04-11-05 PC Agenda
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, April 11,2005
7pm
I. Approval of Minutes
March 28, 2005 Joint Planning and Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
March 28, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting
II. Informal Public Hearing - PUD No. 89 Amendment #1 - Golden Meadows
Applicant: SVK Development
Address: 2205 Winnetka Avenue North
Purpose: The amendment would allow for the existing duplex to be converted
to a triplex.
-Short Recess-
V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
A) 1-394 Corridor Study -Involvement by City Council and Planning Commission
B) Appoint 2 Planning Commissioners to the 4-member advisory group
VI. Other Business
VII. Adjournment
.'
.
.
.
"
Joint Meeting
Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals
To Discuss Envision Golden Valley
March 28, 2005
A joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals was held
at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden
Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, March 28, 2005. Planning Commission Chair Keysser
called the meeting to order at 6 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Hackett, ~e
Rasmussen, Schmidgall and Waldhauser and Board of Zoning A ""ea
Hughes and McCarty. Also present were Director of Planning ev
Grimes, Planning Intern Aaron Hanauer and Administrative
I. Envision Discussion
Keysser explained that the City has gone throug
process and the challenge to the boards and co
implement ideas and look at things through the
nary planning
to I re out how to
e concepts.
Waldhauser stated that she did a sum
to highlight some of the things that the
one of the themes in the Guide w
the Planning Commission and t
would developments seem t
she thinks the Planning C
transportation section of
is just barely suburb n an
younger people wa
such as upgra 'ng, i
issues.
uide because she wanted
ission could look at. She said
eve pment and it seems to her that
uld take a firmer hand in pushing what
late. S said housing was another area where
have some input. She referred to the
id it is real important because Golden Valley
y cases older people want transportation choices and
mmute. There are also some highway issues too
raffic flow through Golden Valley and aesthetic
e of the reasons he moved to Golden Valley was because
ct is one of the best in the state and that it is very close to
ppealing to people. He referred to the Winnetka/Highway 55 area
posal for that area is going to be coming back to the City and that
them to use the ideas in the Envision Guide.
Waldhauser said that she feels like the City has been waiting until a developer proposes
something for that area and that she thinks the City should propose something and let
people respond to what the City would like to see. Hackett agreed and said that there
are several areas in the City where he would like to see the Planning Commission and
Council help guide the development.
Keysser asked if the City could playa more proactive role in developing the Olympic
Printing site. Hackett stated that typically task forces get appointed and that they begin
to create ideas, discussions and proposals.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Joint Meeting with the Golden Valley Planning Commission and SZA
March 28, 2005
Page 2
Grimes stated that the Council did ask the Planning Commission to look at possible
locations for higher density housing but that it is hard to change zoning designations
and the Comprehensive Plan without causing speculation and because the legislature
has said that Comprehensive Plans and zoning maps have to be consistent. He
explained that this is part of the reason why the City is doing the 1-394 Corridor study in
order to get a vision on how it should look.
Keysser said he thinks it would be helpful to know what funding or resources are
available. Grimes stated that there is some TIF money available for soil correction and
pollution. He referred to the COSG program and explained that Golde oesn't
qualify for as much money as it has in the past and that we now hav with
six or seven other cities.
Rasmussen asked if there has been any talk about designat'
that might be a way to get certain areas to look a certain wa
Golden Valley has a strong neighborhood watch group but t
that they are for discussing safety issues, not for disc
Waldhauser stated that she has looked into the
neighborhoods were defined for the various nei
it basically was the block captain's choice.
G n Valley
tch groups and found that
Rasmussen asked how many neighbo
Schmidgall stated that there are 1
designated neighborhoods but t
designations. Cera stated tha
neighborhoods. Hanauer
ps there are in Golden Valley.
d that St. Louis Park has 35
e what they do with those
ark 't go any further than naming their
neapolis.has 81 designated neighborhoods.
Ighbor ods could be something the Planning
Appeals could do to help create a sense of
ould be to give people something to identify with
determine jobs or roles for the people in the various
community. Cera suggested tasking people with ideas
uide. Waldhauser stated that younger families want to be
asmussen agreed and said people want a sense of place. She
be the media could do different pieces on particular neighborhoods.
Id talk to Joanne Paul in Public Safety regarding contacting the
tch groups because they would probably be the people most
Hackett suggested identifying areas of the city that are considered gateways and having
a competition for people to design the gateways. He talked about a similar competition
in Galviston, Texas. Grimes stated that he is in the process of organizing a public art
tour for his planning group.
Keysser summarized the two main ideas that came from this discussion: identifying
neighborhoods and establishing gateways.
.'
Minutes of the Joint Meeting with the Golden Valley Planning Commission and BZA
March 28, 2005
Page 3
.
Grimes said he thinks it would be a good idea to talk to some other cities about how
they've identified neighborhoods. Hackett suggested having another contest to name
the neighborhoods.
Eck suggested asking the Historical Society if they have any input. Rasmussen stated
she thought that was a good idea.
Grimes stated that these ideas will brought to the Envision Connection Project group
and that he would talk to Jeanne Andre about their suggestions.
II. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 pm.
.
.
4
.
March 28,2005
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,
March 28, 2005. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Those present were Commissioners Eck, Hackett, Keysser, McAleese, Rasmussen,
Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present were Director of Planning and Development,
Mark Grimes, Planning Intern, Aaron Hanauer and Administrative Assis 'sa
Wittman.
March 7, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting
ission.
