10-11-04 PC Agenda
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, October 11,2004
7pm
I. Approval of Minutes
September 27,2004 Planning Commission Meeting
II. Informal Public Hearing - Z011-11 2520 Douglas Drive North - Rezone property
from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Two Family Residential
Applicants: James & Kathleen Bell
Address:
2520 Douglas Drive North
Purpose:
To rezone the property from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2
Two Family Residential.
III. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plan Review - PUD-99 - 5222 Minnaqua
Drive
Applicant: EPIC Development, LLC
Address: 5222 Minnaqua Drive
Purpose: To allow for the construction of six single family homes
-- Short Recess --
IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
V. Other Business
VI. Adjournment
)
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
.
September 27, 2004
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
September 27,2004. Vice Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Commissioners Eck, Hackett, Keysser, Rasmussen, Schmidgall and
Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Intern, Adam Fulton and Administratiye
Assistant, Lisa Wittman.
I. Approval of Minutes
August 30,2004 Planning Commission Meeting
- - -
Rasmussen referred to paragraph six on page two and c1arified/tQat hersuggestion was to
move the building envelope three feet toward the "rear"~~g;f property line rather than
toward the "front" yard property line as was written. - .-
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and mgtion carried unanimously to approve the
August 30, 2004 minutes with the above noteg cor(~ction"
.
~" "":"-:'-("', '-:::::'
Informal Public Hearing - Ame'l~ment.~p Sec 1.210f the Zoning Code-
related to the Outdoor Stor~~~~f~.~~l\eati.pn~J Vehicles & Boats and Driveway
Requirements in the R.1 ~ingleif=amily Zoning District
Applicant: The City of Golden\f;3l1ey
Purpose: To establish outdOOr storage and driveway requirements in the R-1
sectiorfOf. the Zoning Code.
Fulton highlighted sOrueof.;.lQe prgposed revisions to the R-1 Single Family Zoning District,
regarding outdo~E stora~e~uch{~~permitting storage of only one recreational vehicle,
boat, fish houseot~raile~infrontyards. He stated that any number of these items can be
stored in b~~~xardsl~.~ttmey must be screened and can be located no closer than five
feet to tmr prppertYliQr" iRe suggested the Planning Commissioners discuss the language
in Subdivi~l2n1..9.{C) regarding screening requirements and how to address chain link
fen~es and\Nmeth~r.?r not they provide the desired amount of screening. He added that a
provi~.i?n callin~fora 30 day restriction for storing all other items in front yards (such as
truck toppers, ~tc") was also added to this revision.
II.
- Fulton referred to Subdivision 17 and discussed some of the major points regarding the
proposed driveway requirements such as driveway coverage not exceeding 50% of the
front yard and being constructed of concrete, bituminous pavement, or brick, concrete, or
cement pavers.
.
Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 17(C) regarding materials that can be used in
constructing driveways and asked if it would include "turf block" Fulton said yes, turf block
would be considered a permitted material and that they are typically classified as pavers.
..
,!
Minutes of the Planning Commission
September 27, 2004
Page 2
. Rasmussen referred to Subdivision 16 (C) regarding outdoor storage in side and rear
yards and asked if that relates to the proposed new language in Section 11.72 regarding
fences. Fulton said yes.
Eck referred to Section 11.72 "Fences" Subdivision 3(A) regarding the requirements for
fences in the Residential Zoning District and said it doesn't track with the rest of language
in that subdivision because it only gives the height requirements for fences in the R-1
district. The language for the other zoning districts provides information regarding
screening, height and permitted materials. He added that the language needstqbe
cleaned up because technically the way it is written, storage in residenti~lrear yards
doesn't need to be screened.
Fulton referred to Section 11.21, Subdivision 16(C) in the R-1 zepjilg di.slrict reg9rgfl1g
outdoor storage and noted that it does say that there has to be~cre~Qing for.~nystorage
of a recreational camping vehicle, fish house, trailer, boat, or pe~~onalmotoEized
recreational vehicle stored in the side or rear yard usingt~ither vegetative screening or a
fence in accordance with Section 11.72. .
Eck said that the language used in the fence ordin~nce rega.rQing the regulations for
residential property is left vague and confusi~g;FLlI.~en stated~hat language could be
added to the fence ordinance that explaines~reeqiQg regqirements of outdoor storage
in the Residential Zoning District. " .
.
Hackett referred to Subdivision 17"J2lrive"Xay~~quirements" and said that he would not
consider turf block to be a cementer con9rete p~xer. He suggested adding language
specifically permitting turf block. Fult()n$aid he would add language to the driveway
requirements permitting the use of.turfplock, grass pavers, or the like.
Keysser opened the public heariQg.
..
Dwayne Kloos, 8345Jj)uluth~!~eet,stated that he served on the Community Standards
Task Force in 1~~~ andt~~nkedthe Planning Commission for presenting the code
changes being proppsed..He said that they are roughly in line with what was discussed on
the Task For.s.~;.He ad..p..edJhat he is pleased that the language regarding the maximum
length of9 recreationaLvehicle has been removed and he finds this proposal very
acceptable..
Keysser c10sedJhe public hearing.
.
Eck statedithafthere would in fact be a limitation on a recreational vehicle's length in effect
because the ordinance states that they can only be parked behind the front property line.
Kloos agreed and said he fully understands that.
MOVED by Hackett, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the
amendment to Section 11.21 "Single Family Residential" regarding outdoor storage and
driveway requirements with the following additions:
-'
Minutes of the Planning Commission
September 27, 2004
Page 3
. 1) Language to be added regarding the use of turf block, grass pavers, or the like.
2) Language to be added clarifying screening requirements in the R-1 Zoning District.
.
.
III. Informal Public Hearing - Addition of new Section 11.72 to the Zoning Code -
related to fences in all Zoning Districts
Applicant: The City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To establish requirements for fences throughout the git
Fulton reviewed the major issues regarding the proposed fence requiJem~l1ts such>as:
height, screening, requiring the nice side of fences to face the neighboring pr~perty,
ensuring fences are kept in good condition and requiring that ho~eownyrs foll()~ tge
corner visibility ordinance. He stated that electrified and barbe~wir~>fe.ncing a~e prohibited
except in Industrial zoning districts, and that homeowners are a!l9wedJo request variances
from the fence ordinance.
