09-12-05 PC Agenda
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, September 12, 2005
7pm
I. Approval of Minutes
August 22,2005 Planning Commission Meeting
II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision - SU20-04 - 1440 June Avenue
South
Applicant: Dennis & Gloria Dylong
Address: 1440 June Avenue South
Purpose: The Subdivision would create two separate lots in order to keep the
existing home and to construct one new home.
III. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision - SU12-1 0 - 209 Cutacross
Road
Applicant: David Spencer
Address: 209 Cutacross Road
Purpose: The Subdivision would create two separate lots in order to remove
the existing home and construct two new homes.
IV. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - CU111 - 2225 Zenith
Avenue North
Applicant: LoveWorks Early Childhood Academy
Address: 2225 Zenith Avenue North
Purpose: The Conditional Use Permit would allow a child daycare facility to
operate in an 1-1 Institutional zoning district at St. Margaret Mary's
Catholic Church.
-Short Recess-
V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
VI. Other Business
VII. Adjournment
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
.
August 22, 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,
August 22,2005. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Schmidgall and Waldhauser.
Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, Planning Intern
Kristin Gonzales and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissio ackett and
Rasmussen were absent
I. Approval of Minutes
August 8, 2005 Planning Commission and Environm
Meeting
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and mo .
the August 8, 2005 minutes as submitted.
II.
Informal Public Hearing - Final PI
Wirth Business Center
nt - PUD No.1 00 - North
Applicant:
.
Address:
arkway - located on Dahlberg Drive
Purpose:
for the construction of an office condominium
square feet comprised of six buildings, phased
Grimes referre
Dahlberg Driv
Council a ve
meetin
Final PI
site map and stated that it is located at TH 55 and
ena and Room and Board. He stated that the City
inary plans for this development at their June 21, 2005
of approval and now the developer is moving forward with the
t.
Gn
devel
develop
constructed.
at the property is owned by the HRA and is being sold to the
er to build six office condominium buildings in phases. He added that th_e
e doing all of the utilities and parking lots at the time the first building is
Grimes stated that the property to the north will be going into a conservation easement
which will say that it is to remain undeveloped. He stated that staff feels that it is a good
developrnent for the area and that it will complete the North Wirth Redevelopment Area
which started in the late 1970's.
.
Keysserasked who would hold the title to the property in the conservation easement.
Grimes said the developer would own the property.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August26,2005
Page 2
Dale Joel, Capital Growth, stated that they are very excited to be adding to the quality of
the North Wirth Business Park. He said they have been working extensively with the City
to try to accommodate all of the issues. He stated that the architect for the project, Darrell
Andersen, and himself are there to answer any questions. He mentioned that if there is
any concern aboutthe quality of the construction the Commissioners could check out a
project they recently did in Mahtomedi which took first place in the Minnesota Business
Journal for design.
Keysser asked Mr. Joel about the time period for selling all six of the un'
that it depends on the weather, but that they are trying to get the first
fall and expect full build out in less than two years.
Keysser opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no 0
closed the public hearing.
eysser
Cera stated that the proposal seems straightforward a
that were added by the Council.
Syhmidgall stated that they've seen this propos
keep supporting it.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by
the Final Plan of Development for P
following conditions:
ed unanimously to approve
Business Center with the
1. The following plans shal
7/11/05 prepared by t
prepared by the Desi
prepared by Th esig
Paramount Engi .
Engineerin
2. The recom
Grime
3. Th
Mar
4. he pia'
shi~ing
seed
height.
5. The areas along Dahlberg Drive (between the parking lots and the street and east of the
southernmost building pad) shall have sod laid at the same time as the landscaping is
done around the first building.
6. The area north ofthe railroad tracks shall be placed in a conservation easement with the
City of Golden Valley. Development of the area north of the tracks may only occur with
an amendment to the PUD and amendment to the conservation easement.
rt of this Final Plan approval: Site Plan dated
ership; Landscape Plan dated 7/11/05 and
sip, . ilding Elevation Sheet dated 7/11/05 and
rship; Grading Plan dated 7/29/05 and prepared by
tility Plan dated 8/02/05 and prepared by Paramount
o In the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark
, 2005 shall become a part of these recommendations
ound in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to
e ugust 15, 2005 shall become a part of these recommendations.
d sod indicated on the Landscape Plan shall be completed around each
struction of the building. Prior to construction of the buildings, all areas
ed with at seed mix acceptable to the City Engineer. The area that is
I be maintained in a manner as to not allow the growth to exceed 8 inches in
1-
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 26, 2005
Page 3
.
III.
Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision - SU09-08 - Lawn Terrace
Estates
Applicant: Peter Knaeble
Address: 25 Lawn Terrace
Purpose: The Subdivision would create five separate lots in order to keep the
existing home and to construct four new homes.
.
Gonzales referred to the property on a site map and stated that it is I
of Lawn Terrace and Glenwood Avenue. She explained that the Ii
divide the one existing lot into five lots with one of them contai the
said all lots will have access from Lawn Terrace and Lot 1 .
and there will be an easement with Lot 2 and Lot 3 for acces
stated that eac~ lot is over.the minimum requireme~tsi[ are
each new lot will have a rain garden and, as stated In Je;
agreements with the future homeowners to main
Keysser asked if the rain garden agreements w
deeds. Grimes said that the City will requ'
future property owners before the final
part of the homeowner's
intenance agreement for all
Keysser asked about the traffic i
concerns ;s traffic during constr
construction parking can be .
that storage of dumpsters.
and would have to be st
s a that one of the neighborhood's
at the City Engineer has said that during
side the street on Lawn Terrace. He stated
t, etc. is not allowed on the public right of way
y itself.
concerns about how narrow Lawn Terrace is and stated
et reconstruction calendar in 2011. So at this point in
t is concerned about modifying the street now and then
is a serious public safety concern. He added that any changes
Jso have to be reviewed by Hennepin County. Grimes
er is dedicating 14 feet of right of way which could be used to
in the future.
the definition of "full frontage on a street" and asked where the frontage
is on Lo es explained that the narrowest side of the lot is considered the front and
the frontage on Lot 3 is on Lawn Terrace.
.
Waldhauser asked why tree mitigation is not being required for this proposal. Kristin
referred to the site plan and.discussed some of the trees that will be removed. Keysser
stated that based on information given at the neighborhood meeting there are currently
107 trees on thesite, the developer will be cutting down approximately 33 and some new
treeswill beplanted. Grimes explained that the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance allows
the removal of up to 30% of the trees without requiring mitigation.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 26, 2005
Page 4
. Waldhauser referred to the rain gardens and asked if there are standards as to how much
run-off they are required to capture. Gonzales stated that Lot 3 won't require a rain
garden because it is an existing home. Grimes stated that the rain garden plans have
been reviewed by a consultant and will still have to be reviewed by the Bassett Creek
Watershed Commission to make sure they will meet all of their requirements and best
management practices. He said that the City will be wprking with the developer on a lot by
lot basis to ensure that the rain gardens work.
