. __...
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 23, 2000
Page 5
Grimes suggested that the Commission table the item until the required information can
be included. He stated that it would be in the best interest of all parties involved to .
have all of the required information before proceeding with a recommendation to the
City Council.
Groger asked ifthere is a question as to the validity of this proposal as a P.U.D.
McAleese responded that it is eligible for consideration under the P.U.D. ordinance.
Olson stated that staff would gather the required information. He suggested that the
question of the proposal's validity as a P.U.D. be addressed as part of the general
discussion.
Moved by Shaffer, seconded by Groger and passed unanimously, to table the review
until the required information can be included.
lit.. Informal Public Hearing - Property Subdivision (SU14..10)
"
/'
/'
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Honeywell, Inc.
Southwest corner of Douglas Drive and Sandbyrif'Road - portion
of Honeywell, Inc. located at 1885 - 1985 Douglas Drive, Golden
alley, MN
Purpose: The plicant is requesting a subdivi . n of the main parcel of land
in orde create two new lots alo Sandburg Road at the corner
of Sandbu Road and Douglas rive
/
Grimes stated that, at their SeptemIJ r 25 meeJirig, the Planning Commission had voted
to recommend to the City Council that is a plication be denied. He indicated that the
City Council reviewed the recommendati at their October 10 meeting. He stated that
he had suggested four possible action,/ hat ould be taken by the City Council: 1)
follow the recommendation of the Ptanning Co mission and deny the application, 2)
approve the proposed plat, 3) aR rfove the revise plat, or 4) refer back to the Planning
Commission. He stated that t Council decided to efer it back to the Planning
Commission for their revie since they felt that the re . ions to the plat were fairly
significant. Grimes stated that Honeywell has tried to a ess the concerns of the
/
Planning Commissi,9R/in their revised plat. He indicated th they have changed the
proposed drivew9Y' cuts, moving the main drive so that it is 4 feet from Douglas
Drive. He stated that the driveway itself is on Lot 2 (west lot) bu Iso provides access
to Lot 1 (e9st1ot). A 132,000 square foot office/warehouse buildin is proposed for Lot
2. A 32.,000 square foot office building is proposed for Lot 1. Grimes tated that their
prop~1 includes sufficient parking but recommended proof of parking s' ce all of the
p}ltking is not needed at this time. Grimes stated that the Planning Comml ion had
/~uestions regarding the original rezoning of this property in 1956. Grimes in ted that
City of Golden Valley - Subdivision Regulations - Variances
.: ..-., r
http://www.cLgolden-valley.mn.us/zoning/subregvar.htm
, ~ ~
.~6olf
,.....
.t:Ity.~
.~
.€~
.1 :tie.
.
.rl:,'V
.",---.,
.m&.
.,... ...,
.zoni1f9
lof2
.
SECTION 12.54. VARIANCES.
Subdivision 1. Generally.
A. The Council may grant a variance from this Chapter
following a finding that all of the following conditions exist:
1. There are special circumstances for conditions affecting
said property so that the strict application of the
provisions of this Chapter would create an unusual
hardship and deprive the applicant of the reasonable use
of his land. Economic difficulty or inconvenience shall not
constitute a hardship situation for the purpose of this
ordinance.
2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner.
3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the
neighborhood in which said property is situated.
B. In making this finding the Council shall consider the nature
of the proposed use of land and the existing use of land in the
vicinity, the number of persons to reside or work in the
proposed subdivision and the probable effect of the proposed
subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. In granting a
variance, as herein provided, the Council may prescribe such
conditions as it deems desirable or necessary in the, public
interest.
.
Subdivision 2. Applications Required. Application for any
such variance shall be made in writing by the owner or
subdivider at the time when the preliminary plat is submitted
for the consideration of the Planning Commission, stating fully
and clearly all facts or other additional data which may aid the
Planning Commission in the analysis of the proposed project.
The plans for such development shall include such covenants,
restrictions or other legal provisions necessary to guarantee
the full achievement of the plan. The Council may require
review or approval of the variance request by other agencies
including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bassett's
Creek Commission and the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources.
Source: Ordinance No. 34, 2nd Series
Effective date: 4-12-90
(Sections 12.55 through 12.98, inclusive, reserved for
future expansion.)
[back to subdivision requlations] [back to zoninq]
.
11/9/00 8:58 AM
""( .., ')
.
Hey
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Dan Olson, City Planner
Subject: Informal Public Hearing -- Preli~nary Design Plan for Golden Meadows Addition, P.U.D. No. 89,
South of 23rd 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
_because 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.
Staffhas 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.
( '. '0'
^'."j
"
· 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 staffhas 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 A venue 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
.cassociation. 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
.
.
.
t
,.,. - "
'Vall ey
Memorandum
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Date: October 16, 2000
To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning Development
./.~
From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Subject: Preliminary Design Plan Review or Planned Unit Development #89,
Golden Meadows
Public Works staff has reviewed the revised plans that were submitted for the proposed
Golden Meadows Planned Unit Development (PUD). This proposed development is loc~ted
between Winnetka and Valders Avenues, just south of 23rd Avenue North.
This review focused on the issues raised in the August 10, 2000 Public Works review of this
same PUD. The August 10th review identified several critical issues that needed to be
addressed prior to forwarding the PUD for any additional review.
Based upon this review, staff has determined that the major issues that were previously
raised have been addressed in a conceptual manner. There are still some final design issues
that need to be addressed prior to consideration of this PUD for General Plan approval. Staff
will be in contact with the developer and their representatives to discuss these issues.
Recommendation:
Public Works staff recommends approval of the preliminary design plan for the proposed
Planned Unit Development #89, Golden Meadows. Approval should be subject to comments
of other City staff.
In addition, staff recommends that this proposed PUD not be forwarded for General Plan
approval until all final design issues have been addressed in a satisfactory manner.
C:
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Joe Paumen, Engineering Technician
Gary Johnson, Building Official
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall
G:\Developments-Private\Golden Meadows\Prelim Design Memo-3.doc
. ..
j
,-
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 14, 2000
Page 6
PeJltel said she could not support the rezoning of the subject property. She added that it is not up- t the
City t assist in the demolition of the duplex. Pentel also commented she is pleased th oper is
trying to e the subject property aesthetically pleasing and that the ap r ould market the units if
the P.U.D. wer roved.
.
. g given legal ramifications. She believed she could
see plans that showed it was part of the development instead of
MOVED by eese, seconded by Hoffman and motion c by a vote of6-0 (one commissioner
absen recommend to the City Council denial of the proposed rez 2205-09 Winnetka Avenue
m Single-Family Residential to MI.
III. Informal Public Hearing - Prelimiuary Design Piau - 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 I of Anderson's Addition and Outlot I 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
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 townhome
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 A venue and Winnetka
A venue 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
.
'r .. ).
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 14,2000
Page 7
.
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 if
the requirement of park 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 PDD 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 stated that this criterion adding'
that the function is that there is a 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 100-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 10-
year flood elevation. Shaffer suggested that the Engineer's memo is indicating that ifthe developer
supplied the required ponding it would not fit in the area being proposed.
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 ofthe 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.D.D. the road width could be
reduced. McAleese said the P.D.D. Ordinance permits variances from Chapter 11 (the Zoning Code) but
does not expressly allow variances of Chapter 12 (the Subdivision Code). A variance of street width must
proceed under the requirements of ~ 12.54.
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.D.D. request. She added that the City Engineer, via his memo, 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.
J.. y
"
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 14, 2000
Page 8
.
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 who 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 she was not sure that Hennepin County would allow a street to go through onto Winnetka
A venue. 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/exits 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.
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 of the 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
.
.
.
.
'--
..
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 14, 2000
Page 9
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 ifthe ponds were then in the back yard ofthese 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 placed. 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. Muszynski 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, and 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 ofthis pond.
McAleese said his question is a good one and the City Council could answer this question.
Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing.
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.D.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 fl:lvor 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 and McAleese commented that the purpose of tabling the proposal was to receive additional
information, that the applicant agreed to provide this information before going forward, and the applicant
should not be required to pay additional fees when the proposal is taken off the table for consideration.
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.
.
J
Hey
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
.
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Dan Olson, City Planner
Subject: Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan for Golden Meadows Addition, P.U.D.
No. 89, South of 23rd Avenue North, between Valders and Winnetka, SVK Development,
Applicant
Date: August 9, 2000
Background
The Planning Commission reviewed a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application for this site,
along with a property rezoning, at its May 22, 2000 Meeting. At that time, the site plan consisted .
mostly of two-family housing units. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the PUD and
rezoning to the City Council because it was felt that the development was too dense for a single-family
neighborhood. After that recommendation, SVK elected to withdraw their application, revise the
PUD site plan, and resubmit it to the Planning Commission.
This resubmitted PUD Preliminary Design Plan is the second of two interrelated items that the
applicant needs to gain approval in order to achieve the goal of establishing a PUD for the construction
of 7 new single family homes, one proposed 3-unit condominium and one existing single-family
home. The first item is a zoning map amendment for a portion of the property. A location map is
attached showing the location of the proposed PUD. The PUD process will now begin to establish the
exact requirements under which the development would be built and operated.
There are two stages of approval for a PUD proposal. This is the first, or the Preliminary Design Plan
stage. The purpose of this stage is two-fold: to give broad concept approval to the proposal and to call
out issues that must be addressed in detail as the proposal moves ahead to the General Plan of
Development stage. Preliminary Plan approval does not guarantee that a proposal will become reality.
It gives the applicant some assurance of being on the right track, and some guidance in how to proceed.
In the case of the Planning Commission, in particular, the limitations of Preliminary Plan approval are
clearly laid out. City Code Sec. 11.55, 6.D provides that:
The Planning Commission's consideration of the application shall be limited to a
determination of whether the application constitutes an appropriate land use under the
general principals and standards adhered to in the City and, if necessary, its report shall
include recommended changes in the land use planned by the applicant so as to conform .
the application or recommend approval subject to certain conditions or modifications.
.
.
.
.\..
...
),
Summary of Proposal
SVK Development is requesting a PUD for a development that contains 11 units consisting of 7 new
single family homes, a proposed 3-unit(;ondominium, and one existing single-family home. The
overall development is 2.73 acres. The overall density of the development is 4.0 units per acre. It is'
located between Winnetka Avenue and Valders Avenue, south of23rd Avenue. Attached is a copy of
the site plan and area map.
The 7 new single family homes would be located on new lots that would have access from a new cul-
de-sac from Valders A venue. Each home would be one level with a walkout basement. Th~ homes
would each be priced between $200,000 and $300,000. Photographs and renderings of similar type
homes are attached for your review. SVK is proposing to have a homeowner's association that would
be responsible for lawn care and snowplowing. The applicant would like to have the City takeover
the ownership of the proposed storm water retention pond and be responsible for its maintenance.
The existing double home on Winnetka Avenue is a part of the PUD, and is proposed to be remodeled
to a 3-unit condominium. These are lots 4 and 5 on the site plans. Because of this remodeling, SVK
is asking to have that part of the PUD rezoned from Residential to M-l (Multiple Residential). This
rezoning is also included on tonight's agenda for the Planning Commission's consideration. This
double home was built in the early 1980's when double homes were considered permitted uses in the
Residential zoning district. The double home is now undergoing restoration after several years of
neglect.
The existing single-family home at 2105 Winnetka Avenue was moved to the property last year. This
property, lot 8 on the site plan, is also a part of the PUD plat for Golden Meadows. The home was
originally located in St. Louis Park and has been renovated and is up for sale. It is listed for
approximately $160,000. The house is located on an existing single-family lot. If the PUD is
approved, the lot for this single family home would be reduced in size by cutting the width of the lotto
77 feet by 122 feet (9,394 sq.ft.). This single-family lot does not meet the minimum requirements of
10,000 sq.ft. for a single-family lot and at least 80 feet of width at the front setback line.
Access to the existing single-family home and proposed 3-unit condominium is on Winnetka Avenue,
and will continue from Winnetka A venue. However, the access to the seven new single family homes
would be from a new cul-de-sac offValders Avenue. Both the City and County Public Works
Departments have strongly stated that access from Valders is best for the new homes because running a
street out to Winnetka A venue would add more conflict points to that street. Access to Winnetka
A venue for these single family homes would be made only from one of the existing intersections at
23rd or Duluth Street. Accessing Winnetka at these street intersections is safer.