Chair Keysser welcomed David Cera as the newest member of
I. Approval of Minutes
MOVED by Rasmussen, seconded by Waldhau
approve the March 7, 2005 minutes as submitte
II.
Informal Public Hearing - PUD
Applicant:
#1 - Rudy Luther Toyota
.
Address:
Purpose:
olition of the five existing buildings and the
n 70,000 square foot Toyota/Scion building and a
foot Jaguar/Landrover building.
Grimes explain t is requesting an amendment to their existing PUD for
their property I ills Blvd. and Miller Street. He stated that in May of
2001 the i UD approved for their existing property in order to rebuild their
Toyota . as part of those plans, the right of way to the south was
vacate . t their original plans were put off for a period of time because
Tq~eta's p roducts had changed. He stated that Luther Corporation has
pure sed a operty from General Mills Blvd. over to Flag Avenue and their plan is
to co te mol ish the existing Toyota building and the old school building, move
those op s temporarily to the other existing auto buildings while they construct a
new facility. Once the new facility is built they would tear down the other buildings and
create a new building for the Jaguar/Land Rover sales and services.
.
Grimes referred to the site plans and discussed the setbacks. He noted that there will be
no setback to the parking lot along the north property line. He explained that this issue
was addressed when their original PUD was approved. There is still a 40 foot green area
between the north property line and the freeway wall so it seems to make sense to allow
them to have their parking lot go right to the north property line. However, there are still
easements along that north property line that would still need to be maintained. He
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 28, 2005
Page 2
referred to the southeast corner of the property and stated that they are proposingless
than the required 35 feet of green area setback space but that they are improving the
existing setback conditions because currently there are parts of the parking lot that go
right up to the property line. He stated that this is a f?irly narrow site fora car dealership
and it has streets on two sides, but with a good landscape plan, it will be a good design
for this area. He referred to the western portion of the site, in front of the proposed Land
Rover building and stated that there is a display area for vehicles that goes intothe 35
foot setback a little bit. He said the City also allowed the Audi dealership to the west to
have a small amount of display area, similar to this proposal. He referre e west
property line and said there is a substantial green area however, they g to
build a small climbing hill feature that people would use when test iVI
Rovers. He stated that there has been some discussion betwee a
Porsche/Audi dealership .next to them about the landscaping
stay sensitive to their needs.
the
ne and
Grimes discussed the parking on the site and noted t
spaces shown on the plans. He said the spaces ca
employee parking and customer parking or for c
concern is that cars are parked in designated s
He said that the applicant feels they have a
in front of their dealerships, adequate sp
their inventory.
,000 parking
ispla Ing cars,
ed. He said his
fire la es or setback areas.
allow for customer parking
es and adequate space for
Grimes stated that the City Engi
the east have been addressed
pond for water quality and r
regarding the use of MnOOT's pond to
. ant does have permission to use that
rposes.
Schmidgall referred to th
lighting fixtures bei in th
architect about not I
in e concerns about the trash enclosure and the
T right of way. Grimes said that he has talked to the
sh enclosure on the utility lines.
Keysser asked
remain 0
Street.
into the
c the access to the site. Grimes said the main access will
d. at the signal and that there are three driveways along Miller
salso talked to the applicant about having a sidewalk system
es to clarify what the City's guidelines are regarding green space for
ment. Grimes stated that the PUO ordinance states that in commercial
develop at least 10% of the property needs to be green space. He stated that this
proposal is approximately 88% hard space and approximately 12% green space, so they
do meet the requirements. .
Keysser stated that he didn't see any reference to excluding loudspeakers in this
proposal. Grimes said that is one of the standard requirements for car dealerships and
that he will put language in the PUO Permit regarding loudspeaker use.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 28, 2005
Page 3
. Eck asked if people would be coming in toward the back of the building when they enter
from General Mills Blvd. Grimes said people would actually belookingmoreatthe side of
the buildingwhen they enter from General Mills Blvd.
Keysser asked if people would be driving into residential areas when they test drive cars.
Grimes said that there haven't been any complaints from people in that area. He added
that most people probably get on 1-394 or stay on the frontage road when test driving
cars. He said if it were to become a problem, he would talk to the applicant.
.
Keysser asked if there are any underground fuel tanks on the si
think so, but that is something the applicant could address.
idn't
Cera asked if the fir~ department issues have been addressed. Grim
Jon Baker, Architect for the project, gave a brief history of th
"IKed about the
1 when the
tage oad adjacent to
t that point to
sho room capacity to the
sed car sales and storage.
Toyota that they were
nt changes to what had been
t it was less then ideal, so they
idelines, acquired the other properties to
to be a very good master plan.
design goals of Toyota and Land Rover/Jaguar. He st
PUD was approved the plans were done in anticipa .
1-394 being turned back to the property owners
demolish the small used car building, add a lot
existing Toyota building and to remodel the
He said shortly after the PUD approval t
embarking on new image program that
done in the past. He stated the ori .
waited until Toyota came out wit
the west and now they've got w
Baker discussed the dea
entirely new retail autom
expresses Toyota's re v
according to Toyota
authenticity to To
addition to the
history, e~
Baker
and wel
erview and stated that the idea is to create an
n nd that the design of the Toyota building
quality, dependability and reliability. He said the result
nsive design bringing comfort, warmth, innovation and
ying and servicing business. He stated that in
work prepared and provided by the manufacturers, the
th of operational knowledge that the Luther Companies and
an assure that this project will result in thoughtfully designed
Clings.
e site plan and stated that it has been updated from the one Grimes
earlier. He pointed out the new location of the fire hydrants and the trash
enclosur showed several elevations of the building interiors and exteriors. He
discussed the landscaping plan and the Land Rover test course and stated that there will
be a significant increase in the yard space around the buildings and a lot of energy and
illumination will be put into the entrance point at General Mills Blvd.