.
Knaeble stated that the site is 2.27 acre
will be given up to accommodate any f
that the lots will range in size from
average lot size in this project is
this zoning district is 10,000 sq
Keysser asked if an environmental manhole would be an option for this.
said he thinks the rain gardens are a better choice because this is a
watershed district. Cera added that from an environmental standp . t
be the best option.
. t. Grimes
n of the
would
Peter Knaeble, Applicant, stated that he has been a residen
years. He stated that they have been working with staff to de
with the neighborhood, exceed the standards for the 'den
~ fT'I~ir\rity Of th~ tr~~s on th~ c:it~ ~ndprec:~n/~ th~ ~ .
..... 'I n."'J'-" . . . '-I .""". ....,"" ... _ _...""",.""" I I' ___.. _.., ,_
custom designed rain gardens will more than ad
generated by this project.
r15
t would fit in
trict, preserve
14 feet of right of way that
wn Terrace. He explained
o over 25,800 square feet. The
et and the minimum lot size required for
Knaeble referred to the s'
Terrace. The driveway 0
share a driveway r r th
wed that all driveways will have access on Lawn
e on Lot 3 and the proposed home on Lot 1 will
to request driveway access on Glenwood.
Knaeble discu
significant and
surveyed.
be sav
Jess tha
ation Ordinance and stated that the City requires that
e surveyed and that not every tree needs to be
t they surveyed 107 trees and of those, 74 of those trees will
y 33 trees will be removed. However, he thinks there will be
ed once the project is finished.
storm water management and discussed the perk tests done on the
e said that the rain gardens were designed for each lot specifically
accordin e perk test results and that they've reviewed their project, the perk test
results and drainage with the City Engineer and the City's consulting engineers and they
have preliminarily approved their rain garden designs. He added that they looked at
putting a pond on the site, but it would have eliminated a substantial portion of the
wooded area on Lots 4 and 5. Knaeble referred to the existing power lines that serve the
area and stated that they have had discussions with Excel about redesigning a portion of
their line and putting some of the wires underground.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August26,2005
Page 5
. Knaeble stated that he held a neighborhood meeting and discussed a list of issues that
came up as a result such as: traffic, drainage, home values and styles, electrical
problems in the neighborhood, tree removal and restrictive covenants.
Knaeble stated that they are proposing to have one or two different builders build the
homes and that the homes on Lots 4 & 5 would be $700,000 or more and the homes on
Lots 1 & 2 would be approximately $500,000 - $600,000 or more. He stated that those
values exceed the average value of the existing homes in the neighborhood so they are
not anticipating an adverse effect in property values in the area. He stat t he has
talked to Excel about the existing electrical problems in the neighbor y've
stated that this proposal won't make those existing conditions any 0
.
Knaeble referred to the tree preservation plan and said that it
40% of the trees on the property could be removed without
under that limit.
Knaeb10 roferre d to "he reque~" regard. InN "llrlrlinN re
.'-' .'-','-', "I''''' Iv ~...'-" II~ UUUIII~
thinks it is a good idea and he is looking into it
way to address the maintenance of the rain gar
Cera asked if the purchase agreement i
said yes.
at being approved. Knaeble
Cera asked Knaeble to talk more
mentioned. Knaeble stated that
outages.
ical problems that the neighborhood
ve said they experience frequent power
Keysser asked how man
planting will be don t
probably be plantin
said that the b .
provide screen
south.
s oing to be planted. Knaeble said thatthe tree
rs as the new homes are built, but that they will
es on Lot 3 when they remodel the existing home. He
,Iy plant approximately 5 to 10 trees per lot in order to
a Avenue, between the new homes and the homes to the
I urn level of tree planting could be added to the restrictive
said yes.
the length of the sanitary sewer line on Lot 1. Knaeble referred to the
site plan xplained that they were all designed to City standards and addressed Jeff
Oliver's concerns.
Keysser reiterated that no construction equipment or dumpsters would be able to park on
the street. Knaeble agreed.
.
Keysser said another concern of his is limiting construction worker parking as well and
asked that the parking be prohibited on the first 30 to 40 feet on Lawn Terrace south of
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 26, 2005
Page 6
Glenwood Avenue because it makes the entrance to Lawn Terrace difficult to drive
through when there are cars parked there.
Knaeble asked if that is a. Public Works signage proposal. Grimes explained that the City
Council makes all decisions regarding parking on the streets and that they could take a
recommendation from the Public Works Director that would allow parking on only one
side of Lawn Terrace. Keysser said there are two separate issues, one is restricting
parking to one side of the street and the other is restricting parking completely for the first
30 feet on Lawn Terrace. Knaeble said current State law prohibits parki . in 30 feet
of an intersection.
Keysser asked if there was going to be a homeowners associati
proposal is to have restrictive covenants which would be filed
with maintenance agreements for the rain gardens. .
Cera asked who enforces the covenants. Grimes said .
C!"hrli\liC!'lon anrl th-:3tsnmet'lmoC! the f'it\l 'IS made a n-:3
~\oAI""UIV''''' I II"",. "'I""''' v. .. """"""'~1. ..
agreements. Knaeble said. that ultimately it's the
Keysser opened the public hearing.
Brian Andersen, 5160 Colonial Drive, S
gardens. He said the rain gardens
driveway and asked who is resp
fail. He said that Grimes said th
what happens with them. G .
Golden Valley but they h
make sure they work, the
Water Managemen omm
environmentally the
they are appro d b
added that the
impact on
is envir:
rain gar
with this proposal is the rain
Id be located 10 feet above his
eway gets washed out if the rain gardens
e experimental and he wants to see
that rain gardens are a fairly new concept in
to work in other areas. He said that in order to
h d to provide soil tests and the Bassett Creek
ill have to approve them. Andersen said
t asked what happens if they don't work. Grimes said if
d District and the City Engineers, they will work. He
ve a drainage system that is going to have a negative
erty owner. Andersen said that every argument he has heard
he property in this proposal is going to be draining into these
e his property
happens with drainage currently. Andersen it is a problem currently
going to be more drainage coming toward that area. He said he is
worried ncreased drainage and who is responsible if his driveway washes out.