Waldhauser asked if the City currently has require~.entsip!heRmrZoning District
regarding the screening of mechanical equipment.>Fulton SCli9 there is a policy regarding
the screening of mechanical equipment, but there I!:). nothing Currently in the Zoning Code
regulating the screening of mechanical equipme~~ iht~e R-1-?oning District. Waldhauser
asked if language should be added rega~9ing thy.!:)creenil'lgcof mechanical equipment.
Fulton said he would add language re~aroip!;} J~~;~.~~yy~ing of outdoor storage and
mechanical equipment by a wall, fy~ge(::lrvegytation of certain opacity. Waldhauser
suggested 50% opacity because at wOl.ll~ allo"IX for lattice fences.
Keysser asked if the City "IX.2~ld~9nt8;impose the new fence requirements retroactively
in regard to the use and o~~city ot19haihlipk fences. Rasmussen said she thought that
was the intent of this new Orqinan~pe and that the fence requirements should be looked at
retroactively becaus~>.it.~neigh~~r makes a complaint, the City can then expect the
homeowner to comei~.~oc().~pliap.~~ by adding more screening. Keysser said he is a little
reluctant to forc~<.~ horl1r2~ner..t9.Jeplace an existing chain link fence that has been in
their yard for year~gndyt~ars just because a neighbor complains as a result of this new
ordinance.Sct1m!9~a!li~ai(jhe thinks enforcing the fence ordinance is similar to enforcing
the new2utdoorstorag~requirements. Fulton reminded the Commissioners that this
ordinance would be enforced on a complaint basis and that the City would not proactively
require chainHnk fences to be replaced.
Eck suggestedienforcing the opacity requirements of fences by a certain date, similar to
the proposed driveway requirements. Keysser suggested that new fences be required to
follow the opacity requirements but that existing fences be "grandfathered in" and that it
seems like a burden on homeowners to make them have to replace their existing chain link
fences or put it new trees for screening.
Rasmussen said the City should be careful about "grandfathering in" fences because it
would go with the property and as houses change hands, fences could be there forever.
Minutes of the Planning Commission
September 27, 2004
Page 4
. Waldhauser said that she thinks screening is more important in rear yards than in side
yards. She added that chain link fences aren't used for screening they are put in for
security.
Hackett stated that he thinks the point of having this fence ordinance is to help solve
neighbor disputes regarding the storage of unsightly objects and the way solve the
problem is to screen it.
Fulton stated that there is a provision regarding the replacement of fence~if:fl1i~y>are in
disrepair and suggested adding language saying that a fence or screeni[1g wouldh.5lve to
screen 75% of the object being stored in the back yard. Keysser referredtg..some of'the
larger recreational vehicles and said that they would then require .5lhIne foot. nce.
Waldhauser said she likes the six foot height requirement evel;l<jfit>(j
entire object.
Keysser opened the public hearing.
.
":.:-,:?>>->i.:-'/
Dwayne Kloos, 8345 Duluth Street, stated that th~:fencing. r~quirements may be creating a
bigger wart by trying to get rid of a wart. He said that having aJence ordinance might
encourage people to build fences and store.theirstl.lff.in theiryards year round. He said he
has a neighbor who built a wood shed rightin the open grassy area of all their backyards
and asked if there is really a differencebe%,e~~al?h~8and a canoe being stored in a
back yard. At the present time, a 10JeetJencewould be allowed.
Fulton stated that it is unusual~['lOO~st;gther cities that Golden Valley doesn't have a
fence ordinance and thereil?adaogel"ln only having a policy regarding fences instead of
an ordinance.
Keysser closed the r:>:l.I9.lic hearrfl9.
Waldhauser refe~.red t ... ~prOr:>:.g~ed language regarding tennis and basketball court
fencing and askea:~!bout'l~e one foot strip of landscaping requirement. Fulton explained
that the one>fgot strip:i~ th~ standard amount of landscaping next to tennis and basketball
court feQ~es;.~acke1t~8ged that the one foot may only be grass. Schmidgall said he
thought it<:;Quld:9~ a maintenance strip. Waldhauser stated it basically accomplishes not
hayipg a 1 Qifgot hi~..b fence right on a property line.
RasmLls~en as~ed about fence requirements in regard to pools. Fulton said that pool
requirements are addressed in a different ordinance.
Eck referred to the thousands of air conditioning units located in side yards and asked if it
is going to be a requirement that they need to be screened. Waldhauser suggested adding
language to the fence ordinance that says all mechanical equipment shall be screened
from view from the street, because that is the current city policy.
.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Planning Commission
September 27, 2004
Page 5
MOVED by Rasmussen, seconded by Hackett and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the proposed new Section 11.72 relating to fences in all Zoning
Districts with the following additions:
1) Add item number 2 to Subdivision 3(A) that states outdoor storage in rear and side
yards in the R-1 Single Family Zoning District must include screening or fencing of up
to 6 feet in height and at least 50% opacity.
2) Mechanical equipment located in side yards in the Single Family Zoninglili&!rict must
be screened from view from the street. "
IV. Informal Public Hearing - Revision to Section 11.90 "Administratitln" of the
Zoning Code
Applicant: The City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To correct the language in the Zonirig;,;gode
of Planning and Development a . isters
Regulations
Fulton explained that the proposed revision to Sectipn 11.90 \"~dministration" would
change the language in order to have the Iilirectqr ofglanningand Development, rather
than the Director of Public Works enforc~the ZOQJng Co€le?
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Ras~gss@P ang.motioncarried unanimously to recommend
approval to revise Section 11.90':'<<dministratiol'l;;of the Zoning Code.
V. Reports on Meetirig~of!~e HoUsing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zonipg Appeals and other Meetings
Waldhauser reportedQntHei~~ptel;nber 21,2004 City Council meeting where the Council
approved the Hidg@n La~@~PUDfAmendment request which will allow for a building
envelope to be mov@d sClthat a deck addition can be constructed.
VI.
A. Electionq(Chair and Secretary.
Rasmussen nominated Eck for the position of Secretary. Eck accepted the nomination.
Rasmussen nominated Keysser for the position of Chair. Keysser accepted the
nomination.
Eck nominated Rasmussen for the position of Vice Chair. Rasmussen respectfully declined
the nomination.
Waldhauser volunteered to be the Vice Chair.
~
Minutes of the Planning Commission
September 27, 2004
Page 6
. The Planning Commissioners voted unanimously to appoint Keysser as Chair, Waldhauser
as Vice Chair and Eck as Secretary.
VII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm.
.
.
.