The proposed cul-de-sac would be a public street with a 45-foot radius at the cul-de-sac end. The
street from Valders would be constructed in a 50-foot wide right-of-way area, but this narrows to a 38-
foot right of way near the cul-de-sac. This street would be built in a location where a street was
planned in the late 1970's or early 1980's. In fact, the two homes at the comer of the proposed cul-de-
sac street and Valders were placed to front on an east/west street going into this PUD area. However,
there was never an agreement about the development of the area by the two owners of the area now
proposed to be a PUD. The "street" was never dedicated to the City. This past year, SVK acquired all
the properties where the PUD is proposed. The proposed street would be constructed at the total cost
of SVK. The two property owners on Valders would not be assessed for the construction of the street.
The City staff recommended that the street be a public street rather than a private driveway. The City
is then assured that the street is wide enough to provide for public safety and service vehicles.
2
"
,
As indicated in the City Engineer's memo dated August 10,2000, the width of the right-of-way is not
adequate to construct a street that meets City standards.
Eligibility of Application
City Code Section 11.55 regulates PUD's. Four subdivisions of Sec. 11.55 come into play when
screening PUD applications for eligibility. Staffhas reviewed these eligibility requirements and found
that the proposed development qualifies as a PUD. Therefore, the proposal ma~enter the preliminary
design phase.
PUD Definition
This development clearly meets the terms ofSubd. 2(A)(5) that "developments having two or more
principal use structures located on two or more lots in single or multiple ownership, provided the
combined area totals one or more acres and the plan submitted includes the entire area to which the
planned unit will apply".
P UD Purpose and Intent
Applications must also meet the general purpose and intent ofPUD's in Golden Valley as set out in
Section 11.55 Subd. 1. Staff believes the purpose and intent have been met. SVK is proposing a PUD
for this site because the PUD offers "an optional method of land use regulations which permit design
flexibility by substantial variances from the provisions of the Zoning Code, including uses, setbacks,
height, parking requirements and similar regulations".
Standards and Criteria for PUD's
City Code establishes basic requirements for different types of PUD' s in Sec. 11.55, Subd. 5.
Residential uses are discussed in Subd. 5(B). Although only apartment developments fall into this
category, the City has consistently applied the established standards and criteria to all residential PUD
applications.
There are eight items covered under the basic standards for residential PUD's. Staffwill comment on
each of the eight items:
1. All residential PUD' s must have at least 100 feet of frontage on a public street. This
development has over 370 feet of frontage on Winnetka Avenue.
2. Public sewer and water must serve all developments. Fire hydrants must be installed
according to a plan approved by City staff. Please refer to the attached memo from City
Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE to Mark Grimes, dated August 10, 2000. Also, refer to a memo from
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, to Dan Olson, dated July 26, 2000.
3. No principal building in the PUD can be located closer than the measurement of its own height
to a rear or side property line when such line abuts a single-family use. This criterion was
developed for apartment buildings that are much taller than single family homes. The
proposed SVK single family homes are one level with a walk out basement. Lots 1, 8 and 10
do not meet this requirement.
4. Private roadways within the PUD must be constructed according to a plan and approved by
the City Engineer. There are no private roadways in the SVK development. The access road to
the seven single family homes is proposed to be a public road to be paid for solely by SVK.
5. No building within the PUD may be located closer than 15 feet from the back of the curb along
any internal roadway. This requirement is met for each of the housing units in the PUD.
3
J
.
.
.
'"
.
.
.
'-
. '~
6. Provisions for solid waste storage and disposal must be in accordance with a plan approved by
the City. In this case, each ofthe single family owners would be responsible for solid waste
disposal similar to other single family developments in Golden Valley. The public street
insures that garbage and recycling vehicles have adequate access.
7. Landscaping must be in accordance with a detailed planting plan approved by the City, and
must meet the established minimum landscape standards for this type of development. The
landscape plan has not been submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan. This will be done as
part of the General Plan submittal. I have asked the developer to address landscaping at the
informal public hearing. This plan will include a tree preservation plan as required by City
Code.
8. Shared land, buildings, or infrastructure must be either dedicated to the public, placed under
landlord's control, or regulated through a homeowner's association. In this case, SVK is
proposing to have a homeowner's association that would be responsible only for lawn care and
snowplowing. The applicant would like to have the City takeover the ownership of the
proposed storm water retention pond and be responsible for its maintenance
Completeness of Application Packet
Staff has determined that the packet and application submitted by SVK Development is complete.
Planning Considerations
The types of issues that come up in connection with PUD applications can vary based on the PUD
type and on specific characteristics of each PUD. In this case, staffhas identified no particular
concerns beyond those that generally accompany residential PUD's. They can be grouped into the
categories of zoning trade-offs, park dedication, Livable Communities, and miscellaneous
engineering/constructions issues. Each category will be addressed in the following paragraphs:
Zoninf(
The "Purpose and Intent" paragraph ofthe City's PUD requirements make it clear that a major intent
of the PUD process is to "permit design flexibility by substantial variances from the provisions of the
zoning chapter, including uses, setback, height, parking requirements, and similar regulations." Thus,
to some extent, variances are a given with any PUD request.
Despite the basic intent of the PUD process with regard to variances, the City must ensure that each
proposal does not exceed the bounds of good design practices in the type and extent of variances being
requested. To that extent, it is useful to have an understanding of how any proposal varies from the
normal zoning standards.
The standards to use for comparison for the single family homes in the Golden Meadows proposal are
those of the Residential zoning district. After reviewing the proposal, staff has found that there are
several variances for the eight single family homes. The Residential zoning district requires that all
lots for single family homes be at least 10,000 sq.ft. in area and be at least 80 ft. wide at the front
setback line. Lots 6,8, and 10 do not meet the area requirement, and only lot 10 meets the 80-foot
width requirement.
With the exception of the existing single family home on lot 8, none of the single family homes meet
the 35-foot front yard setback requirement. These front setbacks range from 15 to 21 feet. The rear
yard setback requirement is 20% of lot depth, and all of the lots meet this setback requirement. The
4
.
.
) J
..
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-I) zoning distriCt,
lot area, lot coverage, and the front yard setback are met. However, the side and rear yard setbacks of
50 feet from a residential area are not met.
One other planning item affects the site, and potentially the number of variances that are part of the
plan. Winnetka Avenue is a county road. The right-of-way standard for Winnetka Avenue is 80 feet.
At this time, there is only 66 feet of right-of-way. The County will probably ask the City to have 7
additional feet dedicated for Winnetka Avenue as part of the plat. This will only affect the two
existing buildings that are now located on Winnetka A venue. See the attached letter from Hennepin
County regarding this development.
Park Dedication
As a residential development, Golden Meadows is subject to the City's park dedication requirement of
land or its equivalent cash value. The plans show no land reserved for a public park within the
development. The staffhas forwarded these plans on to the Park and Recreation Department for their
review and recommendation regarding park dedication.
Livable Communities
Golden Valley, like most other metro area cities, has made a commitment to contribute its best efforts
toward increasing the supply of affordable and life cycle housing by participating in the Livable
Communities program created by state law. As part of its commitment, the City adopted a policy of
including a Livable Communities impact evaluation in the consideration of any proposed housing .
development.
Staff has found that the proposed development has a positive impact on one of the four Livable
Communities measurements. The proposed development is all owner occupied so the percentage of
owner-occupied units in Golden will increase with this development. The theory is that rental units
usually provide lower cost housing units and another housing opportunity for those who do not wish to
own. Because the SVK development is relatively low density (less than 5 units per acre) the
development would not significantly alter the City's overall housing density. With increased housing
density, more affordable housing opportunities are usually created. The SVK development would not
enhance ownership affordability because the homes are to be priced well over $200,000. The Livable
Communities standard for owner-occupied affordability is about $135,000.
.
Enf!ineerinf!/Construction Issues
Comments from the Public Works and Inspections Department are attached. Since specific
construction details generally do not come up until quite late in the development process, the
comments of the Inspections Department are brief.
Traffic
The seven single family homes to be constructed on the new cul-de-sac would generate about 70 trips
per day. The existing local street system has the capacity to handle these additional trips. These trips
would be split in a manner that some would go north on Valders to 23 rd and some would go south on
Valders to Winnetka Heights. About 20% of the 70 trips would occur in the AM and PM peak hour.
The trips from the existing buildings on Winnetka Avenue would not have their access changed. .
5
.
.
.
to .
\
"
Staff Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for Golden Meadows Addition, PUD No.
89. The proposed II-unit development would provide additional single family homes that are needed
in Golden Valley. The staff has met several times with SVK and the plan has been revised several
times. The recommended approval is subject to the following recommendations:
1. Any park. dedication recommendation the Planning Commission deems appropriate.
2. The recommendations of City Engineer Jeff Oliver as found in his memo dated August 10,
2000 become a part of this approval. This PUD should not be forwarded beyond the Planning
Commission for further review until the City Engineer is sufficiently satisfied with the site
plans.
3. The recommendations of Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall, as found in his memo dated July
26,2000 become a part of this approval.
4. Determination regarding the dedication of additional right-of-way for Winnetka Avenue as
may be requested by Hennepin County.
5. The homeowner's association for the development may establish more restrictive property
regulations than those in City Code, but enforcement of such provisions shall be the
responsibility of the association. The association shall not establish property restrictions in
violation of applicable federal, state or local regulations including the terms of the approved
PUD permit.
6. The notation of "P.U.D. No. 89" shall be made a part of the plat name.
7. Proof of recording for the plat must be provided to the City before any construction permits are
issued.
Attachments:
Location Map
Portion of 'l2 section showing neighborhood (11" x 17")
Photographs and Renderings of Similar Single Family Homes
Memo to Mark Grimes from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated August 10,
2000
Memo to Dan Olson from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson
dated July 26, 200
Letter From Hennepin County dated August _, 2000
Oversized Site Plans (3)
6
e7!25/200e 10:11
1bl:lbbbl::l~1{
~
GOLDEN MEADOWS - PUD
VARL\NCESREOUESTED
Lot Area - from 10,000 s.l. minimum to 1,667 sJ.
Lot width - from 80 feet to 45 feet (cul-de-sac lot)
Fl'ont setback - from 35 feet to 15 feet
Side setb'ack - from 15 feet to 6 feet
ALL Mt.It(U
rHUl:. tJJ.
NOTE: This is an unusual shaped piece of property which makes it difficult to apply "normal" loning
standards. We have met with City Planning and Engineering staff on many OCCftsions attempting .to agree Illl II
development for this parcel which serves the interests of the Public and still provides a workable plan for 'h~
Owner. We feel this layout meets both needs.
.. -
...
.
.
.
," 4 4 " ~ .
.,.;:\ {...~'.
" . ~
"
.:...l,',
,00'. <
': ,~., :'~':: : .... ,
'...' ..
:5'tIj_.............. en
~ . .
a::
0, .
, .' I
'. ' 0
- - :'. .,' \ .. '..
11' "
i - " ~~,
IN
~
-~ [I
,
I
i
r--
i
1,,;
!
r~.1IL;r:..:rt~m:;;g~,1\';t~\k;.IV toc;l
z
~ n'!::,i,,~;i~I%.M&~~;(1 ~(Aii;!i!i 1~~J.!~~~n ~f.~~;~:{~iM\;~.~~;.S::f.nZ.(;
~
[
U
f "":'l<\""';;;;',;J
Z '. ,..)~:,!:,kt_~'~~~:.Y"{<1
.......;;...:..
'..',.'~. I',' ,:.',,';:>;'
,,' ....." ' ." "
. .. .'.' ,/', ". ....,
,< I.
:{'..,\ 'j
",
f(;;';:'/'1:r?~;:"'::''''~; ".')'
. ;;.." t.' :./..
.'
, .
: 1'0 '"
....
,,' :,"
f
~
." ~
..
.
.
.
4 .. )II'
.
B B
IRIGHT El [VAT/ON I
1/.-.'"-0"
B
- ,
:'~ 6i:i nJ';
t rv 0'1
'-0
883
.5' L 11 L 1:. ';If:-
\:
ffi (e3: B
E3 B B EJ E3 El BB
IREAR ELEVATION I
I/-f'.'"-o"
If RON I ELEVA T/ON I
I/-f'.'"_tf
"." -
w _
"""
COfJD11U: IPftC-3:.