Grimes stated that there are engineered drawings showing that will not happen. He added
that systems can not be designed for 500 year storms. Grimes suggested Andersen
speak to the developer's civil engineer or City's engineer to get a better understanding of
how the rain gardens work. Keysser added that rain gardens are somewhat new to
Golden Valley, but they are not new to the industry. Andersen said it seems to him that if
Golden Valley approves this then they will have some responsibility.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August26,2005
Page 7
.
Andersen asked what happens to the rain gardens in the winter. Grimes asked where the
water goes now. Andersen said it goes down his driveway and into the pond along
Highway 100. Grimes asked if water gets into his house. Andersen said no.
Waldhauser said that part of the design of the rain gardens is to direct where the overflow
goes and that some of the water would go out to Glenwood. Grimes said eventually it all
flows to the pond and it is not going to endanger any houses. Andersen said it does
endanger his driveway though.
, stated that invariably in any real estate development
enerally absorbs the benefits and the neighborhood
would like to ask the City to minimize the headaches
n them. He said he would like the City to insist that off
and activities related to the construction be restricted to the
aid that the modifications to Lawn Terrace currently scheduled
ac erated and done before any construction begins. He said there
I of development in that area of Golden Valley and that traffic has
n ood and Lawn Terrace and nothing has been done to make that
r. He said currently Glenwood has two lanes on it and it should have
three to or a left turn lane and four way stop signs should be installed to allow for
safer entering and exiting on Lawn Terrace. He asked the City to work with Excel Energy
to upgrade the problematic electrical service to the area which will be exacerbated by this
proposal.
Dr. Arnold Leonard, 5212 Colonial Drive, stated he is also concerned
the area and that there was a near drowning in a pond that used to
neighborhood, but has since been abandoned. He said he has b.
gardens because the whole area is clay which retains the wat
are taken out the run-off is going to be stagnant. He said th
taken in a dry period and the only thing he thinks would solv
culvert were installed along the property line with Mr. ers
has cause to be concerned about this because it is
second concern is the traffic and that he has cal
help to open up Highway 100 going east on 1-3
homes adding to the traffic iUs also from th Te
the street and another large building goi
going to change and more and more p
he is concerned about the children .
through if the traffic pattern is po
that they have power outages a
have had dangerous situati
with Excel to improve th
n
y trees
s in th rea were
oblem is if a
r. Andersen
area. He said his
ould like the City's
is no only.these proposed
partments going in down
aid the traffic patterns are
e through the area. He said
bility of emergency vehicles to get
hird concern is the electrical factor and
.d the transformers are so old and they
catch on fire. He said the City has to coordinate
ges in the area.
.
Alan Nadosy, 5121
project of this kind,
.
Nancy S, 5301 Glenwood Avenue, asked how the developer is going to handle the slopes
and level the land to get a flat surface to build houses on.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 26, 2005
Page 8
She asked if the restrictive covenants are completely up to Mr. Knaeble. Keysser said
yes, the covenants would be written by Mr. Knaeble. B said that when the Laurel Terrace
apartments were approved they were only supposed to take out 40% of the trees but they
took out 95% of the trees and there are only 3 trees left. She said she is concerned about
compromises having to be made down the line that weren't initially proposed. She
referred to people using the street as a park-and-ride location and asked if there is going
to be any development with the bus stop across from Golden Valley Lutheran Church.
Grimes stated that the Church owns that property and he thinks their plan is to use it for
parking. B asked why there isn't any encouragement for people to use t stop down
the street. She said she shares the concerns about the clay soil and lIy
important that the soil conditions are the same in wet weather as it p dry
weather.
Vicky Klaers, representing her parents who live at 40 Lawn
wished to speak to the aesthetic perspective of this project.
being proposed will have beautiful back yards and vie but
has a beautiful front view of trees and nature and stu~
losing their view. She said this is a unique piece
Terrace until now. It was a well kept secret and
said she, and her parents, worry about the u
their property when Lawn Terrace is rec
32 feet of right of way for Lawn Terrac
- He said he doesn't know how much
reconstructed.
ted th she
houses
parents' house
Qnts ~rQ Ilnc;:,Qt ~h(,\Ilt
"",-,.. , ....... "" '-'It."",,,,,,,.. .........,""...."
knew about Lawn
it to stay that way. She
f land that will be taken from
tated that right now, there is
Ity has 60 feet of right of way.
ded when the street is
Cera asked how wide a nor
rimes said it varies from street to street.
City's ordinance regarding the trees, but if the
s to take out are the 65-foot or higher trees currently on
to change the character of the land. She said she has
beauty of the existing houses and that the people
e to be losing their right to have this beautiful area across
sked what the City's policy is regarding shared driveways.
olicies against shared driveways. Klaers asked if there is a
e tance between driveways. Grimes said driveways have to be
e property line unless it's a shared driveway. Klaers said she
s proposal exceeds the minimum requirements but the idea is to not
acter of the neighborhood at all.
LeAnne Andersen, 5160 Colonial Drive, referred to Lot 5 and discussed the landscaping.
She stated that it is currently covered by shrubs and smaller trees and they will be losing
that additional landscaping which will also affect the water run-off. She said she is
concerned about the incremental run-off and experimenting with this property. She said
she worries about the perk tests that were done were because they were done with the
landscaping that is currently in place and it is drier. She said she is also worries about the
timing of the proposal and suggested that the Planning Commission table this request
until it receives full Watershed approval and recommendation because there are still
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August26,2005
Page 9
additional drainage concerns that haven't been thought through. She said that a lot of the
information they have learned from Mr. Knaeble has shifted. She said Mr. Knaeble said
that the trees on Lot 5 would be staying and now at this meeting she is hearing that the
landscaping will be up to the individual builders so it feels like more discretion is up to the
builders than they initially thought. She referred to the section of the wires that Excel is
proposing to bury and said that the cost of doing that should go to Mr. Knaeble and this
development and not against her property.
Keysser asked about the timetable regarding Watershed approval. Gri
would have to be approved by the Bassett Creek Watershed Commis
issuance of any building permits.
Cera asked if the Watershed Commission has a Board that h
yes, and explained that the City is in effect the applicant so
with what is being proposed before it goes to the Watershed
Keysser asked if it would be possible to notify the n
meeting. Grimes said he wasn't sure when this i
would be a public meeting.
~atershed
agenda, but that it
Brian Andersen, 5160 Colonial Drive, as
about his property concerns or if they
explained that the City has represe
suggested that Mr. Andersen tal
that the City has always said th
negative effect on another
to go over the property,
the Watershed District
mental concerns. Grimes
e Watershed District meetings. He
ineer about his concerns. He reiterated
from a new development can't have a
ter has been going over property, it can continue
sen an existing situation.