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
October 10, 2004
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing to Amend the Zoning Map for Lot 4, Block 2,
Lamplighter Estates, 3rd Addition (2520-2522 Douglas Dr. N.) from R-1 (Single-
Family Residential) to R-2 (Two-Family Residential)-Kathleen and James Bell,
Applicants
James and Kathleen Bell own the two-family dwelling at 2520-2522 Douglas Dr. N. They live in
. the south half of the two-family dwelling. The two-family home was built in 1977. It was not built
by the Bell family. According to Hennepin County records, the Bells purchased the two-family
home in 2000. The property is currently zoned R-1 (Single-Family Residential). They are
requesting that the zoning be changed to R-2 (Two-Family Residential).
When the two-family home was constructed in 1977, it was located within the Residential zoning
district. In 1977, the Residential zoning district permitted two-family dwellings if the lots were at
least 18,750 sq. ft. in area and 150 ft. wide. (Prior to the construction of the two-family home, the
builder received a variance to allow the two-family home to be built on the lot. The variance was
necessary because the lot is only 116 ft. wide rather than the required 150 ft. wide.) Since the
two-family home was built in 1977, the zoning code changed to create an R-2 (Two-Family)
zoning district. Within that district, only two-family homes are permitted. The Residential zoning
district was also changed to eliminate two-family homes as a permitted or conditional use. With
the change in the zoning code to create the R-2 district, all existing two-family homes that had
been legally constructed as permitted uses in the Residential zoning district became non-
conforming. None or very few were changed to the R-2 zoning district. These existing two-family
homes cannot be expanded without changing the zoning to R-2 to make the two-family homes
conforming. At the current time, there are only a handful of lots that are zoned R-2.
Mr. and Mrs. Bell have asked that the property be rezoned in order to help them with the
refinancing of the property. It is my understanding that the mortgage company does not like the
term "non-conforming". Technically a non-conforming structure cannot be rebuilt if the building is
. destroyed beyond 50% of the value of the total structure.
. Before consideration of the change in the zoning map for this parcel, the City must first
determine if the proposed use is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The text of the
. City's Housing Plan does call for a variety of housing types and opportunities for Golden Valley.
This existing side-by-side two-family home provides for a housing opportunity that is not widely
available in Golden Valley. In this case, the Bell family lives in one side and rents the other side.
The two-family home is in very good condition and shows that the Bells take a great deal of pride
in its upkeep. In terms of the General Land Use Plan map, the Plan map indicates that this area
is designated for Low Density (less than 5 units per acres) residential uses. In this case, the Bell
property is about a half acre in size with two units. Therefore, it is less than 5 units per acre. The
density for this property is about the same as the density for two single-family homes on two
minimum size lots.
A copy of the City's existing land use map is attached that indicates that there are several two-
family homes in the area of the Medicine Lake Rd. and Douglas Dr. intersection. Each of these
two-family homes are non-conforming because the properties are zoned R-1. These two-family
homes were probably built at about the same time as the Bell two-family home. This cluster of
two-family homes in the area is due to the fact that they are located on busy county roads.
Builders tend to locate two-family homes on busier streets.
At the July 12, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of rezoning the property immediately north of the Bell lot to R-2 (Two-Family) to allow
for the construction of a new two-family home. This recommendation was sent to the City
Council but was referred back to the Planning Commission in order to consider comments on the
. development received by Hennepin County. (After the Planning Commission recommendation
was made, the Hennepin Co. Public Works Department sent a letter to the City indicating that
they preferred to not see any additional driveways along Douglas Dr. The City Council, therefore,
referred the matter back to the Planning Commission with the direction to the developer (Amain
Homes) to develop a plan without a new driveway onto Douglas Dr. The developer never came
up with the new plan and the option that Amain Homes had to buy the property lapsed.)
The zoning map indicates that the entire area around the proposed development in Golden
Valley is zoned R-1. The property to the north in Crystal is zoned and used for a neighborhood
shopping center. The northwest intersection of Medicine Lake Rd. and Douglas Dr. in Crystal is
zoned and used for an apartment building.
The change of zoning of this one lot would not have any additional impact on traffic because the
two-family home already exists on the property.
At some time in the near future, staff does expect to see an application to permit lower density,
multiple family housing on the property north of the Bell property. This would probably come in
the form of two-family homes or town homes. Without a change in the General Land Use Plan
Map designation, the density would have to remain less than 5 units per acre for that area.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the zoning map amendment from R-1 (Single-Family) to R-2
. (Two-Family) for the Lot 4, Block 2, Lampiighter Estates (2520-22 Douglas Dr. N.). The proposed
rezoning of the existing two-family home to R-2 is consistent with the policies of the City's
Housing Plan and the Low Density Residential designation on the General Land Use Plan Map.
2
The Bell house was originally constructed in 1977 and was considered a permitted use at that
time. With the change to the zoning code in the early 1980's, the Bell two-family home became
. non-conforming. The Bell two-family home has exited for the past 25 years and has helped to
provide the City with affordable and diverse housing. The two-family home is very well
maintained and an asset to the community.
ATTACHMENTS
Location Map (1 page)
Zoning Map (1 page)
General Land Use Plan Map (1 page)
Existing Land Use Plan Map (1 page)
Aerial photo (1 page)
Site Plan (1 page)
.
.
3
.
12520-2522 Douglas Dr. N. !
.-......
MEDICINE LAKE RD
r-i
---I
I
---------1
I
I
! I
.......-1- l
...- ___l. -- r-..~l
. ,
.
LAKE RD
MEDICINE
-'.
mNNTD RD..I., I
WYNNWOOD R~
!
, I
.
.
.
lIey
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
October 10, 2004
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing-Preliminary Design Plan for Villas at Bassett
Creek Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 99 (5222 Minnaqua Dr.)-
Epic Development, LLC, Applicant
BACKGROUND
Epic Development has requested the approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for
the 1.38 acre parcel that is located at 5222 Minnaqua Drive. Epic Development will be
working with Dave Alan Homes to construct six single family homes where there is now one
single-family home. The existing single-family home would be demolished to make way for
the construction of the six new single-family homes. It is my understanding that Epic has
entered into a purchase agreement with the owner of the home at 5222 Minnaqua Dr.
contingent on Epic receiving approval from the City for the PUD.
The property is currently guided on the General Land Use Plan Map for low density
residential uses. A low density residential use is defined as developments having five or
fe\,AJer units per acre. The proposed Epic development is about 4.3 units per acre.