.
Schmidgall referred to the applicant's narrative and asked about the term "bullpen". Baker
explained that the "Bullpen" is the area where the sales people have their own personal
work space and desks.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 28, 2005
Page 4
.
Keysser asked if there are any underground tanks currently on the site. Baker said no, all
of the tanks that were there have been removed and they are in the process of doing
some environmental testing and that all the new tanks will be above ground.
Cera referred to the landscaping on the Audi dealership side of the test course and asked
what is going to happen in that area. Baker stated that the owners of the Carousel owners
did have some concerns about the test course being close to their property line. He said
that they have had conversations with them about putting some type of landscaping
between the test course and their property but that they have said they . upport of
this proposal.
.
Cera asked about the lighting on the site. Baker said the intentio
similar tothe Carousel Audiproperty. He said they are hopin
decorative or architectural lighting at the entrance on Gener
something more exciting. Cera asked if they have looked int
Baker said they are looking into that and that they will th
available technology reasonable for this type of pro'
eate it as
lighting.
icated
Grimes stated that the cell tower currently locat
of the lease.
Rasmussen asked if the access to the
interior of the lot. Baker said the onl
the lot. Cera asked if the lot is se
k is located only from the
track would be from the inside of
Baker said it would be blocked at night.
Hackett asked how pedestr"
connections to other are
access connection from
sidewalk that goes the
area are well used
General Mills e
sidewalk conn
t to this site and if there are sidewalk
the site. Baker explained that there will be an
n djacent to their property and there is a
ound the site. Grimes stated that the sidewalks in that
a conne.ction to the sidewalk to the north on the
hat it would not be a problem to do something with the
hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, Keysser closed the
hat this proposal meets the criteria for a PUD and fits nicely with what
accomplish.
Rasmussen agreed and stated that is a well thought out plan.
Eck stated that that this proposal is a significant improvement over what was originally
proposed and he would support recommending approval.
.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the request by The Luther Company Limited Partnership to allow for the
demolition of the five existing buildings and the construction of a new 70,000 square foot
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 28, 2005
Page 5
.
Toyota/Scion building and a 45,000 square foot Jaguar/Land Rover building with the
following conditions:
1. The Civil and Architectural Plan Packet (16 sheets) prepared by Baker Associates
and dated 2/11/05 shall become a part of this approval (subject to revisions required
by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal).
2. All recommendations and requirements set out in the Engineering Memo to Mark
Grimes from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, and dated February 28, 2 all be
made a part of this approval. The Plan Packet must be revised in nsistent
with Mr. Oliver's memo prior to the plans going to the City Cou il ry
PUD Plan approval.
it process, must approve
3. All recommendations and requirements set out in the m
Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes dated February 22,
of this approval and the Plan Pack must be revise' a m
Anderson's memo prior to the plans going to the .
Plan approval.
4. The Building Soard of Review, as part 0
the landscape plans.
.
5. All signage must meet the requi
district.
lers in the Industrial zoning
6.
7. No outside speaker s
III.
011-11 Property Rezoning at 2548 Douglas Drive
2548 Douglas Drive North
To allow the property to be rezoned to R-2 (Two-Family Residential)
in order to construct two twin homes.
IV. Informal Public Hearing - SU11-07 Minor Subdivision at 2548 Douglas Drive
North .
.
Applicant: Amain Homes, Inc...
Address:
2548 Douglas Drive North
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 28, 2005
Page 6 .
.
Purpose:
To allow the property to be subdivided into four lots in order to
construct two twin homes.
.
Grimes stated that these two agenda items are requests by Amain Homes to rezone and
subdivide the property located at 2548 Douglas Drive North. He stated that the applicant
was before the Planning Commission several months ago with a similar request but that
they withdrew their application when Hennepin County stated that they did not want to
see direct access to this property from Douglas Drive. He stated that si n, the
applicant has acquired the entire property and would like to construct homes
on this property. He referred to the Comprehensive Plan Map and a roperty
is designated low density or less than five units per acre and th s Id
meet that requirement. He said he feels that the owner-occup' in
proposed would be appropriate for this area and a vast imp
now.
Grimes referred to the site plans and pointed out th
back. He stated that these units will produce ap
is plenty of capacity on the streets in that area f
Eck asked if the garages are single stall
garages. Eck asked if there is any par~'
any parking space designated for g
driveways because there is no p
d they are three stall
sts. Grimes said there isn't
would have to park in the
,ne Lake Road or on Douglas Drive.
Waldhauser asked if guest
would depend on if the d .
ong th access driveway. Grimes said that
as a fire lane.
Rasmussen said sh
each unit has a thre
the driveway. e
ere would be an issue with guest parking because
nd there would also be room for three or more cars in
aid he didn't think guest parking would be an issue.
sures that these homes will be owner occupied. Grimes stated
g zero lot lines so that each unit can be sold individually but
nted out.
e price range of the homes. Grimes said he didn't know and
k the applicant.
.