<'
. .. ..
alley
PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
August 10, 2000
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer ~
Preliminary Design Plan Revi~anned Unit Development #89,
Golden Meadows
Public Works staff has reviewed the Preliminary Design Plan submittal for the proposed
Golden Meadows Planned Unit Development #89. This proposed development is located
between Winnetka and Valders Avenues North, just south of 23rd Avenue North.
This proposed PUD was previously submitted as a townhome development. The
development plan has been revised and includes seven single-family lots, and incorporates
two existing structures. The first existing structure is a single-family home that the
developer moved onto the site in 1999. The second existing structure is the duplex shown
on Lots 4 and 5 along Winnetka Avenue. It is our understanding that the developer wishes
to convert the duplex into a triplex.
.
It should be noted that a significant number ot the issues raised in this review were also
included in the May 18, 2000 engineering review ot this proposed PUD. These issues were
not addressed in any manner in the plans that are currently being reviewed.
Preliminary Plat:
This proposed development is located on vacant property between Winnetka and Valders
Avenue south of 23rd Avenue North. This vacant property is actually two outlots created
during the platting of adjacent subdivisions. The existing homes discussed above are
located on these outlots.
Access into this proposed development will be provided by a public street off of Valders
Avenue North. The outlots discussed above each included a 25 foot wide leg that are
adjacent to one another and extend westward to Valders Avenue North. This 50 foot wide
strip will be platted as the street right-of-way for this development. Although the subdivision
ordinance requires a minimum street right-of-way of 60 feet, the proposed 50-foot right-of-
way will be adequate to meet the needs of this development.
The preliminary plat submitted varies the street right-ot-way in front of Lots 1 and 10
through a series of angle points on the right-of-way line. This right-of-way varies from the
maximum of 50 feet discussed above to a minimum of 38 feet in width. Due to the need to
provide utility service and snow storage capacity within this development it is not acceptable
.
G:IDEVELOPMENTS.PRIVATEIGOLDEN MEADOWSIPRELIM DESIGN MEMO.2.DOC
~ '.' ...
.
.
.
.A
to have any public street right-of-way less than 50 feet wide. Therefore, the developer must
revise the preliminary plat to show all right-of-way as 50 feet in width.
The cul-de-sac and street for this development will be constructed according to city
standards to allow full access for emergency and maintenance equipment and are
acceptable as shown on the plans.
The preliminary plat includes an oversized drainage and utility easement along the.west line
of lot 1 to accommodate storm sewer. This easement must be revised to a total width of 20
feet centered over the proposed storm sewer. The storm sewer must be located a minimum
of 10 feet from the property line.
The proposed ponding easement shown on the preliminary plat must be revised to be a
drainage and utility easement. In addition, the drainage and utility easement covering the
pond must extend a minimum of one foot upward from the calculated 100-year high water
level of the pond.
Additional oversized drainage and utility easements must be shown on the west line of lots
9 and 10, Block 1 to cover storm sewer that is discussed later in this review.
The drainage and utility easement on the north line of lot 6, Block 1 must be expanded to a
point 10 feet south of the proposed watermain location.
The preliminary plat also shows a sharp jog along Winnetka Avenue on the east line of lot
6 that appears to have been intended for a street radius. This irregularity in the Winnetka
Avenue right-of-way must be corrected to be a straight line with the plat.
The plat will be subject to the review and comments of the Hennepin County Public Works
Department due to its frontage on Winnetka Avenue. Any comments from the county must
be incorporated into the final plat.
The developer must incorporate any additional easements discussed in this review into the
final plat.
Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan:
This proposed development is located within the Main Stem Subdistrict of the Bassett Creek
Watershed. The extent of the proposed project will require that it comply with the Bassett
Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) Water Quality Policy. This policy
includes the construction of a nutrient removal pond, the preparation of an erosion and
sediment control plan and implementation of best management practices. No site
disturbing activities may begin on the site until the plans have been approved by the
BCWMC.
The development of this site will also be subject to the City of Golden Valley Erosion and
Sediment Control Ordinance. This ordinance requires that the grading plan be prepared
according to city standards. The developer must also fill out an application for a permit,
post the applicable securities, and receive permit approval prior to beginning work on site.
G:\DEVELOPMENTS-PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO-2.DOC
2
>'
"",. 'f' ..
The developer must obtain a MPCA Storm Water Discharge Permit for this project. A copy .
of the application form, and the permit once obtained, must be provided to the city.
The entire storm drainage system within this proposed development will be owned and
maintained by the City of Golden Valley following construction and acceptance of the
improvements from the developer. Therefore, all the storm sewer and ponding must be
designed in accordance with City standards.
The grading plan that was submitted includes the construction of a water quality and rate
control pond on the northern edge of the subdivision. Upon review it appears that the pond
does not meet the NURP requirements as outlined in the Bassett Creek Water Quality Plan
and the City of Golden Valley Surface Water Management Plan. In specific, therequired
bench below the normal water elevation must be one foot deep at a point ten feet into the
pond from the normal water level. This plan shows the depth at the required point as 0.2
feet. The plan must be revised to address this issue and insure that all other NURP and
BCWMC requirements are met.
The City of Golden Valley and the BCWMC also require that the storm storage for this
development is sufficient to meet the 5 and 1 OO-year storm event runoff rates. Storm water
computations previously submitted indicate that the pond is sufficient to store runoff from
the 10-year event. Therefore, the pond must be revised to provide the required storage.
The storm water pond must also be designed and constructed with a buffer strip of non-
maintained vegetation that is a minimum of ten feet wide above the normal water level. The .
types of vegetative plantings for this buffer strip can be finalized with the final plan for the
site. This buffer area and no-mow zone must be clearly labeled on the grading plan.
An emergency overflow from the pond must be provided at the 100-year high water level.
This overflow should direct any pond overtopping towards Winnetka Avenue and must be
clearly shown on the grading plan. The emergency overflow swale must be placed within a
10-foot wide (minimum width) drainage and utility easement that must be included on the
preliminary and final plats.
The previously submitted plans indicated that the outflow from the proposed pond would be
into an existing private storm sewer located on the vacant lot on the northeast corner of the
subdivision. This plan indicates construction of a new storm sewer line from the pond and
the installation of a new structure on the County storm sewer in Winnetka Avenue. This
proposed storm sewer must be within a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement centered
over the pipe. The emergency overflow swale discussed above may also be located within
this drainage and utility easement. The easement covering this storm sewer must be
shown on the preliminary and final plats.
The inclusion of the water quality pond within this development, and the density of housing
that the developer is proposing, create a situation where the pond will be a tight fit in the
backyards of several existing and proposed properties. The developer should consider
either a reduction of the number of units within the development or purchasing the vacant
lot located near the northeast corner of the project for the construction of the pond. The .
construction of the pond in this vacant lot would be consistent with the existing runoff
G:\DEVELOPMENTS.PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO-2.DOC 3
. 1. .
.
patterns from the site and would be readily accessible to the storm sewer systems in
Winnetka Avenue and 23rd Avenue.
Additional silt fence must be added to the grading plan along the entire northern plat
boundary and be extended southward in the rear of Lot 4 to meet the silt fence currently
shown on the plan.
The proposed storm sewer along the western plat boundary must be extended southward to
the southwest corner of Lot 9 and must be located a minimum of ten feet from the property
line. This storm sewer extension will accommodate drainage from rear yard areas and from
the property to the south. An additional 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement must be
shown over this storm sewer extension as discussed previously in this review.
1) Because the location of all the proposed driveways for this development are already
known, the street construction must include B618 concrete curb and gutter rather than
the surmountable curb shown on the grading plan. Each driveway must also have an
apron installed according to city standards.
2) The thickness of the base course of asphalt must be revised to 3 inches.
3) The subgrade correction shown must be revised to include a subcut of up to three feet,
and the installation of geotextile fabric, as determined by the City Engineer. The depth
of the subcut and the installation of the fabric will be determined during construction
based upon the conditions encountered in the field.
4) The street width must be shown between curb faces rather than from the back of curb
as shown.
The following items must be incorporated into the final Grading, Drainage and Erosion
Control plan:
. 1) The location of all storm sewer inlet protection during various phases of construction.
2) The location of a gravel construction entrance.
G:\DEVELOPMENTS-PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO.2.DOC
4
i, _
3) Standard detail plates for all erosion control measures to be incorporated.
4) A note describing the interim and final site stabilization and vegetation. This note
must include seed types, application rates and other applicable information.
5) A note indicating that the developer/contractor must sweep adjacent streets on a
daily basiS, or more frequently if directed. This sweeping must be performed with a
pickup sweeper satisfactory to the city. Failure to perform this street sweeping will
result in the city performing the sweeping and billing the costs to the developer or
contractor.
6) A note outlining the erosion control permit requirements discussed earlier in this
review.
7) The invert elevations of inlets and outlets at the pond.
8) The volume and class of riprap required at each storm sewer discharge point in and
out of the pond must be included and graphically illustrated.
9) The finished low floor elevation for each home must be clearly labeled on the plan.
The low floors for homes adjacent to the pond must be a minimum of one foot above
the 100 year high-water level of the pond.
10)The legend shown on the plan must be revised to clearly show what the numbers
shown inside each house pad denote.
11)A standard detail for lot benching must be included.
As outlined in the city standards for erosion control plans, .topography on adjacent parcels
must extend well beyond what is shown on the plan. At a minimum the topography must
extend to the mid-point of all adjacent homes, but should extend outward to the streets.
This item is critical in this development in order to insure that drainage issues are not
created on adjacent parcels due to grade changes. With the topography currently included
on the grading plan it is impossible to make this determination.
Draintile must be shown on the grading plan at the low point in the street to insure that
water entering the subgrade can be drained. In addition, the storm sewer in this location
must be deep enough to allow the draintile to flow into the storm sewer.
The city reserves the right to require the installation of draintile behind the curbs at any
location behind the curb based upon conditions encountered in the field.
The developer will be required to obtain all required permits from Hennepin County for work
in the Winnetka Avenue right-of-way and for the proposed connection to the County storm
sewer system.
Utility Plan:
As with the streets and the storm drainage system, the sanitary sewer and watermains to
serve this proposed development will be owned and maintained by the City following
construction and acceptance of the improvements.
The proposed utility plan appears to be adequate to provide the service necessary for this
development. However, the plan shows sewer and water passing through the front yard
and boulevard areas of Lots 1, 2 and 3. For future maintenance reasons it is preferable that
these utilities be located within the roadway. Therefore, the sanitary sewer and water must
G:\DEVELOPMENTS.PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO-2.DOC
.f . .1 ,.
.
.
.
5
..
.
.
.
. ..
). --.-l
shift into the center of the proposed right-of-way beginning at a point near the east lot line
for Lot 3.
The plans do not indicate if there is an existing fire hydrant on Valders Avenue near the
intersection with the proposed street. Therefore, a new hydrant must be installed in this
location.
Gate valves must be added at the connection points to the existing watermain stubs.
As discussed earlier in this review, the developer is proposing converting the existing
duplex into a triplex with this project. No indication has been given regarding how separate
sanitary sewer and watermain services will be provided for this new unit. The developer
must provide this information on the Utility Plan.
The developer will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate MPCA and Department of
Health permits for the utility construction.
Tree Preservation:
This development must comply with the City of Golden Valley Tree Preservation Ordinance.
A tree preservation plan, prepared consistent with City Code and standards, must be
submitted for review and comment.
Public Improvements:
As previously discussed, the street serving this development is to be a public roadway. In
addition, all the sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer improvements will also be
owned and maintained by the City of Golden Valley. Therefore, these improvements must
be constructed according to City standards.
The developer will be required to prepare a complete set of construction plans and profile
sheets, as well as specifications, for this project. These plans will be subject to the review
and comment of the City and other agencies as required. These plans must be provided to
the City in digital format following approval in a format consistent with our CAD system.
Once the construction documents are approved the developer will also be responsible for
the construction of the improvements. The City will provide inspection services of these
improvements. The costs for these inspection services will be the responsibility of the
developer.
The developer will be required to provide all staking and surveying services for this
development at their expense.
In order to insure that these improvements are constructed in a timely manner and
according to the approved plans, the developer will be required to post a letter of credit for
these improvements. This letter of credit must be based upon an approved construction
cost estimate in an amount equal to 150% of the construction cost estimate. The developer
may incorporate the securities required for the erosion control permit if they so desire. The
letter of credit shall be for a period of one year and renewable as desired by the City. In
G:\DEVELOPMENTS-PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO-2.DOC
6
L.-- ."'