Cera added that th
be the venue for Mr.
off shouldn't b
his concern is
the trees
will inc
drain to
mmission deals with erosion control issues so it would
iscuss his concerns. Grimes stated that the rate of run-
e development than before it. Mr. Andersen said that
ns are above his land. He said he is worried that when
s 4 & 5 and there are two new houses and driveways that it
is property. Keysser explained that some of the water will
rntside Drive, expressed concerns about erosion and the amount of
ce being added. Grimes explained that the City will make the best efforts
it can to the erosion and the run-off. Keysser stated thatwith sufficient grading and
planting, erosion shouldn't be a problem.
Bill Murtaugh, 5100 Colonial Drive, asked the Planning Commissioners if they are all
property owners in Golden Valley. He said he was there to support his neighbors and
their concerns. He said he doesn't think anybody in their neighborhood is in favor of this
project and asked what say they have. He said Mr. Knaeble is out to make a lot of money
and that there is nothing in it for the residents.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 26, 2005
Page 10
. He said he is speaking on behalf of the people of the community and he hopes that the
City will listen to the neighborhood as much as they are listening to Mr. Knaeble.
Dorothy Nadosy, 5121 Colonial Drive, stated that she is in favor of this project if it can be
done with protecting the water and protecting the electricity and if all of the concerns can
be met it would be a fine addition to the neighborhood. She said the property has beenon
the market for months and has not sold so she thinks they need to be practical.
.
Alan Nadosy, 5121 Colonial Drive, suggested re-opening Turners Cross
Glenwood. He added that the Golden Valley Lutheran Church did ha
lot. Grimes stated that the decision to close Turners Crossroad wa
support of a lot of people in the neighborhood to the south. Key traffic
on Turners Crossroad has dropped over 90%.
Grimes stated that Turners Crossroad used to have 5,000 t
it has about 200 to 300 trips per day until the new apartment
400 to 500 trips.
Terry Tillman, 208 Lawn Terrace, stated that on
development would be to have lots 1, 2 and 3 s
Keysser asked Knaeble what he thinks of t t c
option, but he wanted to allow flexibility f
wants to leave the option of sharing dr"
e the impact of this
ay as well as Lots 4 and 5.
ble said he did look at that
id he likes the idea, but
uilders.
Brian Andersen, 5160 Colonial D .
this neighborhood, there will 18
said that would be an adde
Lawn Terrace there is go'
he said the homes woul
heard $700,000 an ow
$400,000 to $500,0
$500,000 to $ 0,0
the Twin Cities
are mark
eveloper said there were 99 houses in
ent units are added, and Grimes just
s per day. If a fifth of those cars come down
. He stated when he first talked to Mr. Knaeble
o 900,000, then at the neighborhood meeting he
eeting he is hearing that some of the houses will sell for
id the minimum home will price will probably be
o plus. Andersen said $500,000 doesn't buy much in
like to see the values go up. Keysser said home prices
n rrace, said he thinks this plan is a marvelous idea. He said he
omes would begin at $700,000. He said he is very concerned that
sold for $500,000. He said he would like a detailed explanation of a
.
Cera stated he is not an expert on rain gardens, but he does know that they mimic natural
prairie vegetation with very long and deep root systems that carry water down to the
water table, into the. soil system. Waldhauser added that the plants help hold water so it
can evaporate up as well. Grimes stated that Sherry Busse, who is a metro area expert
regarding rain gardens and a landscape architect at Bonestroo has reviewed these plans
to makesure that they will work iJi this situation. Bauer stated that the easiest thing to do
would be to put a culvert under Mr. Andersen's driveway. Andersen said the rain gardens
sound great, but he still has concerns about what happens to them in the winter.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 26; 2005
Page 11
. Nancy 8, 5301 Glenwood Avenue, stated that she researched rain gardens and that they
are meant to be dry. She said she has a hard time believing that people who have
$500,000 to $700,000 are going to want to live at the corner of Glenwood and
Highway 100 so she thinks it is realistic that Mr. Knaeble is lowering the prices. Grimes
said it depends on the market and that many people don't mind living on busy streets
because it is a very convenient location.
Terry Tillman, 208 Lawn Terrace, asked if the rain gardens are going to be breeding
grounds for mosquitoes. Waldhauser said that water has to sit for 7 day. der for
mosquitoes to breed. Cera stated that it will likely be drier than it is n eferred
to the consultant's review and stated that it says infiltration will tak hours
of a rain event.
.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keyss/
Eck said he thinks the neighbors concerns about drain es a
listened to. He said he believes the City will be ve. con
exacerbate the drainage situation by this develo
that if all of the requirements of the ordinances
addressed they have no legal basis for den .
nd should be
t the are not going to
elieves that the fact is
rainage issues are
Waldhauser said she thinks the propo
concerns will be addressed by the r
deeds. She said she can sympat
property for many years, but th
that it is not a dense develo
alternatives could be.
rward and that some of the
attached to the homeowner's
ighbors who have loved looking at this
s rights as well. She said she is pleased
t it is a nice alternative over what some other
Cera said he thinks .
worked out with Mr.
is somewhat c
to enforce the
that is wh
City co
ncept is good. He said he thinks something could be
Mr. Knaeble regarding the drainage issues. He said he
oven ants on the property and the City not being able
t the City can become a signatory on the covenants if
I decides to do. Waldhauser said she thinks it would help if the
n the maintenance of the rain gardens.
at some conditions of approval be added. He said he would like there
ted to one side of Lawn Terrace during construction and no parking of
r materials should be allowed in the street. Construction workers should
park on , off the street. Even after the end of construction there should be a no
parking sign from the corner up to the first driveway on Lawn Terrace. Grimes said he
would talk to the City Engineer about the signage.
.
Cera asked if the no parking on Lawn Terrace should be just in front of the site or the
whole length of Lawn Terrace. Keysser thought parking should be prohibited just in front
of the site.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August26,2005
Page 12
.
Waldhauser said they've heard a lot about parking and traffic issues in that area, none of
which, except restricting parking during construction, have anything to do with the
proposal that is in front of them. This development is not going to aggravate the existing
traffic conditions or have any impact on them. She said she understands the
neighborhood wants to do something about the traffic issues but it is not appropriate to
hold up this development in order to deal with those issues and that is something that
should be brought up outside of this issue.
1.