Keysser said he is concerned about adding more impervious surface and how that will
effect the grading and the run-off toward the homes to the east. Eck said that the City
Engineer's report said that shouldn't be a problem. Grimes added that the City Engineer
has said that with proper grading the proposal will work. He stated that the developer will
not be allowed to make any existing drainage conditions worse. Keysser stated that he is
still concerned and not convinced that this development won't make conditions worse.
Grimes stated that this development is not large enough to meet the requirements of the
watershed district for on-site ponding.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 28, 2005
Page 7
Rasmussen asked if this development will have to have curb and gutter. Grimes said no.
Waldhauser asked if the City knows what the homeowners to the east are experiencing
regarding drainage.
Grimes stated there is some minor ponding of water near the east property line, but all he
can do is go by what the City Engineer has said. Eck stated that there are no neighbors
present at this meeting so that tells him something.
Greg Comer and Walt Donnay, Amain Homes, Applicants, referred to th
explained that these proposed twin homes are going to be sold as si
approximately $339,000 per unit. Comer stated that each until will
entrances on the side and private decks. Donnay added that the
a little bit for privacy.
ggered
Keysser asked the applicants if there will be a homeowner's
there will be an association to handle maintenance is
Keysser opened the public hearing.
Kathy Bell, 2520 Douglas Drive North, state
south of the proposed development. She
will increase her property value. She s
the street are real good about lettin
Jim Bell, 2520 Douglas Drive N
property every spring, but t
drainage.
t ey have severe run-off across their
think t is proposal will change much as far as
ak, Keysser closed the public hearing.
Waldhauser st
currently locat
his proposal would be an improvement over what is
an appropriate property for rezoning to R-2.
M
seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to recommend
e property located at 2548 Douglas Drive North to be rezoned to R-2
idential) in order to construct two twin homes.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval to allow the property to be subdivided into four lots in order to
construct two twin homes with the following conditions:
1. The final plat will be consistent with the preliminary plat of Amain Addition prepared
. by RLK and dated 2/11/05.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 28, 2005
Page 8
2. The comments in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes,
Director of Planning and Development, dated March 23, 2005, shall become a part
of this approval.
3. A park dedication fee shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat by the City
council. The amount of the park dedication fee shall be determined prior to final plat
approval by the City Council upon recommendation by staff.
4. The final form of the "Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Co
be submitted for approval by the City Attorney prior to approval of
cost of review of the "Declaration" shall be paid by Amain.
-Short Recess-
V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelo
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and othe eti
Keysser summarized the ideas discussed at thei
meeting and asked Grimes what they should be
neighborhoods. Grimes said he would start
identified their neighborhoods.
held before this
ing i entifying
us cities and how they
VI. Other Business
Keysser reminded the Com
1-394 Corridor Study on
t there is a kick-off meeting planned for the
VII.
The meeting w
.."'.....,~.\
.
.
.
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
April 7, 2005
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Informal Public Hearing-Preliminary Plan of Development for
Golden Meadows Addition, PUD No. 89, Amendment No.1-SVK
Development, Applicant
Subject:
BACKGROUND
At the October 2,2001 City Council meeting, the Council approved the General Plan of
Development for Golden Meadows Addition, PUD No. 89. The PUD allows for the
construction of six single-family homes. An existing single-family home and an existing
duplex were also made a part of the PUD. The PUD divided the 2.73 acre parcel of
property into 9 lots. Six of the lots are for new single-family home construction (Lots 1,
2,3,6,8, and 9, Block 1). These lots all front on new Valders Ct. Two new single-family
homes have been constructed on Lot 2 and Lot 6. The remaining lots on the cul-de-sac
are vacant and continue to be marketed. Lot 7, Block 1 is the location of a single-family
home that was moved to that location prior to the approval of PUD No. 89. It has access
from Winnetka Ave. The existing duplex that was constructed in 1981 is located on Lots
4 and 5 and has access only from Winnetka Ave. The duplex is owned and maintained
by SVK. The duplex is the subject of this PUD amendment.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
SVK has now applied for an amendment to PUD No. 89 that would allow the existing
duplex located on Lots 5 and 6 to be used as a three-unit structure. This would be
accomplished by converting the lower level of the 2205 Winnetka Ave. side into a two-
bedroom apartment which would be about 1,120 sq. ft. in area. Access to this unit would
be from the existing ground level entry next to the southernmost garage. There would
also be access to the garage from the interior of the lower unit. Access to the unit above
would be from the existing second level entrance along Winnetka Ave. and from inside
the garage area. The unit above would be about 1,950 sq. ft. in area with a loft. There
are three bedrooms in this unit. The third unit (north unit) is addressed as 2209
Winnetka Ave. The size of this unit would not change. It is about 1,740 sq. ft. on two
levels with two bedrooms.
1
.. ,~
.
.
.
t
The entire building has garage space of about 1,000 sq. ft. in area. There are three
garage doors on the Winnetka Ave. side. The garages run the full 30 ft. of width of the
structure. It may be possible to get two small cars in each garage stall front to back or
one larger car. If there is only one car in each garage unit, there is a large space for
storage. Each of the units is dedicated one of the garage stalls.
PUD QUALIFICATION
In 2001, the City Council approved the Golden Meadows, PUD No. 89. The PUD may
be amended if it meets the standards and guidelines for a PUDas outlined in the PUD
chapter. Staff has reviewed the standards and guidelines and determined that it meets
to standards and guidelines and, therefore, can go forward for amendment (This
amendment came close to qualifying as a minor amendment under the new PUD
chapter. The request met all the requirements for a minor amendment except that the
number of units in the PUD increased by more than 5%. In this case the number of units
in the development would increase by 11 %. The minor amendment process requires
only approval by the City Council by a simple majority vote.)