"'. ..
addition, the letter of credit must be. from an institution acceptable to the City and may be.
drawn down no more frequently than once a month, with a 10% retention held by the city
through the warranty period.
Conclusion a~d Recommendation:
As discussed earlier in this memo, Public Works staff prepared a review, dated May 18,
2000, for the developer's first proposal on this site. Although the current submittal.has
different housing types, the issues raised in this previous review are still valid for the current
plan and have not been addressed in any manner.
Based upon the significance of many of these issues Public Works staff recommends that
the proposed Golden Meadows Planned Unit Development be approved contingent upon
the issues raised in this and the May 18, 2000, reviews being addressed. This PUD should
not be forwarded beyond the Planning Commission for any further review until revised plans
addressing these issues are submitted for review, and approved by staff. These issues are
summarized as follows:
1) The preliminary plat be revised to show a uniform right-of-way width no less than 50
feet.
2) Revise the drainage and utility easement on the west line of Lot 1 to 20 feet in width with
the storm sewer pipe located a minimum of 10 feet from the lot line.
3) Revise the ponding easement to a Drainage and Utility Easement that extends a
minimum of one foot above the 100-year high water level of the pond.
4) Revise the drainage and utility easement on the west lines of Lots 9 and 10 to be a
minimum of 20 feet wide with the storm sewer a minimum of 10 feet from the property
line.
5) Expand the drainage and utility easement on the north line of Lot 6 to a point at least 10
feet south of the watermain.
6) Include a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement across Lot 4 that covers the
proposed storm sewer outlet from the pond and the emergency overflow swale.
7) Eliminate the Winnetka Avenue right-of-way irregularity on Lot 6.
8) The proposed storm water pond must be designed to all pertinent City, Watershed and
NURP standards including rate control.
9) Clearly label a 10-foot wide no maintenance buffer strip around the storm water pond.
10) Install an emergency overflow swale from the proposed pond.
11) Provide a submerged outlet from the pond.
12) Revise the grading plan to include additional silt fence as outlined in this review.
13) Extend additional storm sewer to the southwest corner of Lot 9 as discussed in this
review.
14) Install additional storm sewer to a point on the line between Lots 5 and 6 as discussed
in this review.
15) Revise the standard section for streets to be consistent with City standards.
16) Revise the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control plan to incorporate the items
discussed in this review.
17) Extend the topography of property adjacent to this development as discussed in this
review.
18) Show draintile on the grading plan as discussed in this review.
G:\DEVELOPMENTS.PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO-2.DOC
.
.
7
" It' __ ~
.
.
.
19) The developer applies for and receives a Hennepin County Right-of-Way permit prior to
beginning any work on this site.
20) Relocate the sanitary sewer and watermain to the centerline of the street as discussed ,
in this review.
21) Show the location of the separate sanitary sewer and watermain services to the
proposed new unit in the existing duplex.
22) Revise the utility plans to incorporate other comments contained in this review.
23) The developer apply for and receive the required permits from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Health for the storm sewer and utility
systems on site.
24) The developer submits a Tree Preservation Plan consistent with City Code.
25) Subject to the review and comments of Hennepin County, the Bassett Creek Water
Management Commission and other agencies as required.
26) Subject to the review and comments of other City staff.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
C:
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections
Don Taylor, Finance Director
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Joe Paumen, Engineering Technician
Gary Johnson, Building Official
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal
G:\DEVELOPMENTS-PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO-2.DOC
~..
8
"
o .<1
Memorandum
To: Dan Olson City Planner
From: Ed Anderson Deputy Fire Marshal
Date: 07/26/2000
Re: Golden Meadow Development (Preliminary Site Review)
Listed below are the plan review comments from the Golden Valley Fire
Department for the Golden Meadow Development. (Single Family Dwellings)
......, ,-.II I. ".
.
1) Provide automatic fire suppression system for all dwellings units in
accordance with recognized standards.(NFPA 130 System) The developer .
has agree to this provision.
2) The automatic fire suppression systems will be installed by a sprinkler
contractor and in accordance with state local regulation and standards.
3) The automatic for suppression system shall be inspected and tested
annually, by a sprinkler contractor. The fire/sprinkler contractor shall
submit documentation and test reports to the Golden Valley Fire
Department
4) Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the requirements from
the city engineer and in conjunction with the Golden Valley Fire
Department
5) Fire hydrants shall not be obstructed. (I.e. mailboxes, street lights and
other vegetation) Maintain the proper clearance around the circumference
of the fire hydrants.
If you have any questions please contact me at 763-593-8065
.
1
..
~
)Or
.
.
.
Hey
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
To:
Planning Commission
From:
Mark.W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject: Consideration of Revised Honeywell Golden Valley ~d Addition--
Honeywell, Inc., Applicant
Date: November 11, 2000
At the October 23, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission tabled action on the
preliminary plat of Honeywell Golden Valley ~d Addition. This matter was tabled in order that
additional information could be provided to the Planning Commission.
The following is a list of the information requested and staff comment:
1. The Planning Commission was not satisfied with the parking information provided by
Honeywell. This information is needed in order to determined that there is adequate space on
the Honeywell lot for its own parking needs. The information presented at the Oct. 23rd
meeting was not specific. The staff asked Honeywell to provide additional information
regarding the specific size of the Honeywell building and the layout of the parking areas after
the subdivision is completed. This new information has been supplied by Honeywell and is
attached for your consideration.
The information indicates that Honeywell has 211,540 sq. ft. of office space and 813,872 sq. ft.
of industrial/warehouse space. Based on the requirement for one space for each 250 sq. ft. of
office space and one space for each 500 sq. ft. of industrial/warehouse space, the Honeywell
lot requires 2,474 spaces. They have indicated on the attached Parking Addition
Worksheet, dated 6 November 2000 that the Honeywell lot can be expanded and altered to
provide the necessary 2,474 spaces. The attached Honeywell Revised Parking
Modification plan dated 11/6/00 indicates the location of the parking spaces.
Honeywell has asked that some of the parking spaces be "proof of parking" spaces. In other
words, some of the spaces would not have to be built until there is shown to be a need. This
arrangement would have to be worked out between the Inspections Department, Planning
Department and Honeywell. Based on the number of employees that currently work at
Honeywell, 2,474 spaces are not currently needed.
The Parking Calculation Sheet dated 11/1/00 indicates that there is a total of 92,478 sq. ft. of
service space in the building. This space includes wiring closets; custodian closets, garages
and covered loading docks. Honeywell has not assigned a parking requirement to that space.
The Zoning Code requires that the parking requirement be based on gross square footage in a
building with the exception of garages and covered loading docks. Subtracting the garage
and covered loading docks, there is 69,500 sq. ft. of service area that would require parking. If
the one space per 500 sq. ft. were assigned for these service areas, an additional 139 spaces
.
.
(Orticlal Publication)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
ZONING CODE
The Village Counell of the V1llnge of
Golden Valley does ordain as follows:
Section I. The Zoning Code. adopted
by the V1llage Council September 20,
1955. Is hereby amended In Section 6.01
by adding to the list of Industrial Zon-
Ing Districts set forth therein. the fol-
lowing described land. which Is hereby
established as an Industrlal Zoning
District:
The Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter (SE~~ of NE~~);
that part of the Southwest Quarter
of the Northeast Quarter (SW~~ of
NE~~) lYing Northeasterly of the
right of way of the Minneapolis,
Northtleld & Southern RaI1W8.Y
Company; and that part ot the
Southeast Quarter (SE~~) lYing
NOrtheasterly of the right of way of
the Minneapolis, Nor t h f Ie 1 d &
Southern Railway Company, all In
Section Twenty-nine (29), Town-
ship One Hundred Eighteen (118),
Range Twenty-one (21), according
to the United States Government
Survey thereot, lying and belng In
the County ot Hennepin and State
Of Minnesota: excepting from said
Industrial Zoning District the tol-
lowing described tract ot land
which remains an Open Develop-
ment Zoning District: Beginning at
the most Northeasterly corner of
the above-deecrlbed tracts of land:
thence South a distance of Three
Hundred (300) feet: thence West a
distance of Three Hundred (300)
feet: thence North a distance of
Three Hundred (300) feet: thence
East to point of beginning.
provided, however, that no bulldlng or
other structure, other than a fence, or
fencee, shall ever be erected, used or
maintained along the Easterly bound-
ary of said tract of land within Two
Hundred (200) feet of said boundary
(the Easterly boundary shall be deemed
to be the edge of Douglas Drive North):
and provided turther, however, that no
building or. other. structure, other than
a 'fence, or tences. s hall ever be erect-
ed, used or maintained within One
Hundred (100) feet of the NQrtherlyor
Southerly boundaries, or within Pltty
(SO) feet of the Westerly boundary of
hid tract of land during a period of
Ten (10) years following the publica-
tion of this ordinance. All of said
building setback prOVisions shall be
construed so as to prohibit the erection,
use or maintenance of any building or
other structure other than a fence. or
fences, within the stated :\;lumber at
feet from any existing or future pub-
110 street or highway now dedicated or
dedicated In the future within the
above-described tract of land. During
a period of Ten (10) years following
the pUblication of this ordinance the
total ground area of any and all build-
Ings or other structures other than a
fence, or fences, ereoted on said tract
Of land, shall not exceed Thirty-tour
(;l.A~c~f::s'2. This ordinance shall take
eftect and be In torce from and after
Its passage and publication.
Passed by the V1llage Counell this
7th day ot P'ebruary. 1956.
CARL J. NADASDY. Mayor
Royce W. Owens
I Village Clerk
STANLEY D. KAN1C
'Village Attorney
1129 Pl:vmouth BUilding
Minneapolis 3, Minnesota
(Feb. 9)-P
.
Parking Calculation Sheet
Building Footage
.
Office Other/Mfg. Service Gross
Office Building Total 337,227
Office Cat. 211,540
Other/Mfg. Cat. 59,750
Service Cat. 65,938
Manufacturing Total
Upper Level 601,099
Upper Boiler Room 3,626
Dock #2 6,475
Dock #4 12,227
Truck Garage 4,212
Upper Level 574,559
Lower Level 179,563 179,563
Calculation Totals 211,540 813,872 I 92,478 780,662
Category
Parking Calculation
4/1,000 s.t. Office Space 211,540 846
2/1,000 s.f. OtherlMfg. Space 813,872 1,628
Needed 2,474
Current Parking
.
Existing
Loss
Net Remaining
2,227
339
1,888
Restrip & Relayout
Net Remaining 1,888
Additions
Red Lot 180
Purple Lot 0
Orange Lot 89
East Lot 30
Blue Lot 43
Executive Garage 0
Green Lot 251
G'Total 2,481
.
Neproperty.xls ParkingCalc 11/1/00
Page 1 of 1
Parking Addition Worksheet
revised: 6 November 2000
Lot: Red Lot
Current Addition
R1 67 5
R2 44
R3 46
R4 46
R5 46
R6 18
R7 68
R8 70
R9 31 14
R10 7 11
R11 10 3
R12 40
R13 40
R14 40
R15 39
R16 15
R17 27 5
R18 64
R19 70
R20 70
R21 67
R22 4
R23 22
R24 14
R25
R26
R27
S'Total 965 38
G'Total 1003
Lot: East Lot
Current I Addition
~~ I ~~ I
S'Total 39 I 0 S'Total 21 I 0
G'Total 39 G'Total 21
Lot: Purple Lot
Current Addition
P1 19
P2 31
P3 34
P4 8
P5 8
S'T otal 100 0
G'Total 100
Lot: Orange Lot
Current Addition
01 33
02 0
03 60
04 60
05 31
S'T otal 184 I 0
G'T otal 184
Current Added Total
Red Lot 965 38 1,003
Purple Lot 100 0 100
Orange Lot 184 0 184
East Lot 39 0 39
Blue Lot 0 669 669
Green Lot 240 225 465
Exec. Garaae 21 0 21
Existing Total 1,549 932 2,481
I.
~eproperty .xls Parking (2) 11n /00
Lot: Blue Lot
Current Loss Addition
81 38
82 96
83 114
84 114
85 133
86 132
B7 24
B8 18
S'T otal 0 0 669 I
G'T otal 669
Lot: Executive Garage
Current I Addition
21
EG1
2,474
1,549
932
m
.10f1
Required Parking
Exisiting
Added
Needed
Lot: Green Lot
Current Addition
G1 50 2
G2 74
G3 69 13
G4 39 33
G5 8 36
G6 16
G7
G8 81
G9 44
S'T otal 240 225 I
G'Total 465
.