. 2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Keysser agrees that he doesn't want to hold up the process with these t
as long as they are looking at the area it makes sense to talk about it
the City Engineer's report says that there will only be parking allow. d
street and that nothing will be allowed to be stored on the street In
Keysser said he would talk to the Public Works Department
traffic issues on Lawn Terrace.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Schmidgall and moti
request for a subdivision at 25 Lawn Terrace wit
The recommendations of City Engineer d in his memo dated
August 11, 2005 become a part of th'
Park dedication fees shall be paid a t approval. The fee shall be
determined by the City Council.
The site plans submitted by t d July 7, 2005 shall become a part of
this approval.
The site plans submitte ant are subject to review and comment by
MnDOT and Hennepi
Parking will be restri Lawn Terrace during the construction
process.
There will be no ipment or materials allowed on any right-of-way or on
any street.
-Short Recess-
IV.
sof the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
V.
Advance notice of future agenda items.
.
Grimes stated that staff suggests including the Planning Commissioners in the hearing
notice mailings that are sent to residents 10 days in advance of the public hearings in
order to inform them offuture public hearings further in advance.
Cera asked that they be emailed to the Commissioners.
Minutes ofthe Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 26, 2005
Page 13
. VI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm.
.
.
.
Planning
763-593-S095 I 763-593-S109 (fax)
Date:
September 12, 2005
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Kristin A. Gonzalez, Planning Intern
Subject:
Informal Public H~aring-Preliminary Plat of June Ave Addition 1440 June
Ave 5.- Dennis and Gloria Dylong, Applicants
Dennis and Gloria Dylong are the applicants for the minor subdivision of the proposed June
Ave Addition. The Dylongs plan to subdivide their property into two lots. The existing home will
remain on proposed lot 4A and a new home will be constructed on proposed lot 4B. The
property is located on June Ave S, just north of Douglas Ave in the southeastern corner of the
City.
.
The Dylongs have submitted all the information that is required as part of a preliminary plat.
The plat indicates that both lots exceed the minimum lot area requirement of 10,000 sq. ft. and
the lot width requirement of 100 ft. for a corner lot and 80 ft. for an interior lot. The current size
of 1440 June Ave S. is 26,064 square feet. The newly formed lots will be 12,010 square feet
for Proposed Lot 4A and 14,054 square feet for Proposed Lot 4B.
The current house was constructed in 1986. The property is currently zoned Residential (R-1
single-family) and is guided on the General Land Use Plan for Low Density uses. The area
around the lot is also zoned single-family Residential.
Factors for Consideration and Approval
Considerations for approving or denying minor subdivisions are set out in the Subdivision
Code, Section 12.50, Subd. 3. Staff findings on each of the nine points are as follows:
1. Proposed lots must meet requirements of the applicable zoning district. As stated
above, each of the two lots in the proposed subdivision exceed the minimum lot and width
size requirements for the Residential zoning district. Both lots will have full frontage on a
public street.
. 2.
Minor subdivisions may be denied upon the City Engineer's determination that
steep slopes or excessive wetness encumbers the buildable portion of the
resulting new lot.
.
.
.
City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, has written a memodated September 6,2005 regarding
this subdivision. Mr. Oliver and the applicant have worked out the drainageissues on the
property by proposing a rain garden.
3. Minor subdivision may be denied if public sewer and water connections are not
directly accessible to each proposed lot. As stated in the City Engineer's memo, there
is an existing sanitary sewer and water service to the lot and for the existing home. The
developer will have to install new sewer and water mains to service the new home.
4. Approval of minor subdivisions shall be conditioned on the applicant's granting of
easements for necessary public purposes as determined by the City. No easements
are required.
5. When public agencies other than the City have some form of jurisdiction over an area
including or directly affected by a proposed minor subdivision, approval of that minor
subdivision may be conditioned on the requirements of the outside agency. There are
no requirements from any outside agencies.
6. If the applicant is required to submit a review of the property's title, the approval of the
minor subdivision shall be conditioned on the applicant's resolution of any title issue
raised by the City Attorney. Prior to final plat approval, the City attorney will determine if it is
necessary to review title information.
7. Minor subdivisions of non-residential properties may be denied if the City Engineer
determines that adequate public facilities are not available to serve the site. This is
residential property so the provision does not apply.
8. Approval of a residential minor subdivision shall be conditioned on the payment of a
park dedication fee in an amount established by the City Council. The City Council has
the right to assess a park dedication fee at the time of final plat approval. Staff will recommend
that the City Council charge a park dedication fee of $1 ,000 at the time of final plat approval.
9. Refers to minor subdivision for double bungalows. This is not applicable in this case.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision of the Cutacross Addition with the following
conditions:
1. The final plat of the June Ave Addition will be consistent with the preliminary plat submitted
with the subdivision application.
2. The comments in the memo from City Engineer Jeff OliVer, PE, to Mark Grimes, Director of
Planning and Development and dated September 6, 2005, shall become a part of this
approval.
3. A park dedication fee shall be paid in the amount of $1 ,000 prior to approval of the final plat
by the City Council.
2
.
.
.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, dated September 6,2005 (2 pages)
Preliminary Plat (1 - 11 x 17 page)
Preliminary Plat with proposed location of new home (1 -11 x 17 page)
3
City of Golden Valley
ol-i'
"i-ll
'S
394 HOVUI
lH11!RSTATI! 394
$, HWYlOO S TO 1!8 13!l4
'mTl!RSTA1'1! 394
NIl HWYlotl S 1'0 1!81394
WAVZATA IILVD
44411
4<100 4_
4410
TYROl CRSl'~'
_ 432S
4515 4445 -M:J5
(1)
M..~'ltiM~3i'~~J~Gt5::m5
-.
PID:3002924420083
1440 JUNE AVE S
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55416
.
Lflgcnd
HigM;ghlad F..alu,,"
Ho..... Numba..
$_1 Cenludlrnt"
/'I ClIy Umil
. Ol'l''' WaNi!
;V SlIloams
. P..-
DpiJ-
.
.
.
C:t1 '
oGolden Valley
Public Works
763.593.8030/763.593.3988 (fax)
Date: September 6,2005
To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer rft)
Subject: Review of Proposed Subdivision at 1440 June Avenue South
Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed subdivision at 1440 June Avenue South.
The proposed lot split is located on the west side of June Avenue just north of Douglas
Avenue in the southeastern corner of the City.
Site Plan and Plat
The proposed development consists of subdividing a single oversized lot into two
smaller lots. The final plat for this subdivision must include drainage and utility
easements consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance.
June Avenue South was reconstructed in 2002 as part of the Pavement Management
Program. Because the existing lot was large enough for a potential subdivision, it was
assessed one residential unit for the existing home and a second residential unit was
deferred until the property was developed. Therefore, the second unit assessment,
totaling $2,600, is due at this time.