The information submitted by SVK is complete and allows for review to go forward.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Since there will be no outside changes to the structure at 2205-09 Winnetka Ave. as a
result of the PUD amendment, the concerns related to this change from a two-family to
a three-family building are limited to a couple of issues. They are as follows:
1. Consistency with General Land Use Plan and Zoninq- The property is designated
on the General Land Use Plan for Low Density Residential uses (less than 5 units
per acre). With the addition of one residential unit, PUD No. 89 would increase its
density from about 3.25 units per acre to about 3.66 units per acre (9 units to 10
units on 2.73 acres). The zoning of the property is R-2 (two-family) residential. This
zoning is the one most consistent with the density found in the Golden Meadows
development.
2. Traffic-All traffic to the 2205-09 Winnetka Ave. structure must enter from the
driveway off Winnetka Ave. There is no vehicle access from Valders Ct Total
number of trips to this building should be in the range of 30 trips per day. This is not
an ideal location forgetting in and out of the garages. I n order to improve access the
Planning Commission may want to consider a second turnaround to allow cars to
pull forward into Winnetka Ave.
3. Parkinq-If the third unit is approved, there would be two parking spaces per unit-
one inside the garage and one in the driveway. This is the issue that concerns the
staff the most Staff recommends that the City require that an additional parking stall
and turnaround be constructed adjacent to the north side of the driveway and one
additional parking space be constructed south of the driveway. This would mean that
there would be a turnaround space on both the north and south side of the driveway
and two additional parking spaces. SVK should also limit the number of cars and
vehicles stored on site to six-two for each unit. This can be done through the rental
agreement.
2
. .
.
.
.
(
4. Chanae to Plat of PUD No. 89- The plat of PUD No. 89 indicates that there are two
lots for the existing duplex (Lots 4 and 5). The existing 'lot line runs through the
middle oUhe duplex but it is not along a common wall. (The south unit on the upper
level is 65 ft. long and extends over the lot line between Lots 4 and 5.) This lot line
should be removed if SVK intends to rent all three of the units in the building. If SVK
wants to sell each of. the units, this would have to be done by a condominium plat.
Condominium plats are not controlled by the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed amendment to PUD No. 89 is relatively minor. It does not require the
expansion of the structure, only interior changes. However, it does bring one additional
family into the structure that will cause the need for more parking and increase the
number of trips using the driveway onto Winnetka Ave., a minor arterial street. Each unit
would have two spaces-one inside and one outside. Staff does not believe that is
enough due to its location on Winnetka Ave. Parking is never allowed on Winnetka Ave.
and parking will be limited on Valders Ct. once all the homes are constructed. Staff
recommends that two more parking spaces be created as shown on the attached plans
and that the rental agreement between the renters and SVK state that there can be no
more than two cars per unit. Also, there must be a turnaround on both the north and
south side of the driveway that is not used for parking. (Photos indicate that the current
turnaround is used for parking.) The building is certainly large enough for the three units
and will provide another relatively affordable two-bedroom unit in Golden VaHey.
If the additional parking and turnarounds can be constructed and a limitation placed on
the number of cars per unit (no more than two), staffbelieves that the additional two
bedroom unit should have relatively minor effect on the area and approval is
recommended.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
PUD Permit dated October 2,2001 (3 pages)
Existing entrance and driveway plan (1 page)
Proposed Lower Level Improvements (1 page)
Suggested turnaround and added parking space (1 page)
Photos (12 pages)
Plat Map (1 oversized page)
Site plan dated March 27, 2001 (1 oversized page)
3
,.
(
,# ..,.il
.
.
.
Project Name:
Location:
Legal Description:
Applicant:
Address:
Owner:
Address:
Zoning District:
Permitted Uses:
Components:
Golden Meadows P.U.D. No. 89
City Council Approval: October 2.2001
City of Golden Valley, Minnesota
Use Permit for
Planned Unit Development
Golden Meadows P.U.D. No. 89
South of 23rd Avenue North, between Valders Avenue and
Winnetka Avenue North
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Marimac Addition and Outlot 1,
AndersQn's Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
SVK Development, Inc.
3335 Pennsylvania Avenue North, Crystal, MN 55427
SVK Development, Inc.
3335 Pennsylvania Avenue North, Crystal, MN 55427
Residential
Development shall be limited to not more than 6 new single
family homes, one existing single family home, and one existing
duplex.
A. . Land Use Component:
1. Allowed uses of lots within the development shall be those permitted uses listed for
the Residential zoning district per City Code. Conditional uses shall not be allowed
except by amendment of the PUD permit.
2. For the City's general enforcement purposes, except as otherwise specified in the
terms of the PUD permit each single family housing unit and lot shall be regulated in
accordance with all City Code provisions applicable to single-family homes.
B. Construction
1. Proof of recording, for both the plat and the separate easement document, must be
provided to the City before any construction permits are issued.
.. -oJ)
.
2. An as-built survey shall be completed for each structure as soon as the foundation
is substantially in place. If there is an incomplete match between lot lines and unit
walls, the developer shall either relocate the foundation or request City approval of
a PUD amendment to replat the affected lots. No certificates of occupancy will be
issued for a unit that fails to align with an underlying lot boundary.
3. Except as otherwise specified in the conditions of General Plan approval, all phases
of site development shall be subject to the standards, approvals, fees, and other
requirements that would arise in connection with a similar project outside of a PUD.