Therefore, the Epic development is consistent with the General Land Use Plan Map. The
Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan calls for a diversity of living environments in
Golden Valley in addition to traditional single family neighborhoods. The definition of
diversity includes a range of housing costs, choices, variety of densities and innovative
design practices. The Housing Plan states that a diversity of housing provides residents
with options for staying in Golden Valley after they no longer want to live in their traditional
single family home. Housing that is designed for older residents that require lower
maintenance and/or special design are needed. In the case of the Epic proposal, the
argument can be made that the 6 single family homes that are proposed to be constructed
will help to provide the City with a housing product that is not greatly available in Golden
Valley. The six homes that are proposed are to be built on a slab so that single level living
is possible. This is particularly attractive to older couples that would like to remain
.
.
.
, .
independent as long as possible. The six homes will also be a part of a homeowners
association that will provide for the maintenance of the outside spaces.
The Housing Plan also calls for the maintenance of high-quality living environments and the
preservation of stable residential neighborhoods. One question for this proposed
development would be how it impacts the existing neighborhood in which it is proposed.
The area to the north of the Epic proposal is the Briarwood development with 126 total
units. The units are divided into 73 townhomes and 53 condominiums units in five buildings.
The overall density of the Briarwood development is 6.7 units per acre. The General Land
Use Plan Map designates the Briarwood townhome area as Medium Density (5-12 units
per acre) and the condominium portion as High Density (over 12 units per acre). The area
to the north and east of the Epic site is designated for Open Space. This area is known as
the Briarwood Bird and Wildlife Sanctuary and is owned by the City of Golden Valley. The
properties to the east and south of the Epic site are designated on the Land Use Plan for
Low Density residential uses. This single family area generally has a density of less than 3
units per acre. There are two non-conforming two-family houses located at thecorner of
Minnaqua and Unity just to the west of the Epic development. These two-family homes are
on large lots.
The review of the General Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map indicates that all the
property north of Minnaqua, west of the Bassett Creek, and south and west of the
Briarwood Bird and Wildlife Sanctuary is designated for either Medium or High Density
Residential uses with the exception of the property at 5222 Minnaqua Drive.
The entire area where the PUD is proposed is zoned R-1 (Single-Family). This is the lowest
density zoning district and permits only single-family houses. Generally, the City's policy
has been that the proposed PUD should be consistent with the underlying zoning of the
property. Since the Epic development is single-family homes, changing the zoning is not
necessary in this case.
DESCRIPTION OF PUD PROCESS
There are two stages of approval for all PUD approvals. This is the first or 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, or the final stage of approval. Preliminary plan
approval does not guarantee that a proposal will become reality. It gives an applicant some
assurance of being on the right track, and some guidance on how to proceed. In the case
of the Planning Commission in particular, the limitation of the preliminary plan approval is
clearly laid out. City Code Section 11.55 Subd. 6(0) states 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 by the applicant so as to conform the
application or recommend approval subject to certain conditions or modifications.
2
, .
.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The proposal presented by Epic Development and David Alan Homes consists of 6 total
. housing units as shown on attached plans submitted by Epic. There will 6 lots-one lot for
each of the homes. An easement for the private street and utilities will be created over each
of the 6 lots as indicated on the plans.
Each home is proposed to have a building footprint of about 2400 sq. ft. including the
attached garage. The first floor living space for each unit is proposed to be about 1800 sq.
ft. There is second level space of about 450 sq. ft. with the possibility of additional space on
the second level. Each of the units will be built on a slab with no basement. Each home will
provide single level living. A copy of the proposed plans for homes at the Villas at Basset
Creek is attached that indicate the layout and design of each of the units.
As part of the development, a homeowners association will be created. The homeowner's
association will be responsible for the maintenance of the private street that serves the
development. It will also be responsible for the overall maintenance of all landscaping in the
development. The association would also approve all building additions or outside changes
to each of the homes in order to maintain the overall look of the development. Prior to
Preliminary Design Plan review by the City Council, a draft of the homeowner's association
documents should be prepared for review by the City Attorney and other staffmembers.
.
In reality, there would be very little room for any footprint expansion for any of the six
structures due to the constraints of the site. The staff will recommend a building envelope
for each lot. Within the envelope, each home can be no closer than 10ft. to the west
boundary of the site, 20 ft. from the north boundary of the site, 60 ft. from the east boundary
of the site (creek side) and 20 ft. from the south boundary of the site (Minnaqua Drive side).
No building can come closer than 20 ft. from the private drive and 6 ft. from a property line
shared with another home.
The six homes are proposed to have access from Minnaqua Drive from a private 20 ft. wide
street. The private drive would extend over 240 ft. to the north. Each of the homes would
have a three-stall garage with driveway/parking area to the private street. There would be a
minimum of 20 ft. between the garage and the private street. The 20 ft. distance between
the garage and private street allows for enough space to allow for cars to be parked in front
of the garage and not extend into the private street. With the three car garages and parking
in front of the garages, there are 5 parking spaces available for each unit. This exceeds the
City's parking requirement.
Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson has written a memo regarding this development. If
approved by the Planning Commission, his recommendations should be made a part of the
approval. Basically, the Fire Marshal is asking that the units each have an approved fire
suppression system throughout the interior of each home. Epic has agreed to do this. In
addition, there shall be no parking on either side of the private street and it shall be posted
so. With these requirements, the safety of the homes is maintained. The requirements
suggested by the Fire Marshal are similar to the requirements for Hidden Lakes due to
narrow private streets and limited access in the Hidden Lakes development.
.
3
.
There are other significant issues that are addressed in the memo from City Engineer Jeff
Oliver, PE. Primarily, these concerns relate to the fact that this lot is currently within an area
subject to periodic flooding. The City can only recommend its redevelopment if the new
homes are located above the 100 year flood elevation as per the recommendations of the
City Engineer. Epic has proposed a way to fill the area to bring the homes out of the flood
hazard area without having a negative impact on the existing flooding problem in the area.
Please read Mr. Oliver's memo for details. The recommendations in Mr. Oliver's memo
should become a part of the overall approval of this preliminary design plan if
recommended by the Planning Commission.
As noted in Mr. Oliver's memo, the private street will flood in certain storm events. The
homes will be raised out of the flood hazard area so they should not flood. The City
believes that each of the new homeowners in the Epic development should be made aware
that such street flooding is a possibility and this should be told to each new homeowner.
This should be a requirement of the PUD and be done in such a way that is approved by
the City Attorney.