Office Footage
~ 2000 Parking Calculation
Mod. 1 Total Area Sq. Ft. Office (411) Other (211) Service (010)
19,839 16,302 2,710 827
..eway 2,710 2,710
- ditorium 3,739 3,739
Auditorium Storage 382 382
Breakout & Conference Rooms 1AJB/C 3,359 3,359
Facilities - Storage 388 388
Facilities Office 239 239
Fire Safe Guard 181 181
Guest Services 4,000 4,000
Health Center 1,601 1,601
Rest Rooms 827 827
Source Training 1,005 1,005
Systems Training 1,130 1,130
Vendor 279 279
Mod. 2 Total 27,548 20,104 6,180 1,264
Aisleways 1 ,426 1,426
Central Engineering 4,242 4,242
Comfort Control Engineering 2,267 2,267
CR Server Room 487 487
Credit Union - Future 523 523
Employee Club Store 2,096 2,096
Cgineering Training 1,045 1,045
cilities Services/Elevator 538 538
Facilities Storage 769 769
Food Service 632 632
Human Resources 3,601 3,601
lAC/PC Storage 1,019 1,019
IMS 962 962
IS Server Room 1,043 1,043
Mechanical Room - North East 233 233
PBX Room 1,026 1,026
Photographic Lab 465 465
Print and Distribution Center 1,058 1,058
Rest Rooms 297 297
Source Training Storage 1,985 1,985
Vacant - South West 1,426 1 ,426
Vault 214 214
Wiring Closet 195 195
.
Offoot.xls 10/31/00
1of5
Office Footage
- 2000 Parking Calculation
Area Sq. Ft. Office (411.) Other (211) Service (010)
Mod. 3 Total 30,324 26,364 2,206 1,754
.Ieways 2,206 2,206
. mmunications Services 4,236 4,236
Conference Rooms 780 780
Facilities Services/Elevator 548 548
Financial Planning 4,744 4,744
Financial Storage 166 166
General Accounting 1,865 1,865
Mechanical Room - North West 449 449
Oracle 14,065 14,065
Rest Rooms 757 757
Training Room 509 509
Mod. 4 Total 22,738 1,985 13,141 7,612
Aisle Ways 1,574 1,574
Applications Lab 4,422 4,422
Cast Metals 379 379
Chiller Room 1,102 1,102
Design Analysis Storage 1,397 1,397
Dock #1 6,510 6,510
Engineering Services Lab 5,748 5,748
Plastics Molding/Cast Metals Offices 1,606 1,606
.
Mod. 5 Total 29,558 26,268 2,433 857
Aisleways 2,360 2,360
Applications Lab 746 746
Conference Rooms 631 631
Copy Service Center 2,287 2,287 .
Credit Union 396 396
Custodian Closet 149 149
Customer Relations 11,883 11,883
Customer Relations Training Room 877 877
Disabilities Benefits 1,423 1,423
Mail Services Center 1,824 1,824
Man Power 671 '671
Medical Center 1 ,497 1,497
Rest Rooms 285 285
Storage Room 73 73
Tele-Conference Room 500 500
Vacant - North East 600 600
Vacant - North West 2,933 2,933
Vending 275 275
Wire Closet 149 149
Offoot.xls 10/31/00
20f5
Office Footage
'"
2000 Parking Calculation
Area Sq. Ft. OffIce (411) Other (211) Service (0/0)
Mod. 6 Total 32,247 28,366 2,390 1,491
CSleways 2,390 2,390
- onference Rooms 878 878
Custodian Closet 157 157
Customer Relations 7,681 7,681
Financial Systems (Oracle) 3,139 3,139
lAC/PC Support 1 ,420 1,420
Materials Management 11,068 11,068
Mechanical Room - South West 195 195
Print & Distribution - Office 165 165
Rest Rooms 710 710
Smoke Room 421 421
Traffic 3,595 3,595
Vending 272 272
Wire Closet 159 159
Mod. 7 Total 25,044 11,537 12,205 1,303
Aisleways 755 755
Auditorium 151 151
Cafeteria - Upper Level Dining 883 883
Comfort Control Lab 478 478
Commercial Components & Trade Lab 3,709 3,709
Cmmercial Components 303 303
ommercial Components 252 252
Custodial Storage 282 282
Electrical Closet 288 288
Elevator and Storage 294 294
Engineering Test Chambers 1,295 1,295
Facilities Storage 1,518 1,518
HV AC Labs 3,142 3,142
HV AC Systems 9,595 9,595
Industrial Design 622 622
Quality Receiving 426 426
Rest Rooms 438 438
Smoke Room 158 158
TAC 457 457
.
Offoot.xls 10/31/00
30f5
Office Footage
~ 2000 Parking Calculation
Area Sq. Ft. Office (411) Other (211) Service (0/0)
Mod. 8 Total 23,696 17,377 5,463 857
~
isleways 1,222 1,222
omfort Control Lab 1,227 1,227
Commercial & Industrial Combustion lab 1,041 1,041
Commercial Components & Trade 7,735 7,735
Conference Rooms 763 763
Engineering Central Functions 1,842 1,842
Facilities Services/Elevator 586 586
legal 889 889
Product Quality 1,411 1,411
Residential Combustion & Oil Hydronics 4,738 4,738
Residential Process labs 1,973 1,973
Rest Rooms 271 271
Mod. 9 Total 26,078 15,440 9,791 846
Aisleways 1,881 1,881
Building Controls Marketing 773 773
Burner Controls 3,143 3,143
Central Engineering Functions 1,547 1,547
Commercial & Industrial Combustion lab 7,714 7,714
Commercial Components & Trade 4,886 4,886
Conference Rooms 571 571
_ring & Refrigeration 142 142
ecutive Conference Room #2 419 419
Executive Management 3,229 3,229
Facilities Services/Elevator 586 586
legal 732 732
Rest Rooms 260 260
Storage 197 197
Mod. 11 Total 25,543 23,039 1,791 713
Air Quality lab 1,020 1,020
Aisleways 613 613
Central Engineering Storage 158 158
Comfort Controls 8,671 8,671
Conference Rooms 684 684
Home Systems 2,935 2,935
Residential Combustion Gas Systems 6,549 6,549
Rest Rooms 285 285
Vacant - North East 1,021 1,021
Vacant - North West 3,178 3,178
Vending 270 270
Wire Closet 158 158
Offoot.xls 10/31/00
40f5
Office Footage
~ 2000 Parking Calculation
Area Sq. Ft. Office (411) Other (211) Service (0/0)
Mod. 12 Total 25,968 23,658 1,439 871
.sleways 1,220 1,220
, omfort Controls 14,063 14,063
Communications 1,240 1,240
Components and Materials Engineering 2,417 2,417 "M
Conference Rooms 545 545
Custodial Closet 158 158
Executive Conference Room #1 670 670
Executive Management 3,104 3,104
Financial Storage 219 219
Residential Combustion Gas Systems 1,620 1,620
Rest Rooms 285 285
Vending 270 270
Wire Closet 158 158
Miscellaneous Locations 48,644 1,101 0 47,543
Air Flow Lab 1,101 1,101
Aisleways - Common 30,017 30,017
Cafeteria 8,891 8,891
Executive Garage 7,285 7,285
Link 1,351 1,351
.
, Total Square Footagell 337,227 II 211,540 59,750 65,938
.
Offoot.xls 10/31/00
50f5
.
.
i.
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-80951763-593-8109 (fax)
To:
Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject: Referral by City Council of Revised Honeywell Golden Valley ~d Addition to
Planning Commission
Date: October 18, 2000
At the October 17, 2000 City Council meeting, the City Council held a public hearing on Honeywell
Golden Valley 2nd Addition. After the public hearing, the City Council decided to refer the matter
back to the Planning Commission for input. The vote to refer the matter back to the Planning "
Commission was 5-0. I am attaching a copy of my memo to the City Council dated October 10, 2000.
As you will recall, the subdivision was before the Planning Commission as an informal public hearing
on September 25, 2000. After the informal public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended to
the City Council to deny the subdivision for several reasons that are outlined in the attached minutes
of the September 25, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. The vote of the Planning Commission was
5-2.
Since the Planning Commission reviewed the matter on September 25, 2000, Honeywell and
Industrial Equities have revised the subdivision proposal. The revised subdivision changed the size of
the two lots along Sandburg Road and Douglas Drive. The original plan indicated two lots that were
about 6 acres each. The revised plan indicates two lots that now total about 14acres in size. The
west lot is now about 9 acres and the east lot is about 5 acres. The two lots would be able to support
more building space than was originally proposed.
Honeywell and Industrial Equities made the changes to the subdivision to help meet some of the
concerns of the Planning Commission. I will briefly outline the changes:
. The two lots along Sandburg Road now total about 14 acres in size as compared to 12 acres
in the original plat. The new west lot is proposed to be about 9.6 acres and the new east lot is
4.6 acres. There proposed plan indicates that the two buildings proposed to be built on these
two lots would total 164,000 sq. ft. vs. 125,000 sq. ft. on the original plan.
. The revised plan indicates two driveways off Sandburg Road. The revised plan shows that the
easternmost driveway will be over 400 ft. from Douglas Dr. The original plan indicated a
driveway about 150 ft. west of Douglas Dr. The main driveway would provide access for both
lots and serve the north Honeywell parking lot.
. There was a concern about the number of parking spaces that would be left for the Honeywell
plant after the proposed subdivision. Honeywell has provided staff with a parking analysis
indicating that they have more than adequate space on the remaining Honeywell lot to make
up for the parking they would lose as a result of this subdivision.
.
· The configuration of the two lots has changed in order to accommodate the utility building that
Honeywell must maintain. The new plan indicates that the proposed buildings can be 'fit'
without the need for any variances.
· The revised plans indicate a driveway or fire lane around all buildings.
As indicated in my memo to the City Council, the City Engineer has not given final review to the
engineering plans that were submitted. However, the Engineer believes that final review can be done
prior to the final plat process.
The City Council had some questions or concerns about increased traffic in the area and its location
near Sandburg Junior High.
There was some discussion at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings regarding a past
requirement for a large buffer area along Douglas Dr. or Sandburg Road. The staff researched this
matter and did find that Honeywell was required to provide additional "buffer zones" around certain
portions of their property as a requirement of the rezoning in 1956 that permitted the construction of
the original Honeywell building. However, their "buffer zone" requirements lasted only 10 years (until
1966). There is no evidence that there is any deed restriction or other requirement that would restrict
development where proposed by Industrial Equities. (Incidentally, it appears that was quite a bit of
citizen opposition to the original rezoning of the Honeywell site for the construction of industrial
buildings. The City received 14 petitions with over 1200 names opposing the rezoning in 1955 and
1956.)
I am attaching a copy of the revised subdivision plan for your review along with a copy of the plan
reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 25, 2000.
. The staff has notified all persons within 500 ft. of this reconsideration by the Planning Commission.
Staff Recommendation
The staff recommended approval of the original preliminary plat. The staff is also recommending
approval of the revised preliminary plat. This revised preliminary plat appears to meet all requirements
of the zoning and subdivision codes. The proposed lots each meet or exceed lot size and location
requirements. It appears that all requirements can be met in terms of engineering requirements. The
buildings that are shown on the attached plans all meet or exceed parking and setback requirements.
Access to the site is from a collector street that is adjacent to a country minor arterial street. There
will be no direct access from the site to Douglas Drive as required by Hennepin County.
Attachments: Revised Subdivision Plans
Original Plan
Previous memos on matter
.
'.
.
.
.
Hey
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
To:
William S. Joynes, City Manager
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject: Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat of Honeywell Golden Valley ~d Addition-
Honeywell, Inc. Applicant
Date: October 10, 2000
At the September 25, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted 5-2 to recommend
denial of the preliminary plat of Honeywell Golden Valley 2nd Addition. The proposed .
preliminary plat calls for the subdivision of the 88 acres they own into three lots. The large lot would
be the location for the main Honeywell plant at 1885 Douglas Dr. The two other lots are each about
six acres in size and are located along Sandburg Road just west of Douglas Dr. This subdivision will
permit Honeywell to sell the two lots along Sandburg Road for development.