4. Development of the site shall be limited to not more than six (6) new single family
housing units, one (1) existing duplex, and one (1) existing single family home per
the approved site plan dated 3/27/01 prepared by All-Metro Development
Consultants and attached to the PUD permit by reference.
5. The landscaping plan prepared by All-Metro Development Consultants and dated
3/27/01 shall be made a part of the approved PUD permit, subject to final review
and approval by the City's Building Board of Review. If the Building Board of
Review requires additional changes to the landscaping plan beyond those indicated
here, such changes shall also be made part of the approved permit in narrative form
or via an amended plan sheet signed and dated by the City's Chief Building Official.
The developer shall provide a landscaping performance.bol1aTnlhe amounland for
the period of time established by the Building"BOard of Review.
. C. Utilities and GradinQ
1. Before any grading or utility permits are issued, the developer shall provide the City
with acceptable plans; information, and other submittals as identified in all points of
the "Utilities" and "Grading and Erosion Control" sections of the Engineering
Department's General Plan of Development review memo dated April 12, 2001 and
attached to the PUD permit by reference.
2. During and after construction, the developer shall comply with all instructions
outlined in-the "Utilities" and "Grading and Erosion Control" sections of the
Engineering Department's General Plan of Development review memo dated April
12,2001.
D. Circulation Component:
1. Individual units shall be addressed, per a system established by the City Inspections
Department; addresses of all units shall be plainly visible from the street.
2. A separate document shall be prepared and recorded with the plat by the
developer, granting a permanent easement for a biking or walking path between lots
5 and 6 running from the cul-de-sac to Winnetka Avenue North.
.
. ...
.
.'
.
It is hereby understood and agreed that this Use Permit is a part of the City Council
approval granted on October 2,2001. Any changes to the P.U.D. Permit for Golden
Meadows P.U.D. No. 89 shall require an amendment.
Witness:
Y/
/
-'/
/.
" L
By:
Title:
Date:
SVK DEVELOPMENT, INC.
\: .
.';.... . f\ \, ,::=--.:..._
. ) .,.,,-.. \( ,.
,.,~-"._,,,.,, .,------.-,~ "'-.-.,........----"..../
\ \
\.. 1. .',-..
..:. ~ 2;-_,.
s~
/
i
,/ G,./ (), --2--..
CiTY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
I I' 'I
. (--"Z- (" \ \(,- 1/
Wltness:(--Y C;,t, \\ ~\.~
'--- .
By:
Date:
",-/) \r'. I
. r". \[\' 'JIr-' .
! I ,,- \, \ , ,
Witnest;T'. f&'\ \, \1< /1 .
By:
Date:
- / / ,'\
. )/)/ /{),~.
J '/' 'Ii
, /1, !i
!tl'~/tt~//~n/~--
Wiliiam Sl1ores, City Manager
, ! ' \
7//;/ {)~j
;" !
1 .
Warning: This permit does not exempt you from all other City Code provisions,
regulations and ordinances.
,
I
I
, .----------
_.--
90
I
I
I
.
I
I
t~ I
I~ I
('-l .
.
'.
,
15'"
'-') - '.....-;
l'" ..
-
I
!='l
. 1
n..p'
.~r~
N
~
~ ,
.#
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
..~ V I
\
~. L/ \..."V \...,. I V jJ I I I \...,. I I \..
1 "==20'
...,
!}
,. .......
->-
90
_OJ!, r1i >
""
.>ff/I ...
--
.--
-
4
'"
~
8J96 <t,. F_
Lower level ~
entrance to
two story
"";d.n'12209
w
..
o
o
...
o
o
.
8
z
Existing
driveway
+~--
BUILDiNG
EXIST.
DWY.
Entrance to ~
lower level
':~:: 5
';71 1, i '0 r
Entrance t:~
upper level
residence
'0
5 I
o
...
o
c
...
~
I-
(0
f'
t.
-'1(J
to)
"''::CAS
~ERS
ill
>
<C
o
..Y
-+--'
ill
C
C'
~
f · '",At"
'J
.
.
.
.
~'a;;,; :'"
~.~, ..:....~. ~;I~
.~. ... .
~.':.~
,;~.,i...
"i ~~..\;. .~..~,.
.
'.:.
.. ... ,~.
,T;~ .~.._~
: ~ ;.'~. ,;fi~~~"
~~. t" 1'.F~i:~~
. '..~ ,J'tt:i-
1/' ,- ., '~'~"""'i'"
~ . ~''':.~~:J,.
< ,~~~~~~
. r:; ~~'i<~ :~.:"...!~..
.... ~~..~:,.: r;:-;
. "",;-"';1" Ii ."
r GARAGe AREA' .... . '. "
. <
~ ....
11 .. .....:.:
. .
,..
. " :<'.' '.~ ..' i:~:~: '::~';f
>y. ,." .' :;'~ ..dJl
; ;' : .'''.. -;; . ~." '/~ I '.. .~~
. .' .! .~.. ", " ..'!' ...or....., tri:,
1 .. ,-...... ,!-"'..". ~4 ~ '. '\! "~",:,~~:.
, .,... ..' .,,~~.
~ ,',,' :-l'-;t:'-';-";c.,
'''.: ,. . ,~;' : ~;.2:~i~
, ~".,~ Ij" 'Iltrf--" ~
'.' .. ',~" :;-}'~!'~~
.....IF.~~
t ,I
"") -
.. 4~~::~d:'
EXlSJ'l'lG: WALL
... . ~~
,. ~~~~~.