Tree preservation is also an issue that must be addressed as part of this PUD. The plan
indicates that 21 significant trees will be lost while 26 will be preserved. Epic will have to
replace a number of trees as indicated on the tree preservation plan. There will also be
landscaping done around each home which will be maintained by the homeowner's
association. The overall landscape plan will be made a part of the general (final) plan of
development.
.
Epic would like to begin construction as soon as possible. The first step would be the
placing of fill on the property in a manner approved by the City. Construction of homes
would probably not occur until next year. It is anticipated that each of the homes will sell for
a minimum of $500,000.
At the current time, there is one home on the site that generates about 10 trips per day.
With a total of 6 homes on the site, there would probably be around 60 trips per day or an
increase of around 50 trips. Over the day, the increase of 50 trips means about 3-4
additional trips per hour exiting on to Minnaqua Drive. The street system has the capacity
to handle this additional traffic.
As part of the development, the City will require the dedication of a conservation easement
over the east 50 ft. of the property adjacent to the creek. This conservation easement will
greatly restrict the alteration of that property from its current condition. Potentially, a trail
may be built along the creek to connect to a trail along Bassett Creek in the Briarwood
development.
Attached are several photos of the development site. The photos indicate the existing tree
cover and the distance of the existing home, condominiums and townhomes from this
proposed Epic development. Also, aerial photo is attached to show the site in relation to
other buildings in the area.
.
4
.
.
.
ELIGIBILITY OF APPLICATION
PUDs are regulated under City Code Section 11.55. Four subdivisions of that section come
into play when screening PUD applications for eligibility. Each is discussed below. After
considering the Epic development proposal in view of all four subdivisions, staff finds that
the proposal is eligible and may enter the preliminary design stage of the PUD process.
PUD Definition-PUDs are defined in City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 2. This proposal
clearly meets the terms of Subd. 2.A.5, which allows PUDs for developments having two or
more principal use structures located on two or more lots in single or multiple ownership
provided the area is at least one acre in size.
PUD Purpose and Intent-Applications must also meet the general purpose and intent of
PUDs as set out in Section 11.55, Subd. 1. This section states that the PUD process is
designed for use in situations "where designation of a single use zoning district or
application of standard zoning provisions is too rigid for practical application." In this case
the efficient development of the entire 1.38 acre site would not be possible using standard
zoning or subdivision procedures. The situation is compounded by having a creek on one
side and being in a flood prone area.
Standards and Criteria for PUDs-City Code establishes basic requirements for different
types of PUDs in Section 11.55, Subd. 5. Residential uses are discussed in Section 5C.
The following are the criteria with staff comment:
1. The tract shall not have less than 100 ft. of frontage on a public street. In this
case, there is about 260 ft. of frontage along Minnaqua Drive.
2. Public water, sewer and fire hydrants must serve the development. These
services are all available to the site. Please refer to the City Engineer and Fire
Marshal memos.
3. No principal building shall be nearer than its height to the rear or side property
line when such line abuts on a single-family use. In this case, this development is
across the creek or street from a single family use. Therefore, this rule would not
apply.
4. Private roadways within the project shall be constructed according to a plan
and approved by the City Engineer as to the type and location. Plans for the
private street will be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
5. No building may be located less than 15 ft. from the back of the curb line along
those roadways which are part of the internal road system. All buildings are at
least 20 ft. from the private or public street.
6. Provision for solid waste, storage and disposal shall be provided according to a
plan approved by the City staff, Planning Commission and Council. Solid waste
and recycling will be done in a manner similar to other single-family and townhome
developments.
5
.
.
.
7. Landscaping shall be provided according to a plan approved by the Council in
accordance with the City Landscape standards. In addition, it shall include a
detailed planting list with sizes indicated. The development is subject to the City's
Tree Preservation Ordinance. The preliminary tree preservation plan appears to meet
the City's requirements. A landscape plan will have to be submitted to the City as part
of the General Plan of Development indicating the types of plantings that are proposed
in the development.
8. In the event certain land areas or buildings are provided within the PUD for
private recreational or service uses, the owner shall submit a plan to the City for
continued operation to a reasonable standard. In this case, no building or land is
proposed to be used for private recreation or service uses. As stated above, a City
trail may be constructed on within the conservation easement along Bassett Creek.
9. Completeness of Application Packet-The final screening of any PUD proposal for
eligibility is based on Section 11.55, Subd. 6.A, which establishes the various
components must be submitted at the time of preliminary design stage of the
application. This City is in possession of each of the items outline in this section and
finds the packet adequate for review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary design plan for Villas at Basset Creek, PUD
No. 99. The proposal consists of 6 single-family homes with a private street off Minnaqua
Drive. The proposal is consistent with the character of the area and the low density
designation on the General Land Use Plan Map. The proposed development is nestled
between a townhome development to the north, a condominium building to the west and
two double homes to the south and west. Single-family homes do not directly abut this
property. The nearest single-family homes are either across Minnaqua Drive or Bassett
Creek from this proposal. This development seems to "fit" in this area and provide a
transition between the higher density housing to the north and west.
This development also helps to preserve the area along Bassett Creek by creating a
conservation easement and the possibility of continuing a trail along the creek north of
Minnaqua to the Briarwood Nature Center. The area immediately to the west between the
existing trail and the west property line of the Epic site will remain undisturbed and continue
to provide good, natural cover.
The recommendation of approval is subject to the following conditions.
1. The development will be subject to a park dedication fee to be determined at the time
the final plat is approved by the City Council.
2. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval These
plans were prepared by Ryan Engineering and titled "Preliminary Plans for Villas at
Bassett Creek" and dated 9/3004.
3. The sketches of the Villas at Bassett Creek dated 8/2/04 shall also become a part of this
approval.
6
4. All recommendations and requirements set out in the Engineering Memo from City of
Golden Valley Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE and dated October 6, 2004 shall become a part
. of this approval.
5. A final landscape plan shall be submitted with the General Plan of Development and be
reviewed and approved by the City's Environmental Coordinator.
6. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code.
7. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from Ed Anderson, Deputy
Fire Marshal and dated August 26, 2004 shall become a part of this approval.
8. A building envelope area for each lot will be created. The envelope will follow the these
rules: each home can be no closer than 10ft. to the west boundary of the site, 20 ft.
from the north boundary of the site, 60 ft. from the east boundary of the site (creek side)
and 20 ft. from the south boundary of the site (Minnaqua Drive side). No building can
come closer than 20 ft. from the private drive and 6 ft. from a property line shared with
another home.