I am attaching a copy of the unapproved (draft) Planning Commission minutes from the September
25, 2000 meeting that describe the Commission's long discussion and recommendation for denial. I
am also attaching a copy of my memo to the Planning Commission dated September 19,2000 that
describes the proposal and my recommendation for approval. Also attached is a copy of the
information submitted by Honeywell for the preliminary plat.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, the staff has received information from Honeywell about the
parking for the entire site. The Planning Commission was concerned that the proposed subdivision
reduced the number of parking spaces available for the Honeywell plant. It was indicated by
Honeywell that about 150 spaces would be lost with the proposed subdivision. The new information
from Honeywell indicates that the Honeywell plant requires 2500 parking spaces. (The building has
1,000,000 sq. ft. of space. Of that space, 250,000 sq. ft. in office and 750,000 sq. ft. in industrial or
warehouse space. The office space requires one space for every 250 sq. ft. or 1000 spaces and the
industrial/warehouse space requires one space for every 500 sq. ft. or 1500 spaces.) The re-striping
existing parking spaces and possibly adding more spaces along the south side of the main building
will replace the 150 spaces that will be removed for the new lots at the northeast corner of the site. I
have reviewed this plan and find that adding 150 spaces by re-striping or building more parking
spaces is feasible. At the current time, the number of parking spaces on the property exceeds the
demand.
As a result of the Planning Commission recommendation for denial, Honeywell and Industrial Equities
(potential buyer of the two lots) have presented an alternative preliminary plat and site plans for
consideration by the City Council. (These items are also attached.) The size of the lots in this new
plat is different than the preliminary plat that was reviewed by the Planning Commission. The two lots
that are proposed to be sold to Industrial Equities are 9.6 acres and 4.6 acres in size rather than the
approximately 6 acres for each of the lots in the original plat. The overall size of the parcel left for the
Honeywell plant would be reduced by about 2 acres as a result of the revised plan. This revised plan
would allow the construction of two buildings with a total of 164,000 sq. ft. of space as compared to
.
.
.
the first plan that indicated a total of about 125,000 sq. ft. of space. The revised plans indicate that
the two buildings will have a ratio or 25 % office space and 75% warehouse space. However, the
number of parking spaces shown on the revised plans would allow for up to 66% of the west building
and 100% of the east building to be used for office space. Office space is a permitted use in the
Industrial zoning district.
The revised plan would have two driveway access points from Sandburg Road as compared to three
driveways from the first plan. The easternmost driveway would be over 400 ft. west of the intersection
with Douglas Drive, an improvement over the location of the easternmost driveway on the first plan.
The first plan indicated a driveway only about 150 ft. west of Douglas Drive. Generally, the fewer the
driveways and the farther the driveways are from intersections, the better for safety reasons.
The City Engineer has not yet reviewed the revised preliminary plat and attached engineering plans.
The City Engineer's report on the original preliminary plat is attached. Many of the issues addressed
in his memo will be applicable to the revised preliminary plat.
Recommended Action
The Planning Commission has recommended denial of the preliminary plat of the Honeywell Golden
Valley 2nd Addition on a vote of 5-2. The Commission listed four reasons for their recommendation:
1. Condition of the unknown parking requirement of the remaining lot (large Honeywell plant.lot).
2. The odd configuration of the northeast lot making a variance request possible for the
construction of a new building on the lot.
3. Concern that the building indicated on the submitted plans fit on the lots.
4. Traffic concerns on Sandburg Road.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, Honeywell and Industrial Equities have submitted a revised
preliminary plat and site plans that they believe resolves issues of concerns raised by the Planning
Commission. The revised plans indicate the reduction in the number of driveways accessing
Sandburg Road (three to two), moving the easternmost driveway farther away from the intersection
with Douglas Dr., creating a fire lane around the perimeter of both buildings as requested by the
Inspections Department, and changing the configuration of the northeast lot to accommodate the
required Honeywell utility building.
After consulting with the City Attorney, the City Council has several options on how to deal with this
preliminary plat as a result of the City receiving the revised preliminary plat after the Planning
Commission made its recommendation. These options are as follows:
1. Follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the original preliminary
plat.
2. Approve the original preliminary plat that the Planning Commission recommended that the
Council deny.
3. Approve the revised preliminary plat that was submitted by Honeywell and Industrial Equities.
The Council could determine that the revised preliminary plat and plans submitted along with
it are acceptable and meet some or all of the concerns of the Planning Commission.
4. Refer the revised preliminary plat back to the Planning Commission for their consideration and
recommendation.
If the City Council chooses to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission, the staff
recommends that the property owners that have gotten notice on this public hearing be notified of
when the Planning Commission would reconsider this item. After a future recommendation by the
Planning Commission, the staff would also notify the same persons of the City Council public hearing
on this matter.
.
.
.
Enel: Unapproved minutes of Planning Commission meeting-September 25,2000
Memo from Mark Grimes to Planning Commission -September 19, 2000
Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver to Mark Grimes-September 22, 2000
Original Preliminary Plat and Site Plans reviewed by Planning Commission
Revised Preliminary Plat and Site Plans submitted by Honeywell after Planning
Commission Informal Publie Hearing on September 25, 2000
Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes-August 22, 2000
.
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
To:
Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat of Honeywell Golden Valley
rd Addition -Honeywell, Inc., Applicant
Date: September 19, 2000
Honeywell has an application for preliminary plat of the 88 acres they own at the southwest comer of
Douglas Dr. and Sandburg Rd. in Golden Valley. This plat will include the main Honeywell plant
campus that is located at 1885 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 new lots will each
be about 6 acres in size.
.
In 1999, the City Council approved Honeywell Golden Valley Addition. This subdivision was done
to create an 11-acre lot where the Little League field is located. This lot was sold to the City of
Golden Valley for park purposes in 1999. The remaining 86-acre lot is the Honeywell plant lot. At that
time, a smaIl1.2-acre parcel at the southwest corner of Douglas Dr. and Sandburg Lane that was
owned by Honeywell was not included in the Honeywell Golden Valley Addition due to some title
issues. The proposed Honeywell Golden Valley ?;'d Addition will include the small comer parcel
since those title issues have now been resolved. This small corner 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 the 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 permit or planned unit development 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.
. 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 driveways from
Sandburg Rd. The Public Works Department must approve these final driveway locations. The plan
~ndicates that the middle driveway that will be located on the northeast lot will also serve-cas access
eints to the Honeywell parking lot and to both the lots from Sandburg Rd.
The City Engineer has attached a memo regarding issues related to this preliminary plat. These
issues must be addressed prior to approval by the City Council. These issues include water quality,
access, and utilities.
Platting Requirements
Because the small lot at the northeast corner of the Honeywell property is not currently platted
property, this three-lot subdivision must go through the full subdivision process. In other words, it
cannot be considered a minor subdivision. The first step is then the preliminary plat. According to the
Subdivision Code, certain information must be provided on a variety of conditions, subdivision design
features and miscellaneous other characteristics. The information is summarized below:
1. All information required to identify and describe the property to be subdivided is on the
information submitted to the City.
2. The information required to describe existing conditions is also complete or found to be
acceptable by the City Engineer and the Planning Director. \n this case, the staff did not
believe it was necessary to submit full topographic information over the entire 88 acres.
Topographic information is provided over the northeast areas of the site where new
development will occur.
3. The information regarding Subdivision Design Features is also deemed to be complete. In this
case, no new streets are proposed. Proposed sewer, water and other utility lines are indicated
on the submitted plans. The City Engineer does have comments regarding these plans. The
. plans do show a grading and drainage plans that will be reviewed in the City Engineers memo.
Recommended Action
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of Honeywell Golden Valley 2nd
Addition. The proposed subdivision creates lots that comply with the requirements of the Zoning
Code and are consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. There are several concerns that
the City Engineer addresses in his memo. These issues should be addressed prior to the approval of
this plat by the City Council. The following conditions to approval are recommended:
1. The memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver shall become a part of this approval.
2. If requested by Hennepin County, Honeywell shall dedicated additional right-of-way for
Douglas Dr.
3. All drainage and utility easements required by the City Engineer shall be shown on the final
plat.
4. The subdivision is subject to park dedication requirements as outlined in the Subdivision Code.
The amount of the park dedication shall be determined prior to the final plat being approved by
the City Council.
5. The memo from Assistant Fire Marshal Ed Anderson shall become a part of this approval.
Attachments: Preliminary plat and other plans submitted by Honeywell
Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated 9/20/00
Memo from Assistant Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated 8/22/00
.
.
z
~
....
.
Regu~ar Meeting of the
Golden Vaney Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
A regular meetingofthe Planning Commission was held at the Golden Vaney City Hall, Council Chambers,
7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday September 25, 2000. Chair Pentel catted 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 D~n Olson.
I. Approval of Minutes- September 11, 2000
Groger had a change t'? 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." . .
....
. . .
Mond by Shaffer, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously Joapprove the September 11,2000.
minutes as amended.. . .-:t.,'~~~~ ..'-<..~.
. .' .' '. ,~.;,ti:".."f!~ "~.~:;j,t
lnformal Public Hearing - Property Subdivision (SUJ.4-'1Qr1:' ~,:,.:~"
. Applicant: . Honeywell, Inc. ~ . r~1.~ii>. .{"'~
'. .. .:':'~;~'.~~'.. " .'
-Southwest corner of DO\.lglaspriy~.~ri(fSandburg Road - portion of Honeywell, ,Inc.
located at 1885 - 1985.b'(;ugla~ Drrv'~, G.olden Valley, MN .
...~:4~~~1;:'~~{~{.; "Jt~ . . . .
The applicant is r~qi.l~s-ting';a subdivision of the main parcel of land in 9rder to create
two' newJots-'~'longS.andburg Road at the c~rner of Sandburg Road'and Douglas Drive
';f~~~~iJ:'-~~~ . ' .' .
Mark Grimes, Director of.Pla'n'oing and Development presented the Honeywell, Inc.'s request for a preliminary
plat of the Honeywell Goitle~r J;ulle.l' 2"j AtlclititJll. This plat will il~c1ude the main Honeywell plant campus that
is located at 1885 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.
11.
Address:
Purpose:
In 1999, the City Council approved Honeywell Go/tlell Valley AdtlitiOll. This subdivision was done to create
an II-acre lot where the Little League field is located. This lot was sold to the City of Golden Valley for park
purposes in 1999. The remaining 86-acre lot is the Honeywell plant lot. At that time, a smalll.2-acre parcel at
the southwest corner of Douglas Dr. and Sandburg Lane that is owned by Honeywell was not included in the
Honeywell Goltlen Valley Addition due to some title issues. The proposed Honeywell Gi)/tIen Vill/ey 2"d
Atltlit;oll will include the small corner parcel since those title issues have now been resolved. This smatl 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. lndustrial 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 indlistripluses'- The zoning map.
indicates that the zoning is Industrial. The use proposed by Indus~rial Equities is considered a permitted use in
the Industrial zoning district as long as alIzoning code requirements are met. Therefore, no conditional use
r 'Minutes of the Golden ValleyPlanning Commis,sion
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 comer of the Honeywell site was an issue. Will the pond be
broken off into a separate lot?
Grimes responded that the pond wiH 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 SE corner 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 drive.ways from Sandburg Rd. The
Pllblic Works Department must approve these final driveway locations.. :rhe'plai..-!ndicates that the middle'
driveway that will be located on the northeast lot will also serve as access points to the existing Honeywell
parking lot and to both the lots fr~m Sandburg Rd. ',' \';.':" . .
~" -
"-' .~ ..
~-' '':''".'
. ..~ ._....t.~,. "...
. Grimes stated that Commissioner Groger had asked him to look intorthe issue of parking o'n this property, not
just related to this development but to the entire site.~This sllbdivision will reduce some of the parking for
, Hon'eywell. Grimes stated that when the city app~oYed_ t11~';5Ub(fivision to this property in 1999 the city , "
. reviewed the parking and had determined iuo D~'ideqliate a'fier the 1 I -acre parcel was sold to the city. Grimes
'calculated that, Honeywell will 'lose appro,;"imi\teli'150 parking spaces with the proposed subdivision and that
there is adequ~te space on the remaining Ho!"eyweJl site that will make up the approximate 1 50 parking spaces,
, that will be lost. Grimes stated that we'look at the fact that there are other areas on the site thatHoneyw~ll .