:'it~ "( :' ;1
..,
SVK DEVElOP1'\4ENT INC.
2205 WINNETKA A VEbJUE
-. ~PROPOSED LOWER. L~EL 1MPROVEMENTS
...' .
,
~ \,.,' .
S"CAr ,,-'. ...'. '.5'
'...:c', "f.
"';';'
..
.:- ..
....t
'. .:.J-;.'..... ','
. ....,
"... "'.~,
l,I20 S.F.
-- (;
i'\ ,
L)C
j-"""
\_/
1.
l_
-',
/-')
/
./
,-',\
f \
~j
:1lcr. t4..~:: ~l'f~,:,*ffi,~;; b~- ~~~;~ ~:, .. t~. ~( ~,
- .,.
~1~,:~~i t$i.f'
,~ ~,
f
1.
"'5
~~
-~-'
if". ~
~ ~
..:J '-J $
,~~ ~
~~-F-
ill
>
<(
t-ntrcnce
1.1.)-_.....
i
I
,
[
!
i
~
o
-Y.
-+-'
ill
C
c
5:
2209
~
~__E;(jsting
// driveway
~.
i
i
~;
~
2205
<"'. I l '
,0 l [--I
..-/ [ I ,'C r~1
, " N ,,-, ~,: !
'-I.:t:..~ ,'d
. . -illIIrfI ~ ~ 0>i
/~' --'
to ------/
tower level
residence
~
r
~
Entrance
i
l:pper i'fiVei
residence
~,
+;;-. ttJ~u
"""r", ~ ,,~t{.c
.
'"
.
.
.
It " I
.
.
.
. ....~. t
.
.
.
>> -, '"
.
.
.
-"
I,
.
.
.
..
.
~
...
....
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
--~/
I I
LLJ
/ '\
\.....-/
"A'"
<.
-l.....
[l~
u~
I I
LLj
f--
-7
L-_
( r
V )
-7
L_
c
(' ')
'-.-.
/ r
l/ )
---;:,.
~
.
'"
"
"
"
"
"
r-
C.
~:
50
..;:
Llj
:)
-,
<-
Ld
<(
o
o
ci
"
w
.
o
o
b
o
b
o
z
L=31 ,58
-----?R=20,29
/ 1l.=89'10'52"
I
I
g VALDERS
/
/
I
I
N89'10'52"W 136,00
U)
D.:::
LIJ
D
<(
50
T
,
I,'
"
^
n
1-1
,-
c.
r,
\7
^
,.,
^,
, ,
, ,
n
T'
,
"
,"
'"
I.J
c-
,:
A;'
'"
v
o
/\~ ' C'
'-'
589'11'17"E 304.14
74.28
'"
I.J
68.70
84.52
89.84
/
r .,..
/ I
/
/
'I'
I I
o
/
/
/\:I~ r-. DRAINAGE AND...J/
';: I l.lTILITY EASEMENT
I I
:gl, I N84'07'43'E 90.7.2_---,....
~L,L---------
:1:1
~:
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
'"
'"
,.:
'"
/
ORAINAGE AND -/ /
/ r- UTILITY EASEMENT
/
/
/
c
4
v ,
v ,
w
.
o
o
b
o
b
o
z
1
SB9'10'52"E
90.97
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
01
"II
~L-11
20 I
: I I
20:!J1 I
IL--------------'
N89"12'32'E on ~
92.11 -
2
5
l!.l
S~
~!!il
,,,
..J<l
o
o
ci
co
I \ ~
I :.." \ ~ 11- _______~~~_
ii' ~ '!iI-,. ,~<&., _/~----- *,
'II' '\ " "'b'b (/ I .
-W\\ \~ \ :
, '- ,I", ,. \ I
~-lo'-,~ ", 'g~1 I
....l~ 1-., ......,..... ). oi~ I I
~,,; I ,,"'...... _-,1 It)iD I
,." 11iJ4,,'9.Q.t ", --;:;N < 1"'1 6 I
'1),. I "<~". "'I--. __;;1"'-S~ ~I II
I -v '.t. I ),. ~ . ~...,. I
I v"'1i~./..- ,-/ ,~ / I 1 : s
I ...~g"~o.~ /< -...",./ I I N
I ~ ~... ~...-\- 1> <.. ..
I \..-~.,...) I ....., I ....
I b.~\.g' I / /'- .....
I / / "
I 9' / I "
1 I l.94.57 //'" ~
1 / _ A=108"21'49" _-- ..... q/';:-.,.
I / ------- '..... 4t~,
I I~ ~ ..... "~
I /~. " ..;q"
I I..... --, ,- -I-
I ^'*' "".... I
I I.!':- /, ......, .......... I
I (~ I 8 I .... '..... I
I ~ / . ri----------------.:~ '--I
I 10 , I 95.98 19.03
I " I N9D'OO'OO"E 114.99
I / I I r---------------------l
I " I", 1..\ I
I I / 1-: I 0 \" I
20 I 'I lill I \ I
L___...J' L I 81 I
43.90 -----------1JS:26-----------"\~ fjll r; I
- I
N89'10'52"W 182,16 Q It) ~I ~- 7 1 II!
p.. .... .01 I 16
Ji 81 I
"" 121 I
LU l!!1 I
. I I
o I I
i ~---------~~OO-------~~~~~~
z
w
.
o
o
b
o
b
o
z
"
\.'