9. This approval is subject to all other state, federal and local ordinances, regulations or
laws with authority over this development.
.
Attachments:
Location map (1 page)
Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, dated October 6,2004 (6 pages)
Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated August 26,2004 (1 page)
Letter from Kenneth Hedberg, dated August 4, 2004
Building sketches and floor plan for Villas at Bassett Creek dated August 2,2004 (3 pages)
Aerial photo (1 page)
Photos of site (8 pages)
General Land Use Plan Map (1 page)
Preliminary Plans, submitted by Ryan Engineering, dated September 3, 2004 (4 oversized
pages)
.
7
.
.
~
I
,l-
I(/)
:;r
'I-
'::J
'..J
!::J
Z !O
;0:: 10
o II-
(j 10
<( ;0
;:! >
..J is:
, :r
it
~il
OJ '
i! I I I II
i
\.
~
OJ
IT]
IffBj
ffiHE
J~~
~ ""'1
~ I \1 ~
1\ I I I \
I\~I\.\\
\ \\\ \
\ \
\ /'
\
\
\
Subject Property:
5222 Minnaqua Drive
II
o
c:
~
:2:
~
~\
OJ\
\\
H I~
1-<
I I~
I----iz
I I
i I
I I
I I
i
i
\
\
Y
.~~;;.-(c~~
.~u\
:> \
\
~~--_.
z ---- -
w
c)'
I~I ----_'
I /'
I
! . .-
I /{..
V""'
I
~tl
! ~-~
! ,
r--..... :
I
h--f-
I '
I
I .
~---_._.
",
,
i 11Ie-.s ,..~,
.
Cifl
~G6Id~11Valley
e u
Public Works
763.593.8030 /763.593.3988 (fax)
Date:
October 6,2004
To:
From:
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer~
Amended Preliminary DeSig~ew: Villas at Bassell Creek,
Planned Unit Development No. 99
Subject:
Public Works staff has reviewed the plans submitted for the proposed Villas at Bassett
Creek Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed PUD is located on Minnaqua
Drive north of Duluth Street and east of Trunk Highway 100. Bassett Creek is adjacent
to the site on its east side.
.
The proposed development includes demolition of the existing single-family home and
construction of six detached town homes.
The existing home on the property proposed for redevelopment is located within the
floodplain of Bassett Creek, and has experienced flooding on multiple occasions. As a
result, the property has been identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) for flood proofing.
This review will reference the 1 DO-year flood elevation on Bassett Creek frequently. It
should be noted that a more accurate description of the 1 DO-year flood is a flood that
has a 1 % chance of occurring in any given year.
Preliminary Plat
The proposed preliminary plat includes six lots for cOflstruction of six free-standing
townhome units. The proposed access to these homes is provided from a common
driveway that extends from Minnaqua Drive into the development on the common
center lot line. Given the low number of homes accessing this proposed driveway, the
layout is acceptable as proposed.
.
The preliminary plat includes drainage and utility easements consistent with the
subdivision ordinance on the boundaries of the plat. In addition, the preliminary plat
includes a 40-foot wide drainage and utility easement covering Bassett Creek on the
east boundary. However, this easement does not extend far enough to the west to
cover the 1 DO-year floodplain for Bassett Creek. Therefore, the easement must be
revised to cover the floodplain to an elevation of 842.5.
G:\Developments-Private\Villas at Bassett Creek\PreliminaryDesignPlanReview.doc
.
.
.
There is a 30-foot wide drainage and utility easement shown on the preliminary plat
over the center common property line. This easement will be the location of the sanitary
sewer and water to serve the proposed homes.
The developer will be required to dedicate a trailway easement parallel to Bassett Creek
across the back of Lots 4, 5 and 6. The City will construct a trail through this easement
to connect with the existing trail in the Briarwood Townhomes to the north. The
installation of this trail will provide a pedestrian loop along Minnaqua Drive, Unity
Avenue and Bassett Creek. This trail is also immediately adjacent to the Trunk Highway
100 pedestrian bridge.
Based upon standard traffic generation projection methods, the proposed townhome
development will generate approximately 40 to 45 trips per day onto the local street
system. Because single-family homes generate an estimated 10 vehicle trips per day,
the proposed development will result in a net increase of 30 to 35 trips per day. The
street system within the development area is sufficient to accommodate the additional
30 to 35 vehicles generated by this proposal.
Utilities
Sanitary sewer and water service for the proposed PUD will be extended into the site
from existing city facilities in Minnaqua Drive. There is adequate capacity in both
systems to provide service to the development.
The sanitary sewer and water main on site will be owned and maintained by the City of
Golden Valley. These utilities must be installed as a public improvement project. The
developer will be required to enter into a special assessment agreement for the costs
associated with this public improvement project.
The sanitary sewer and water services to the existing home on site must be removed to
the main in Minnaqua Drive. The removal of these services will occur as part of the
public improvement project.
Gradina. Drainaae and Erosion Control
This proposed development is within the Bassett Creek Watershed and is therefore
subject to the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) Water Quality
Policy. According to the policy, because the site is less than two acres the construction
of a nutrient and sediment removal pond is not required. However, the site will be
required to implement erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices during
site development.
The proposed PUD will require a City of Golden Valley Grading, Drainage and Erosion
Control Permit, and a NPDES General Storm Water Discharge Permit from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
G:\Developments-Private\Villas at Bassett Creek\PreliminaryDesignPlanReview.doc
2
.
.
.
As discussed earlier in this review, this site is within the 1 OO-year floodplain of Bassett
Creek. The home was originally identified by the BCWMC and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to be flood proofed as part of the Bassett Creek Flood Control
Project that has been constructed over the last 30 years in the Bassett Creek
Watershed. The Flood Control project was successful in lowering flood elevations
throughout the watershed by utilizing flood storage areas, rate control structures and
other improvements, including lowering of the 1 OO-year flood level by one-half foot at
the location of this development. This lowering of the flood levels has resulted in
numerous homes in Golden Valley being removed from the floodplain. However, the
flood levels could not be lowered enough to remove this property from the 100-year
floodplain.
However, based upon the City's recently revised Floodplain Management Ordinance,
development of this site could occur if certain criteria are met. Among these criteria are
that the development be flood proofed according to standards and that there are no
negative impacts to the flood levels due to the development.