Utilities
There is existing municipal sanitary sewer and water available in June Avenue to serve
the proposed subdivision. The existing home on site is currently connected to City
utilities. However, there are no existing sanitary sewer and water services available for
the proposed second lot. The developer will be required to install new services out to
the sewer and water mains within June Avenue at the time a new home is constructed.
Installation of the sewer and water services will require that the developer or builder
obtain a City of Golden Valley right-of-way permit. This permit will include standards for
restoration of June Avenue based upon the age of the street as outlined in City Code.
G:\Developments-Private\1440 June Ave\FinalReview 090605.doc
Gradina. Drainaae and Erosion Control
. The property being subdivided includes a high spot where the existing home is located
and a low point where the proposed home will be built. There is 30 feet of elevation
difference between these points. In addition, the low point is below the elevation of the
storm sewer within June Avenue, and therefore is not drained.
The developer has submitted a preliminary grading plan for the subdivision that includes
the construction of a rain garden to accommodate the runoff to the un-drained low point.
In addition, storm water computations have been submitted that calculate the pre- and
post-development 1 DO-year high water level in this low point.
The proposed grading plan and storm water computations have been forwarded to the
City's consulting engineer for review and comment. This review from Bonestroo,
Rosene, Anderlik and Associates (BRAA), dated August 23,2005 (attached for
reference), addresses the design of the rain gardens and the elevations of the home.
The BRAA review also discusses that the developer's architect indicated that the new
home will be constructed on stilts. Therefore, based upon the flow calculations, design
of the rain gardens and overflow from the site, the low opening of the proposed home
must be five feet above the high-water level. This results in a minimum low opening
elevation of 889.65.
.
The construction of the proposed home will require a City grading, drainage and erosion
control permit as required by ordinance. The permit application must include a detailed
grading plan for the site and detailed design of the proposed rain garden and all other
storm water best management practices to be constructed on site.
Tree Preservation
This development is subject to the city's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Therefore, a tree
preservation permit will be required at the time of application for building permits for the
new home.
Recommendations
Public Works staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision at 1440 June
Avenue South, subject to the comments contained in this review and the comments of
other City staff.
C:
Tom Burt, City Manager
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Eric Eckman, Engineering Technician
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections
Gary Johnson, Building Official
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal
.
G:\Developments-Private\1440 June Ave\FinalReview 090605.doc
.....
Memo
.
flU Bonestroo
~ Rosene
"I\l'lI Al1derli/< &
. \J 1 Associates
Engineers & Architects
Project Name: 1440 June Avenue
Client: City of Golden Valley
To: Sherri Buss
File No: 1438-05-000
From: Earth Evans
Date: 8.23.05
Re: Stormwater Review
This memo sununarizes our stormwater review for the 1440 June Avenue development proposal. The site is located west
of June Avenue in the City of Golden Valley. Plans reviewed include drainage calculations and drainage plans dated
8.16.05 submitted by Terra Engineering.
Background
An existing low point west of June Avenue is proposed as the primary stormwater management feature. Under existing
conditions it appears that this low point outlets primarily via infiltration with an emergency overflow over June Avenue
into the existing catchbasins at 884.2.
Based on conversations with the architect the home is being designed on piers to sit above the low area and therefore won't
affect the flood storage.
.ter Quantity
Since the June Avenue low point appears to be landlocked, five feet of freeboard is recommended from the 100-year HWL
in the low area to the low opening of the home. If an emergency overflow is available from the site, this should be verified
and shown on the plans to fully evaluate the freeboard required to the low home.
Typically catch basin grates have roughly 3 cfs capacity. During the 100-year event runoff to the June Avenue low point
overtops the curb into the low area onsite. The resulting lOO-year HWL is 882.0 and the low opening is at 887.7.
Therefore adequate freeboard is provided.
Water Quality
Water quality treatment is provided by infiltration. Since no discharge downstream occurs from the low area for the
majority of events, the site provides 100% water quality treatment.
.nestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc.
www.bonestroo.com
o St. Paul Office:
2335 West Highway 36
St. Paul. MN 55113
Phone: 651-636-4600
Fax: 651-636-1311
o Milwaukee Office:
1516 West Mequon Road
Mequon. WI 53092
Phone: 262-241-4466
Fax: 262-241-4901
o Rochester Office:
112 7'h Street NE
Rochester, MN 55906
Phone: 507-282-2100
Fax: 507-282-3100
o Willmar Office:
205 5th Street SW
Willmar. MN 56201
Phone: 320-214-9557
Fax: 320-214-9458
o St. Cloud Office:
3721 23'" Street 5
SI. Cloud. MN 56301
Phone: 320.251-4553
Fax: 320-251-6252
o Grayslake Office:
888 East Belvidere Road
Grayslake, IL 60030
Phone: 847-548-6774
Fax: 847-548-6979
.
PROPOSED LOT 48
PROPOSED NEW
SUBDIVISION LINE
\
PROPOSED LOT 4A
.
,,~
p-'nJ<- _ ~,
....rSr-o <?'" ~ ~
~ rof:::> ~'("
, ~~. o..:s.r-
\ ~...~1- i./:
\ 'l\,;'\\' '
)Z,""
LOT CERTIFICATE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4, Block 5, Kennedy's South Tyrol Hills, according
to the recorded plet thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota,
NOTES:
1, The orientation of this bearing system is based on the east line of
Lot 4, Block 5, Kennedy's South Tyrol Hills which is assumed to
have a bearing of South 05 degrees 41 minutes 58 seconds East
2. The area of the property described hereon is 26,De4 square feet or
0.5983 acres.
3. No title work was furnished for the preparation of this survey to
verify the existence of any easements or encumbrances.
o ~ ~ 00
I ~ I I
SCALE IN FEET 1"=40'-0"
o DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENT
o DENOTES SET IRON MONUMENT
o
~
MANHOLE
CATCH BASIN
ELECTRIC METER
AIR CONDITIONER
GAS METER
EB
~
[;jjI
LEGEND
b, UTILITY POLE
-'-OHW-- OVERHEAD WIRE
BITUMINOUS SURFACE
CONCRETE SURFACE
.
o
Z
- <0
... ~O)
V tn'"
....It) CIO
~~ S."
~~ 5l~ g
(X)CIltn -
_ ~N:::i:;s'
O .-tnOii:
III :::i: eu!f
ZOui":>="
.- >< w 0
~8.Lf>~
~(I)lll~~~
{II~coenw
...1t:'-<9Z~
CO:::i:<o~~
>,,'ti:;~~
.J III ffi _a:l >-
LLI~s~~~
_... cu~ ,..