,
r-
('
.J
Nair 1 O'20"W 122.00
,
r-
-,
\',
"
J..)
'"
"-
\
L-.___.______
-_J
I
c>
"
.,
0>
si
'"
'"
~
~
~
~~
~:g
I')
~~
~g
~~
~U)
~
J
I
I
I
I
I
6t
I
o
-,
<-
o
i:L
>~,*":
.
GOLDEN MEADOWS
PUD NO. 89
>
.>
I J
L.L.J
:>
I I
U.J
'. ;'
_':L
<J
~
0 I --;7
L_
() ~)
~-
--
<q I 1--
-.,...-
.--
0-J . --."
v LJ
0:::
H 05 I C:J
L,JI .-- <c
.--
<C ~
-,I 0 I 1 I
<- f'0 LU
I I
U LU
-. w '-r.'
-.
(f) L~._
lL. >--
0 I f--
w
Z
...J
f-
(f)
<(
w
6d l
~.
-7
L-._
o
Ll
f--
_.-
o (('
,-......v
L---J ~)
<( 1
I
LJJ
( '\
-J
<..{
Ct/
",: (1 C""
LL ..--.J
L\...' -......,
..L _.J
N ~. .'"
i ) u_
I I
U-l
f--
.
~ 0 ~ w
~ 'I 1
SCALE IN FEET
o DENOTES. 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRON PIPE SET
WITH CAP STAMPED RLS NO. 12254
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
ARE SHOWN THUS:
~
r.J..
1
L__:t_
589'10'52"E 116.01
-I
I
\
'"
--'-.-,-.-.-.,.-
.....
'Of'
ail /
I') ..........,~~0,~~0~~??~a.c-_4 ..
20... I 1_ 'r - - - ~~.!~'~J't
~~ : B r~ L' 0'--:'618
<: I 1-
l'5~ I Il"
~~ I I~ I
~:J I Ill! I
05 I 1 Ig I
'" I Iz I
/if I I I
<:> I I I
5~ : : :
,- I ,-"Z6.68.',3" I I
120 1_-7'~"~OO I I
I ...'l I~" . I I
11/" '/-., I I ".
I" I I ,,\.c;
-,_ I I ~~~
.. .........J 19iD,:~
I I 6..06 l ~~O'
I I % ' ^'
COURT I I ~. ", 1'__
-r---I --- ;,t9~ ~~.x'
I I ~8.01 .9$
I I ,_
I I .~; ,'}
I I -,
,
;;;
I
~ I LrJ
:)
-,
~-
L,J
:>
<(
1--
[~)
LO
I
I
____.J
BEING 6 FEET IN WlDTH, UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED, AND ADJOINING
LOT LINES, AND BEING 10 FEET IN
WIDTH, AND ADJOINING RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINES. AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT.
'.
A
ALL-METRO
DEVELOPIlEJoIT CONSULTANTS. P.A.
SURVEYING. ENGIm:ERlNG . srrE PLANNING
SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS
.
.
.
'f"
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
April 7, 2005
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
1-394 Corridor Study-Involvement by City Council and Planning
Commission
A copy of the schedule for the first part of the 1-394 Corridor Study is attached. Staff wants to
get it to you in order for you to get these important dates on your calendar. The first important
date is the Kick-Off Presentation by URS, Inc., consultant for the study. This meeting will be a
part of the Planning Commission agenda that night. It will be televised. The only other agenda
items that evening are the approval of minutes and appointing two members of the Planning
Commission as members of the 1-394 Advisory Group (four members total--two from the
Commission and two City Council members). The purpose of the Advisory Group is to meet
monthly during the study period to provide advice on major decisions related to the study.
The other date I want to highlight is the Mobile Tour scheduled for Monday, May 2. It will tour
sites in the metro area and give examples of other developments along important corridors. It
is always helpful to use the experience of others.
.'
.
.
.
1-394 Corridor Study
Involvement by City Council and Planning Commission
Please mark your calendars and plan to be' involved in the following key elements of the
1-394 Corridor Study.
April 25
Kick-Off Presentation at Planning Commission (Joint Meeting
with City Council)- 7 pm
URS will present the existing conditions and an approach to
updating the Comprehensive Plan and considering zoning changes.
Presentation will include outline of public participation opportunities.
April 25
Establish a 4-Member Advisory group (2 each Council & PC)
This group will meet monthly during the study period (May 2005 -
February 2006) to provide advice between meetings and major
decisions by Planning Commission and City Council.
May2
Mobile Tour (5:30-9 pm) - Bus tour starting at City Hall with
box dinners
URS will lead tour of sites that could inform comprehensive
planning decisions in Golden Valley, providing visual images of how
planning choices could affect the corridor.
May9
Speaker Training (6 pm with box dinners) - At City Hall
Staff and URS will prepare a PowerPoint presentation on the study
process to share with interested parties. Over the course of the
study the presentation will be updated with the latest study
information. Neighborhood groups, businesses, churches and local
organizations will be invited to schedule a presentation.
Presentations will be made by a two-member team. Each team will
include a staff member and either a Councilor Planning
Commission Member. Scheduling will be on an as-available basis.
May 21
Golden Valley Arts and Music Festival Table (10 am - 6 pm)
Staffand URS will prepare a visualpreference survey to be shared
with the public at the festival. City Council and Planning
Commissioners will staff the table, explain the study to interested
people and help them complete the survey. There will be 1-2 hour
shifts. This presentation will be carried on for an additional period in
City Hall and will be available on the City Web site.
4-1-05