As shown on the proposed grading plan, each of the proposed townhomes will be
constructed as a "slab on grade" structure with the low floor elevation at or above the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE). The recent revisions to the Floodplain
Management Code increased the RFPE to a point two feet above the actual 100-year
flood elevation. Therefore, with the 1 OO-year flood level at 842.5 feet above sea level,
the homes must be constructed at elevation 844.5 or higher.
It should be noted that the proposed homes are above the flood level, but Minnaqua
Drive and a portion of the private driveway will be under water in the event of flooding.
Based upon the existing street elevation and the 1 OO-year flood level of 842.5, there will
be 2.8 feet of standing water at the intersection of Minnaqua Drive during the 100-year
flood. Floods to elevations less that the 100-year level occur fairly frequently, resulting
in vehicle access through flood waters on the street. Based upon the hydraulics of
Bassett Creek in this area, the duration of these floods is brief, resulting in short
durations of limited access.
If this PUD is approved, staff recommends that the developer sign a declaration, to be
recorded against the title of the homes that indicates that access will be limited in the
event of flooding along Bassett Creek. This declaration may also contain other
information as determined appropriate by the City Attorney.
In addition, the home construction must comply with all other flood proofing
requirements contained in the Minnesota State Building Code.
Because the proposed development includes the placement of fill within the floodplain,
an analysis was performed to determine the impacts of this proposal. In addition, the
evaluation included the cumulative impacts from the proposed fill on this site, and the
construction of a flood control levee to be constructed by the City near Scott Avenue,
just across Bassett Creek and to the north of this site. This flood control levee, and the
construction of a storm water lift station, is part of the City's Flood Proofing Project that
will remove 12 homes near Scott and Regent Avenues from the 100-year floodplain.
G:\Developments-PrivateWillas at Bassett Creek\PreliminaryDesignPlanReview.doc
3
.
.
The City retained Barr Engineering Company to perform the evaluation of the proposed
projects on the flood levels in Bassett Creek between Trunk Highway 100 and Regent
Avenue. This evaluation assumed placement of fill across the entire development site to
the RFPE, which is two feet above the actual flood elevation. As shown on the attached
memorandum from Barr, dated September 13, 2004, the maximum impact of the two
proposed projects (this PUD and the City Flood Proofing Project) occurs approximately
700 feet north of the subject property, where a 0.10 feet (1.25 inches) is projected. The
projected increase gradually decreases towards Trunk Highway 100, where the
increased flood level is 0.02 feet (0.25 inches). The projected impact at the north line of
the subject property is 0.01 feet (less than 0.25 inches) and there is no increase in flood
levels downstream (south) of this site.
The analysis performed by Barr Engineering indicates that there are no negative
impacts from this proposed development if the flood proofing along Scott Avenue is
constructed. However, if the Scott Avenue flood proofing is not constructed, the
increase in the flood elevation north of the subject property must be considered a
negative impact because there are homes on Scott Avenue that are within the
floodplain.
City staff recently opened bids for the Scott Avenue flood proofing project. However, the
bids have not been forwarded to the City Council because there are currently three
property owners who have not signed the agreements and/or easements required to
construcHhe project. The affected property owners had previously indicated that the
required agreements and easements would be granted.
Based upon the above discussion, this proposed PUD, and its impacts to flood levels,
should not be considered until the Scott Avenue flood proofing contract has been
awarded.
Tree Preservation
The Tree Preservation Plan submitted for review appears to be consistent with City
standards and will be reviewed in detail with the General Plan submittal for this PUD.
Summary and Recommendations -
Based upon the comments contained in this review, Public Works staff has determined
that construction of this proposed PUD within the floodplain of Bassett Creek does not
create any negative impacts tothe creek's flood levels if the Scott Avenue Flood
Proofing project is constructed. If the City is unable to obtain the required agreements
and easements for the Scott Avenue project, staff recommends that the proposed PUD
not be approved.
However, if the Scott Avenue Flood Proofing project is awarded, staff recommends
approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for the Villas at Bassett Creek subject to the
. comments contained in this memo, which are summarized as follows:
G:\Developments-Private\Villas at Bassett Creek\PreliminaryDesignPlanReview.doc
4
.
.
.
1) The preliminary plat must be revised to extend the 40-foot wide drainage and
utility easement along the east plat boundary to the west to the 1 OO-year flood
elevation of Bassett Creek.
2) The developer agrees to dedicate a 10-foot wide trial easement across Lots 4, 5
and 6, parallel to Bassett Creek. The final location of the trail and easement will
be determined at the time of General Plan approval.
3) The developer enters into a Special Assessment Agreement with the City for the
installation of municipal sanitary sewer and water into the site. These
improvements will be performed as a public improvement project with 100% of
the costs assessed to the developer.
4) The proposed homes on this site must be constructed according to the applicable
flood proofing requirements contained in the State Building Code.
5) The developer agrees to record documents against the titles of the proposed
homes indicating that access to the homes will be limited during flooding along
Bassett Creek, and other restrictions as determined appropriate by the City
Attorney.
6) Subject to the review and comments of the City Attorney, Building Official and
other City staff.
C: Rich Ragatz, Epic Development
Perry Ryan, Ryan Engineering
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections
Gary Johnson, Building Official
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal
G:\Developments-PrivateWillas at Bassett Creek\PreliminaryDesignPlanReview.doc
5
. .
Barr Engineering Company
4700 West77th Street. Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803
Phone: 952-832-2600 . Fax: 952-832-2601
V l' (LbL5 ~ ~
1:JMtj{ H- Uvek-
.
BARR
Minneapolis, MN · Hibbing, MN . Duluth, MN . Ann Arbor, MI . Jefferson City, MO
Memorandum
.; r-~,_ .',
;. i.;
If!
! j I j "
! L/~/ /
/ii)! S ::; !if
U !..!i [; i ij!
"/ Uf ill
'---~____ ././::::://1
---~"''-......,;'" .,
I
----.J
To: Jeff Oliver, City of Golden Valley
From: Len Kremer
Subject: Bassett Creek Floodplain Encroachments
Date: September 13,2004
Project: 23/27 -E65
The effect of floodplain encroachments to reflect a possible development upstream of Minnaqua Avenue
and a diked, ponding area between Minnaqua Avenue and Highway 100 was analyzed by encroachments
at Section 332 and Section 333 (see attached aerial photograph). It was assumed that the floodplain would
be ineffective to within 50 feet of the top of bank of the channel. The maximum increase in floodplain
elevation as a result of the encroachments occurred at Section 333 and that increase was 0.10 foot. Since
. all of the low homes in the area will be flood-proofed there is no potential for increased flood damage as a
result of the encroachments. The effects of each encroachment and the cumulative affect of the
encroachments are listed in the table below.