IT ::::l N" <l.
... (I) >- ~ 8
...= ~O
Z tnJ:
....0..
<C ~
~
LLI
~
0::
o
~
>-
W
6;
::l
en
(!)
Z
o
g ~
< ~
_ J:O
0::: I-(/l
::lW
Ooz
_, (/lii:
... w:::;;
C) 2~
.3l W-,
"'" ~-'
(I) ~~
_::lz
Z..,:!S
Z~5
lI.I ~C!)
Q
iL
W
:i.::.::
u:.::
~
Q;
~~
;;;ui
ma::
lJi....
1_ - lD
<(i;: ~ ~
o~-;Je.
13;1'1' g g
mW
O='
-,LL
l<:
o
01",
m....
9~
W
u::
MINOR SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT
1440 JUNE AVENUE SOUTH
GOLDEN VALLEY MINNESOTA
AREA CALCULATIONS:
OVERALLLOT AREA:
PROPOSED LOT4A:
PROPOSED LOT 4B:
NOTES:
REAR SETBACK IS DETERMINED PER A
CONVERSATION WITH THE ZONING
DEPARTMENT OF GOLDEN VALLEY. IT IS
CALCULATED BY TAKING A POINT 20% TO THE
EAST FROM THE NORTHERLY MOST LINE AND
SOUTHERLY MOST LINE AND CONNECTING TO
TWO POINTS.
26,064 S.F.
12,010S.F.
14,054 S.F.
ALL SURVEY INFORMATION IS BASED ON A
SURVEY BY EGAN, FIELD AND NOWAK ON
SEPTEMBER 4, 2003.
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PROVIDED BY
EGAN, FIELD AND NOWAKONjUNE 9, 2005.
WATER AND SEWER LOCATIONS PROVIDED
BY GOLDEN VALLEY PUBLIC WORKS ON
JUNE 16, 2005.
TREE LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY EGAN, FIELD
AND NOWAK ON JUNE 16, 2005 AND DENOTED
AS FOLLOWS:
AX DENOTES ASH
OX DENOTES OAK
CH DENOTES CHERRY
WN DENOTES WALNUT
5HeliT~!T
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TH~
PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME
OR UNDER MV DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND. THAT I AM A
DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT
UNDER THE lAWS OF THE
STATE OF MiNNESOTA.
SlGNATURE
~ REGISTR.'
~
!(to
Oen
W~
!(t:z~
():E~
O>-...J
...JW>-
>-...JO
I-...J<(
ffi~ii:
a..:zo
Ow...J
a:::o~
a.....Jo
wOz
:r:~<(
I- - en
o:r:-
I-I-Z
::::>z
zOw
oeno
cnW>-
-::::>ID
;;:::zo
oww
~~~
enwo
a:::z
0::::>
z-'
-0
~~
..-
Project Number:
05031
Project Architect:
JOHN GAVIN DWfER
Drawn By:
JD
lho..___<ilI_WII
......_....~.!lltIEI.TE\l.MCHIl'tCTVIIe
~~~~~""'.--
Date of Issue:
JUNE 6, 2005
Sheet No. A1.l
.
.
PROPOSED LOT 48
Ii
I "
/
I
I
I
I
/
I
PROPOSED LOT 4A
,..... ~
I'EiNCE; ON L~~',,// : I
%%Gt.., \l
11
'I
1
1
,
,
,
,
.
LOT CERTIFICATE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4, Block 5, Kennedy's South Tyrol Hills, according
to tha racorded plat tharaof and situata in Hannapin' County, Minnasota.
NOTES:
1. The orientation of this bearing system is based on the east Iina of
Lot 4, Block 5, Kennady's South TyrOl Hills which is assumed to
have a bearing of South 05 degrees 41 minutas 58 s$COIlds East.
2. Tha araa of the property described hereon is 28,064 square feet or
0.5963 acres.
3. No title work was fumished for the preparation of this survey to
verify the existence of any easements or encumbrances.
o 20 40 60
I 4 I I
SCALE IN FEET 1"=40'-0"
o DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENT
o DENOTES SET IRON MONUMENT
o
~
f!J
~]
~
MANHOLE
CATCH BASIN
ELECTRIC METER
AIR CONDITIONER
GAS METER
LEGEND
'0 UTILITY POLE
---oHW~ OVERHEAD WIRE
.. BITUMINOUS SURFACE
CONCRETE SURFACE
.
o
z
- lEl
.. ;::1)0>
~~ Lt)~
.A~ .!!lco
:"'I. N 0 <b .
::>,.... 1Il;::1) ~
;:> CD c: ~:E
O-,E~O~
1&1 :E eO ~
Z (,) .!1fX(:j~i
~ 8.~ > ~
~(I) m:;;~~'
(I) 2cornw
"'t:.-coZli'
QO:E<bu..~
li" -0"1' w.~
.J 1&1 ffi~~'"
LLlie.!!l~:d
_ Yo 11l~ ~
I:L. ~ ~~ 8
...:: ~O
Z Lt):I:
...Q.
<C ~
C)
LLI
c3>
it:
o
u..
~
;:)
rn
C)
Z
o
~ <0
~ ~
< ~
_ J:g
D:: 5w
OOZ
,(I);!!;
.... w:;
C) 2>'
WW
c:tS~::l
(I) !Ji:l'
_::>z
Z""~
Z~..J
11.1 ~8
c
iL
W
:t~
U~
~~
.~~~
W
~I~
0:
.. ~;g
~if~
o~~
l'\lgg
~~
...,u.
"
~Ire
9~
W
u:
MINOR SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT
1440 JUNE AVENUE SOUTH
GOLDEN VALLEY MINNESOtA
AREA CALCULATIONS:
OVERALL LOT AREA:
PROPOSED LOT 4A:
PROPOSED LOT 4B:
NOTES:
REAR SETBACK IS DETERMINED PER A
CONVERSATION WITH THE ZONING
DEPARTMENT OF GOLDEN VALLEY. IT IS
CALCULATED BY TAKING A POINT 20% TO THE
EAST FROM THE NORTHERLY MOST LINE AND
SOUTHERLY MOST LINE AND CONNECTING TO
TWO POINTS;
26,064 S.F.
12,010 S.F.
14,054 S.F.
ALL SURVEY INFORMATION IS BASED ON A
SURVEY BY EGAN, FIELD AND NOWAK ON
SEPTEMBER 4, 2003.
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PROVIDED BY
EGAN, FIELD AND NOWAK ON jUNE 9, 2005.