..... , h., ". . , '. . . _ .
could use for parking and take thaf~ proof of parking rather than require parking be constructed. Honeywetl's
employee count is down andchailge~J.n their business at thistime don't require the additional 150 parking
spaces. .<.',: ..;.:.,..:.,.....i~,:.
';;: -
'''r.".;:_ !.:.;"
'~" ~~~:
Grimes recommended approvalsubject to' al~y recommendations from the City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, and if any
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 ifhe 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 deveiopment and the pond would go there. PenteI 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 Bassen 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
wou Id 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 theij;
parking lot oil 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 asked 'if the
existing plat, Honeywell Golden Valley Addition, was planed 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 ifthe city had foreseen subdividing this property for new industry or if we would be creating new
industry or industrial buildings on this site when Honeyweli located here. Grim.~s stated he did not know what
the original intent was and that there was no formal commitment or agreeni~~t ~'iih the city to not further
subdivide the Honeywell property. Eck asked if the title issues on the hirid where the gas station had been was
resolved: Grimes stated it had been a,lI taken care of and that some oith~'i~~~es\v~re pollution related. Shaffer'
asked if all the pollution issues were taken care of. Grimes s1ated 'they\\'ere'a~d that on-going monitoring was'
taking place for pollution related to past Honeywell manuf~~tu'~iiig,()nihe site. ' ,
~:~D'. ;~~.. :~ ~t .
Groger question the transformer area in the NE c.omi~~!ld~~k~(rifthere 'were any similar cut outs in lot lin~s in
. the, city and if Honeywell was going to do any sp~cfal larid~'i:;ping around it. Grimes stated they will probably
leave the existing access to it and that they \vo~ld ti~,~e t~'re doth,e'existing parking lot and provide access into"
the area where the transformer sits. G.roge{~~ed Grimes to address the odd configuration of the lot. Grimes
stated the shape of the .lot can be ~.iffe.~~nt ~s~''j~ng'as it meets all the requirements and setbacks. Grimes did
address this issue with Honevwell :and tnev'did' not feel it was cost effective to move the transformers and as
. .. ~-...~'-.. -,' ',. .--:., -'. -. .
long as they can provide access't5it)hey should be fine. Groger questioned if the lot would be able to meet the'
setbacks with that cut Olff in it: He' feltii was an awkward lot and that it would make it difficult to build on it
'\ ',..'
properly and that it would -Only 'cause problems dowil the road. Grimes agreed that the lot was of an odd shape
but that they would have to rlleet the setbacks and if that meant building a smaller building than that's what will
have to happen. Raslllussen 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. McA leese then stated that it was a requirement of
the ordinance and iftllat was the case we might want to look at rewording the ordinance.
, John Allen, managing partner of Industrial Equities, 32\ - 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 infill sites than to vacant sites but he didn't feel it was a
difficult design. A lien 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 lIse. 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 infill sites comes oddities and that you 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 cauld
even' elevate the view with landscaping and make it a high-class business campus. Allen stated that it was
impartant that the commissian knew they were nata "merchant builder" like many .of the developers in tawn.
They don't build buildings ta sell, they hold on ta them in 'their own portfalios and because .of that they try ta
incarporate more detail into their buildings with more glass, more brick and mare landscaping far the intrinsic
value. .
Pentel asked Mr. Allen ifhe was a.part of the group that came before the Board of Zoning Appeals sev~ral
months ago. Mr. Allen stated he was. Pentel explained that there was a praposal prought befare the BZA ta see
if they could get variances ta build one building less than the required 75ft setback from Dauglas DrNa. Allen
. stated yes at that time they had planned to only build one building but that theynow incorporated the ather
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 per Jeff Oliver's mema that there
would have to be a landscaped buffer all the way along the edge of the pondmad~ up of wetland species and
" . .
native grasses. Allen stated they have other ponds in t~e Twin Citie~ area.andi~ey have natural growth araund
them, he felt the pond would look adequate. Shaffer asked about the"ar~i"arou~d the existing transformer
. . .... . . ~~. , .
building, with cancern abautthe parking areas going aver prop(rty .!i~es.'Shaffer stated that if that were the' "
case wauld the lacatian .of the building be changed ta meet~he'requtreinents? Allen stated they wauld have to
rnodif)' the building or obtain' a variance. Shaffer sta~ed his.'~oncernwas that they couldn't grant a subdivision
. " .. -.- " ..,..........;.
. that wQuld later have t.o ga the BZA for variances. ABen ~~id liniess there is a hardship. Pentel stated there is no
. hardsilip. Pentel stated.you couldn't create you{b\vri'h'a~dsiiip'ta claim hardship. Shaffer felt that .hecut aut
. 'section in the lat where the transfarmer isco'lild pos~lbly'cause prablems in the future with the loading dock
area far the building. Grimes stated tIW,.~;lie,l~the final design is presented it would have to meet all the cities
. requirements far access with the fire &,building codes. Grimes stated we are here to approve thelat nat the
. .._~. " . ......", .
building plans. A lien statedthey~'r~ pladng the building in a manner that wauld shelter the transfarmer from
<;." ,..... . . .
the street and sa laading dac~~ 'Y9ul~.nat be visible fram Douglas Dr. .'
{~j;--, '~~.}; ~{:~;..~>
Pentel .opened the infamial p!..b!ic hearing to the public.
. . "~.~;:'~"
Mr. Armand Maanum af2300 Douglas Dr Na, Galden Valley came farward. Mr. Maanumlives on the east
side of Sandburg Rd and his cancern is the traffic. He stated that there are currently about 30,000 cars driving
up and down Douglas Dr. No. and that Haneywell and the industrial area ta the west have a lot of truck traffic
there during the day and well inta 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 shawroom
type business the in and .out traffic wauld increase. Maanum stated the traffic light that is right at his frant yard
wauld have to be checked .or he would nat be able ta leave his yard. Maanum stated the light is set sa that the
narth bound traffic can cantinue through if the sauth baund traffic is stapped and that the intersectian is already
dangerous and an increase in the traffic wauld make it even mare dangeraus. Maanum stated that at thezaning
hearing there was sameane there that knew of the deal that Haneywellmade with the City years ago to leave
the front area in grass and that they weren't gaing ta build there. If this plangaes thraugh he is cancerned about
the vehicle fumes increasing and his quality of air decreasing. Maanum questianed if the peaple ta the east of
him had been informed about this meeting, stating it was the 3'd time this public hearing had been continued
and a lot of pea pie were nat aware .of it.
. Pentel asked Mark Grimes if this plan had been put an and taken .off of the dacket numeraus times. Grimes
stated it was and that each time notices were sent ta all property .owners within 500 ft of the Haneywell
property.
f)'Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 25, 2000 '
. Page 5
_entel a~ked if anyone else wanted to speak.
Mr. Jim Olson, whose wife owns the ,property at 2210 DouglaS Drive No came forward. He was concemeq 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 c~rs) would affect the amount of imperVious surface
and therefore have a negative effect on water qual ity.' He was afraid that this increase wou Id 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 bfthe sod had been removed from the area where the gas station had been. He assumed they were
taking soil samples and wondered if the conclusi,on 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 s'ite 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 ahigh-density industrial park and that there is a lot to think about bt;[9~~this is approved.
.' . . J':~~;'~. -:.~:. -
Pentel asked if anyone else wanted to come forward, no one came s~ ttie"p.l!bii~ h.earing was closed.
. . . . \~\ ~~~~~f;-.' . ~....:: \~,.:.' '. .
Pentel asked Grimes ifhe knew what had been done at that s.ite '~eg~r~ini-~oh ~amp1ing. Grimes stated that he
, was a\vare of some monitoring that was taking place. He the'nsiat~,dthat when someone wants to buy someone
else's property that it is an agree;"ent between those two"parties and that if they wanted to ,have testing done
, they could. Grimes stated it was not the City's respoii~ibiiit)' tb....st~te whether the property was contamiliated or
. not. ,Iftlier~ were any contamination, then _~~~,:"~~~;~:;~,~~'~'~i'b~"cleaned up. "
Pentel had a concern r~garding the ~'fro,nt dqs)tt6ad, door" issue on such a large area that is zoned for in~~strial ,
use. She stated ~hat the new ,buildi!1gs'Trontd'o9r would be on Sandburg Rd or Douglas Dr and that,the back
.,:... \ r.,,"""''''''!." " _'
door would be facing Honeyw~ltpf9perty'ana when you go north on Douglas Dr you will see there back d?or.
She felt the city needed to cQil.si~er th~t\\'hen they,move forward on making a decision about this bllilding.
Hoffman questioned ifth~cit;?k.nhv if Honeywell would be leaving this site or selling off part of its building "
'. .. , "',:~." .
and if Honeywell owned this eritire piece of property. Grimes 'stated Honeywell does own the entire property
and that he didn't feel HoneyWdl was going to leave this site. Grimes continued to say that buildings do change
owners and we can't chaJlge 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
requirenlents. McAleese stated that the analysis originally included this land that is now be split off.
.
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 cu'-out. He felt that by following city code strictly and working around the cut
out it w?uld 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
..6. ..,
Pentel stated that the oddity of the shape of the lot was brought up at the aZA 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 wm cause
proble.ms 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 thaure
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 iike it were compacted on a small site especially with HoneyweJlsitting 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 of the subdivision. Rasmussen stated she wouldaJso be voting in
favor of the subdivision. She felt they were not there to vote regarding the bu.~ld.ing configuration and that she
did not like the odd shape the subdivision would create but if the developer were' \y~lIing to Jive with what we
.' .. . ,'~ ".. .
set forth she was in favor of it. McA leese stated that he came to the hearing tonight with the thought that they
were there to approve a basic subdivision, however, he has a problel~. ~iththi~'because even though there are "
.-' ..., .- ...~'...
safeguards in place there have been times when the-safeguards have failed and that if we vote in favor of this
tonight the applicant may come forward with a need for a y.~!fi;~c~'~'ricf that t~eir hardship is because of the
, oddity of the shape in the lot layout. He felt that he c~)l:,ld.!1otcreate a lot in goodfaith,that would only create
.variances to make it \vork; therefore he would vo!e againsi.thi's:PShaffer stated that they are not voting on' the
building tonight but that they are voting on whefh;:~the'~l;ifd'filg would work on this site. He fe't that the way it
was set up ':Vas making it difficult to mak~, these b~ildings w"prk' on this site and that the site itself was creating
issues for 'the building. Pentel stated ~h~ appr,efiateif Commissioner Ecks view and that this Was a simple .
",: ""~~. ~~.. . . .
subdivisi~n although she would ~~ye 'tiagr~~c~\'ith the other commissioners that they would be creating other
.issues. She did not' feel they could create-a"subdivision that would later require variances. She felt they call~d
out some very good issues fq~JhtCQ'!if!~i1 to consider. She wants the Council to consider the Honeywt;l1 .
property and how it worksancj" then to think forward of the Honeywell property that they would create with a
"." ....., i'
subdivision of this type ho\" :~,t.~iIIfit. If it were to be developed as a PUD with Honeywell we co~ld then state
that it would have to meet silll'ilar 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 .discours~ or comment on this. She felt this change to the neighborhood would not be .
minor and that she would be not in approval of this.
Hoffman put forth the motion to accept the staff recommendation for this subdivision of Honeywell's Golden
Valley 2"dAddition so worded with the five conditions mentioned in the memo.
Grimes stated that it appeared that the recommeridation would be for d~nial 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 n10tion were to not pass
we could then have a second motion to deny. Pentel stated she would leave it tip 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 ofthe Golden Valley Planning Commission
. September 25, 2000
. Page 7
1. 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 submined plans fit on the lots.
4. Trafficconcems 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 Rede,,(.lopm~nt Au~hority"Cit). Council,
Board of Zoning Appeals and Other Meetings. ..,.(.~f ," '
.::~. t,(~.....
Pentel talked about the MN APA Confe,rence and stated she.ha(variousil1ate~ials that needed to be copied an~
distri~uted to those who did not go. Discussion took place regarding'agenda items for the next 2 meetings. It
was determined that there" was none as of yet. McAle~scfwanted th~ city to review home businesses operating in
residential areas. He felt there were some that we,re creating problems.
HI. ,Other Business .(:'!,.~,~5~,'=/?' '\;0~:. "''';-
.