Increased Stage Increased Stage
East Side West Side Cumulative Increased
Encroachment Encroachment State
Section (Feet) (Feet) (Feet)
332.0 0 0 0.01
333.0 0.06 0.04 0.10
334.0 0.05 0.03 0.08
335.1 0.01 0.01 0.02
.
::ODMA \PCDOCS\DOCS\244702\1
. ,
.
Public ~H~y
Memorandum
Fire Department
763-593-8055/763-512-2497 (fax)
To:
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning & Zoning
From:
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal
Subject: Preliminary Plan Review for PUD 99 located at 5222 Minnaqua Drive
Date: August 26, 2004
cc: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections
The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the preliminary plans for PUD 99, The Villas at
Bassett Creek, located at 5222 Minnaqua Drive. Listed below are the plan review comments.
1. The fire department access road shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet wide and one hundred
fifty (150) feet in length. The 150 foot length will require an approved fire department turn-
. around. See the Fire Marshal for the approved turn-a rounds for fire vehicles.
2. The fire department is authorized to increase the 150 foot length and eliminate the approval of
the approved turn-around requirement if the proposed six (6) single-family homes install a
recognized fire suppression system throughout the interior of the homes.
3. The proposed fire hydrant located at the end of the private street shall not be obstructed by
any materials or matter that would interfere with the fire department operations, Le.
landscaping, snow removal, mailboxes, etc.
4. The proposed fire hydrant indicated on the plan shall be installed in accordance with the
recognized fire code standards and in conjunction with the City of Golden Valley Engineering
Department.
5. The private driveway shall be posted on both sides with "no parking fire lane" signs in
accordance with the City of Golden Valley city ordinance and the Golden Valley fire
department standards on installation of fire lane signs.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065 or eanderson@cLQolden-valley.mn.us.
.
.
.
.
KENNETH L. HEDBERG
5125 Minnaqua Drive
Golden Valley, MN 55422
August 4, 2004
Mr. Rick Ragatz
EPIC Development, LLC
3441 St. Paul Ave
Minneapolis, MN 55416
RE: Proposed Townhome. Development Project @ 5222 Minnaqua Drive
Golden Valley, MN 55426
Dear Mr. Ragatz:
.,.
This letter is to inform you that I am against the proposed townhome project at 5222 Minnaqua
Drive.
You are trying to build in an already existing flood plain. To do so, you would have to build
burms and raise the elevation. Also, with the square footage of the town homes, parking lot and
garages, you are now displacing a lot of water elsewhere. Where does that water displace to? To
the already existing homes and our lower levels.
The City of Golden Valley refuses to pay us residents any additional money to raise the height of
our burms and have already done a lack lusting performance in controlling flood waters in Basset
Creek. If you are allowed to build in this flood plain, where does it end?
Some years back, I attempted to buy a piece of land the city said was in a flood plain and they
refused. Yet, the city later approved a judge to build on the said flood plains, so the city does
waiver on these matters. But that was before I got flooded. Now I am against building on said
flood plains.
In closing, I think your proposed town homes would be great, but you need to find a different
location.
Sincerely,
~/~. ...
KennethL. Hedber~
c:
City of Golden Valley
RUt UI::: u.. UtJ:I:::::lP
.' I
I ' I
<
...-..>
F
1>
~
1{
.
~
~
()
~
W
'^
,~
(\
r
2:~'
~N
~i
.
DJ,c:;. 10.;;1 UQw.l
.... .L
I
~~
i,~
~-<
::::t
~
i
~
(\
o
~
-.
m
O~ 09:25p
Aug 02
.' ! !
. ~ .
-
~~
~-= -4
\\
--1t
6=~
CJ
1'>
-U
~
<
Wr-
*~
.~~
~
%
~
z.
N~
~~
.
oJ*:J
(Q(~
~z.
<:;~ l~
l!!',x
10;;1 UOV.L
Ole:
....~
, .
~
()
.>
~
~
'j'.>
~
.C\
nr
i\J\
$~l~
~?~~
~.:i::z:
. \t! ~
I .
i i
~
-
\S'
\\'\
11
04 as:25p
Au~.02
e\. I
~~
<:)$2
:'\3
--- 'l{
~r
~~
~
~
1>
Z
'~
~-
r
~~
\t\\)'.
e-1~
04
'A)
,~
~~
~
z.,
Nr-)
0,
H\'::l,
~
.
789 0891
612
I I
I.:.....\F
~~
'l<. \,)
~ ~
~
i~
,....c
f"'ll::>
~....
~
~t(J\
"\~
.:.. :-\
~~
+ Z.
;t C
~ U'
~ ~
~
o
~
Qlh.
~ i"
~ ~\
\.~ ~
~ 11"
~
~
~r-
. I...
-; ~
(<< r
\SV,",.v
It>. ~.
S
~
I '
'Q,
;~
Z. 1:-
)" ~
..ll. \
P,-;N
~~
-l
1'i
l
...
p.3
. .
.
.
~1I"
" .
c
@IElif TV AlLILEYf
r 1,.1,1". ~ t)O.
-:> f'--~
t^,,,, GENERAL LAND USE PLAN
Tho
\\'
t:- (;.1If
Il'u
~...:
~
RESIDENTIAL
c:: Low Density (Less than 5 units per acre)
t :j},.}j Medium Density (5 to 11.9 units per acre)
_ High Density (12 or more units per acre)
COMMERCIAL
o Office
_ Commercial (also includes Office)
INDUSTRIAL
o Light I ndustrial (also includes Office)
[=:J Industrial (also includes Office)
_ Open Space - Public and Private Ownership
o Schools and Religious Facilities
~~ Public Facilities - Miscellaneous
_ Semi-Public Facilities - Miscellaneous
'Wiji.!~~ Open Water
~ Wetlands National Weiland Inventory - not field verified
~ (Minor adjustments made 10 some weUands)
~ ; Railroad
Existing Local Trail
. . . . . . . . . - Proposed Local Trail
Regional Trail
_ _ - _ Proposed Regional Trail
_PEO Pedestrian Bridge
Road Rights-of-Way
__- Municipal Line
1 inch = 1 ,833 feet (J)
Thibault
A$SCClIIT<S
............
..........-
Golden Valley
1\"""" 1 aaa
Comprehensive Plan 1999 - 2020