IV. Adjournment . 1,.,"tt,,~~!=
The meeting was adjourned~~.8:~3 J.>:~r
. ~~~.' \'~~~ .~<{) -.
~~~~';~,~Y~~
Richard Groger, Secretary
"
.
. .~
.
..
. If
.
alley
Memorandum
Public Works
763-593-8030 /763-593-3988 (fax)
Date: September 22, 2000
To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer ~
Subject: Preliminary Plat Review for Honeywell Golden Valley 2nd Addition
Public Works staff has reviewed the materials submitted for the proposed Honeywell
Golden Valley 2nd Addition development. This proposed development consists of t~9
lots to accommodate two new office buildings on the northern portion of the existing
Honeywell facility. The proposed subdivision is located south of Sandburg Road and
west of Douglas Drive.
.
Preliminary Plat:
The proposed preliminary plat does not show any easements across the lots. The
easements that must be shown on the preliminary plat are as follows:
1) All standard drainage and utility easements as outlined in the City code must be
shown.
2) City code also outlines requirements for drainage and utility easements covering
all watermain installation across the development. These watermain easements
must be a minimum of 20 feet wide and be centered over the watermain.
3) A drainage and utility easement must be shown over the proposed storm water
pond. This easement must extend a minimum of one foot upland of the 100 year
high water level of the pond.
The preliminary plat indicates that an ingress/egress easement will be dedicated over
the main driveway that passes between the two proposed buildings. Specific
information regarding the parties involved in this easement must be provided for
review. This easement must be recorded prior to approval of the final plat.
.
There is no additional right-of-way required for Sandburg Road on the north boundary
of the plat. However, our information indicates that Sandburg Road is currently
G:\Developments-Private\HoneyweII\Prelim Plat 2.doc
. .
, ..
...
. ~
dedicated to the City via an easement. This easement must be platted as right-of-way
. on the final plat.
Because Douglas Drive is a County road, the proposed plat and development must be
reviewed by Hennepin County.
There are several locations on the grading and utility plans where the utilities serving
this site will be crossing property lines onto Honeywell property, as w~1I as the
proposed new lots. This issue may result in additional easement needs. In specific,
the storm sewer system for this development will not be City owned. Therefore, the
building owner of Lot 1 will need to have drainage easement rights in order to convey
storm water runoff across the two adjacent parcels. In addition, the proposed
watermain will cross Honeywell property near the existing building south of Lot 2. The
developer should review these issues and provide additional information to the City
along with the final plat submittal.
The proposed parking for Lot 2 is shown crossing the property lines onto Honeywell
property near the existing Honeywell building. The plans should be revised to keep the
driveway and parking areas on Lot 2, or appropriate easements must be dedicated,. to
accommodate thi.s encroachment.
Site Plan:
.
The proposed site plan poses several concerns related to traffic flow on Sandburg
Road as well as internal circulation patterns and emergency vehicle access. Based
upon these concerns we have forwarded the site plans to our consulting traffic
engineers for their review and comment. The developer will be responsible for all
costs associated with this review. The City of Golden Valley reserves the right to
require revisions to the plans or to adjacent roadways based upon the results of this
review. The developer will be required to construct and finance any of the revisions
that are deemed necessary based upon this proposed development.
The site plan indicates that portions of the driveway and parking lots for Lot 2 cross
the property line onto property that will be retained by Honeywell. The plans must be
revised to eliminate crossing of the property lines or cross access easements must be
prepared.
The parking lot cul-de-sac on the east side of Lot 1 must be designed to accommodate
the turning movements of a 45 foot long design vehicle.
Grading. Drainage and Erosion Control Plan:
.
This proposed development is within the Main Stem subdistrict of the Bassett Creek
Watershed. Therefore, based upon the size of the development, the project will be
subject to the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) Water Quality
Policy, as well as to the review and comments of the Commission. No work is to begin
on the site until the BCWMC has approved the plans.
..........-' .
..
.. \.
4 .
.
. One of the requirements of the BCWMC Water Quality Policy is that the entire
. development site be treated for water quality prior to discharge into the receiving
waters. The storm water computations submitted with the plans indicate that a large
portion of the site is proposed to drain southward via a private storm sewer.on the
Honeywell property. Although it has not been confirmed, we have assumed that this
Honeywell storm sewer drains to the pond located on the southeast corner of the
Honeywell property. City information indicates that this pond is a converted wetland
that does not contain any consideration for water quality and NURP requirements.
Therefore, if the developer wishes to use this pond for water quality requirements it
must be evaluated, designed and modified to meet BCWMC requirements. The
preferred alternative would be to route the entire development site through the
proposed pond on site.
The computations also indicate that the water quality volume for the on site pond was
calculated based upon the runoff from a 2.5 inch rainfall event. BCWMC and City
requirements for this drainage subdistrict utilize a 1.5 inch rainfall event. Therefore,
the pond may already be sized to accommodate most of the additional drainage area
that will be routed to it as discussed above.
.
..
The BCWMC meets on the third Thursday of each month. In order to be placed on an
agenda, the plans must be submitted three weeks prior to the meeting. The plan
submittal must be accompanied by an application form signed by the City.
The developer will be required to obtain a General Storm Water Discharge Permit from
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. A copy of the permit application must be
provided to the Public Works Department upon application, and a copy of the permit
must be forwarded once it is obtained.
This project will also be required to obtain a City of Golden Valley Grading, Drainage
and Erosion Control Permit. No work is to begin on site until this permit has been
obtained.
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be prepared in accordance with
City specifications. A copy of these specifications is attached to this memo for use by
the developer.
There is no outlet for the proposed storm water pond shown on the plans. The
proposed outlet must be clearly labeled and located in a position to maximize the
distance from the inlets in order to provide maximum water quality benefits.
The multiple storm sewer inlets into the water quality pond must be combined into a
single outlet in order to minimize the possibility of erosion and maximize water quality
benefits.
. The storm sewer on Douglas Drive is owned and maintained by Hennepin County.
Therefore, a County permit will be required prior to connection to the pipe.
. '
.
*'
.. .. ;I
.
The entire storm sewer system shown for this development will be owned and
maintained by the developer.
The developer will be required to enter into a pond maintenance agreement for the
proposed pond on site. This agreement must be executed prior to approval of the final
plat.
The pond must be designed to include a no maintenance buffer strip surrounding the
waterbody. This buffer strip must extend to the parking lot curb on the west side and
to approximately the Douglas Drive right-of-way on the east side. The plant materials
in the buffer area should be native grasses and/or wetland species as appropriate.
All slopes that are 3: 1 or greater on site must be seeded following grading and
stabilized with a wood fiber erosion control blanket. This includes the banks to the
pond and the slope on the west side of the development.
All retaining walls greater than four feet tall will require a building permit prior to
construction.
The developer should review the proposed drainage and storm sewer locafions in the
parking lot north of Lot 2.
.
The location of all storm sewer inlet protection, silt fence, gravel construction
entrances and other erosion control measures must be clearly shown on the grading
plan.
The developer will be required to submit record drawings of the entire storm sewer
system, including the pond, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any
of the buildings. These record drawings must be submitted in drawing and digital
format that is consistent with the City CAD system.
A City of Golden Valley Right-of-Way Permit is required for all excavations and driveway
installations within the right-of-way for Sandburg Road or other existing City
easements.
Utility Plan:
All existing utilities on site that are to be removed must be dearly labeled on this plan.
A watermain loop must be provided around the western building in order to insure
adequate flows.
.
There is storm sewer shown on the grading plan that is not shown on the utility plan.
The developer should review these plans and revise them accordingly.
All watermain and sanitary sewer connections shown on the utility plan will require
utility connection permits from the City.
- '
. "
. ~
.
., ..
.
The street restoration note shown on the plan must be modified to note that patching
must be performed according to City standards and that the replacement pavement
section must match the existing street.
The location of all fire hydrants and valves on this site are subject to the review and
comment of the Public Safety and Public Works Maintenance Departments. The City
reserves the right to require the installation of additional watermain and utility
facilities upon further review.
The developer will be required to provide record drawings for all the sanitary sewer
and watermain improvements on site. The same requirements for these records
drawings apply as discussed elsewhere in this review.
Tree Preservation and Landscaping:
This development is subject to the City of Golden Valley Tree Preservation Ordinance.
Accordingly, a tree inventory, mitigation, and preservation plan, as outlined in City
Code, must be submitted for this project.
The developer will also be required to conform to all City of Golden Valley landscaping
requirements.
. Summary and Recommendations:
This review has identified a number of issues that need to be addressed prior to
approval of the final plat for this development. Therefore, staff recommends approval
of the Preliminary Plat for the proposed Honeywell Golden Valley 2nd Addition subject
to the comments contained in this review. Approval should also be subject to the
review and comment of other City staff and the consulting traffic engineer. All of these
issues must be addressed in full prior to forwarding the final plat to the City Council
for approval.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Mark Kuhnly, Chief for Fire and Inspections
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Gary Johnson, Building Official
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall
Doug Stahl, Schoell and Madson, Inc.
.
- J\ '-
''"'
---...., '"
..
..
.
..
· Memorandum
To: Mark Grimes Director of Planning
From: Ed Anderson Deputy Fire Marshal
Date: 08/22/00
Re: Proposed new buildings located at The Golden Valley
Industrial Site
A plan review was conducted for the proposed new buildings
at the Golden Valley Industrial site, located at Intersection of
Douglas Drive and Sandberg Road. Listed below are my plan
review comments.
.
1) Fire hydrants would be required on site of both buildings.
Spacing and the necessary requirements for the
installation will be in accordance with the requirements
from the City Of Golden Valley City Engineer office.
2) Fire Department access roads will be required. Access
roads will be maintained to support the weight of the fire
apparatus and be accessible for all weather driving.
Turning radius for fire apparatus shall be available.
3) "NO PARKING FIRE LANES" signs shall be installed in
conjunction with the City Of Golden Valley City Code and
the Golden Valley Fire Department Standards. See the
Deputy Fire Marshal for more details.
4) A fire/automatic suppression system will be required for
both buildings. The fire /automatic suppression system
shall be designed for high pile storage for the warehouse
section of the buildings.
.
1
.
.
.
.
J'
August 23, 2000
5) A post indicator valves for the fire suppression systems
shall be in installed for both buildings in accordance with
recognized standards.
6) A smoke -evac system may be required for the type of
storage and type of commodities stored in the warehouse
area.
7) A fire department key box (es) will be required for both
building. The Deputy Fire Marshal will determine the
location of the lock boxes on the buildings.
8) The (FOe) fire department connection for the fire
suppression system shall be located on the building and
be free from any obstruction (i.e. gas meter, landscaping
materials or matter and electrical transformers.
9) The proposed buildings will require posting address
numbers. The numbers shall be visible and legible from
the street or roadway fronting the property.
10) Fire audio/visual devices would be required through out
the buildings. Permit will be required.
If there are any questions please call me at 763-593-8065
2
..
. ..
"
'-'-'-r'-
~
J,
il
PROJECT DATA .
6UILDING "'1 .
folTE AREA.
flUlLDING AlEoA :
PAfoilC.lNG PROVIDeD'
FAI'it.
I"A"::INa ~GllJlfIlED :
286,"150 SF. (6.508 ACRES)
84,l!lf>2 SF.
ns SPACES
INCL.UOIiiiS " A.PA. &PACES
2\1"
25," Cff'ICE . In~ . 84
150'" W'HSE . 115iN' . 126
TOTAL REa. . 21lZl 6PACES
P A.R. .
PAfll<lN:!o ~aUIRCO :
2'1;~4 1)1', (6.1:1 .4C1ll2!&J
S!J.2/U> SF.
281 spAces
IHCUJDES , ADA. $PAcI!I)
21'"
2l>'" OFfiCE . 112S6 . 51
'SlIo W'1-l6E . IIl>CDCD . 86
TOT.4l..IEa. . .<13 6P,4CE&
ZONE: ,
OCClJI"ANCY.
CON~F<UCTION Tye
CLE..!J;e ~~ '
INDI.J6T~AL.
50-I I "
!IN WI .AUTOMATIC SPR1N<:l..ER
18'
.
ZCtlE .
OCCUP~CY. .
CONSTFWCTICtl TYPE .
CLE~ STORME I-lEIGHT ,
IHDU6Tfll.4l..
50-II III
IlN WI AUTOMATIC llf"'Alt-I<LilR
16' . . .