PROPOSED BUILDING LOCATION AND
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION IS PROVIDED
BY SHELTER ARCHITECTURE AND IS SUBJECT
TO CHANGE PER FINAL HOUSE DESIGN.
WATER AND SEWER LOCATIONS PROVIDED
BY GOLDEN VALLEY PUBLIC WORKS ON
JUNE 16,2005.
TREE LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY EGAN, FIELD
AND NOWAK ON JUNE 16,2005 AND DENOTED
AS FOLLOWS: '
AX DENOTES ASH
OX DENOTES OAK
CH DENOTES CHERRY
WN DENOTES WALNUT
SHEIil'E!fj'
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS
PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR
REPORT ~ PREPARED BY Me
OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAT t AM A
DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SIGNATURE
~ REGISTR.#
~
!;co
cCt.>
w~
!;cz~
O~6
0>--1
-Iw>-
>--IC
I--I<t:
o::~_
w.....o::
a..zO
Ow-l
o::c~
a..-Ic
wOz
::I:~<t:
I- - Ct.>
0::I:-
I-I-Z
::lz
ZOw
OCt.>C
(ijW>-
-::lCCl
;:::zc
Cww
ccl>~
::lC:Cs
Ct.>wo
o::Z
o::l
z'"
-0
:E~
....
Project Number:
05031
Project Architect:
JOHN GAVIN DWYER
Drawn By:
JD
__....._01__..
,","'..rn...".~.rS/laTPlARCHlTEOTU~E
=rJ':""AllC"':'rr=r---""
Date of Issue:
JUNE 6, 2005
Sheet No. A1.1
, fa f
.
.
.
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
September 12, 2005
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Kristin A. Gonzalez, Planning Intern
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing-Preliminary Plat of Cutacross Addition -209
Cutacross Rd- David Spencer and Gregg Hackett, Applicants
David Spencer and Gregg Hackett are the applicants for the minor subdivision of the proposed
Cutacross Addition. Mr. Spencer and Mr. Hackett plan to subdivide the property into two lots.
The existing home will be demolished and two new homes will be constructed. The property is
located on Cutacross Rd, which is north of Glenwood Avenue and south of Olson Memorial
Highway.
Mr. Spencer and Mr. Hackett have submitted all the information that is required as part of a
preliminary plat. The plat indicates that both lots exceed the minimum lot area requirement of
10,000 sq. ft. and the lot width requirement of 100 ft. for a corner lot and 80 ft. for an interior
lot.
The current size of 209 Cutacross is 35,430.2259 square feet. The newly formed lots will be
18,801.511 for Parcel A and 16,628.7449 for Parcel B. The applicants decided not to keep the
existing house due to the condition of the house and costs of the necessary repairs, and the
fact that the placement of the house doesn't meet city code requirements.
The current house was constructed in 1952. The property is currently zoned Residential
(single-family) and is guided on the General Land Use Plan for Low Density uses. The area
around the lot is also zoned single-family Residential.
Factors for Consideration and Approval
Considerations for approving or denying minor subdivisions are set out in the Subdivision
Code, Section 12.50, Subd. 3. Staff findings on each of the nine points are as follows:
1. Proposed lots must meet requirements of the applicable zoning district. As stated
above, each of the two lots in the proposed subdivision exceed or meet the minimum lot
and width size requirements for the Residential zoning district. Both lots will have full
frontage on a public street.
~ ,f I
.
.
.
, ,
2. Minor subdivisions may be denied upon the.City Engineer's determination that
steep slopes or excessive wetness encumbers the buildable portion of the
resulting new lot. City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, has written a memo dated August 22,
2005 regarding this subdivision. The issue of steep slopes or excessive wetness was not
addressed in his memo because these concerns are not present on the property.
3. Minor subdivision may be denied if public sewer and water connections are not
directly accessible to each proposed lot. As stated in the City Engineer's memo, there
is an existing sanitary sewer and water. There will be a new sanitary sewer and water
services to the newly created lot. Also, staff recommends the existing sewer and water
service be reconstructed.
4. Approval of minor subdivisions shall be conditioned on the applicant's granting of
easements for necessary public purposes as determined by the City. No easements
are required.
5. When public agencies other than the City have some form of jurisdiction over an area
including or directly affected by a proposed minor subdivision, approval of that minor
subdivision may be conditioned on the requirements of the outside agency. There are
no requirements from any outside agencies.
6. If the applicant is required to submit a review of the property's title, the approval of the
minor subdivision shall be conditioned on the applicant's resolution of any title issue
raised by the City Attorney.
7. Minor subdiviSions of non-residential properties may be denied if the City Engineer
determines that adequate public facilities are not available to serve the site. This is
residential property so the provision does not apply.
8. Approval of a residential minor subdivision shall be conditioned on the payment of a
park dedication fee in an amount established by the City Council. The City Council has
the right to assess a park dedication fee at the time of final plat approval. Staff will recommend
that the City Council charge a park dedication fee of $1 ,000 at the time of final plat approval.
9. Refers to minor subdivision for double bungalows. This is not applicable in this case.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision of the Cutacross Addition with the following
conditions:
1. The final plat of the Cutacross Addition will be consistent with the preliminary plat submitted
with the subdivision application.
2. The comments in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes, Director of
Planning and Development and dated August 22, 2005, shall become a part of this
approval.
3. A park dedication fee shall be paid in the amount of $1 ,000 prior to approval of the final plat
by the City Council.
2
.
.
.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, dated August 22,2005 (2 pages)
Applicant's Narrative (1 page)
Email from Jon Segner, 125 Paisley Lane (1 page)
Preliminary Plat (1 - 11 x 17 page)
Property Survey (1 -11x17 page)
3
City of Golden Valley
2lI
BUS
2lI
31Il
24$
2Sll
:124
316
JIlO
57Cl5
240
260
250
230
240
220
:uo
146
125
130
117
124
1ll!I
,UG
S701
5743-
_l4
PID:3311821330033
209 CUTACROSS RD
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422
.
Legend
Highli;}hled F..alu",
Hot!"" Numha",
S_t c..flW_S
;/ cay LltM
!!ill Open IMIItll.
j'I' $.",,,,,,,,
!!ill Fa""
!!ill Pal<<ls
I
.
.
C:g
oGoldenValley
Public Works
763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax)
Date: August 22, 2005
To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer cltJ
Subject: Subdivision Review: 209 Cutacross Road
Public Works staff has reviewed the plans for the proposed subdivision at
209 Cutacross Road. This proposed development consists of splitting a large existing
lot into two conforming lots.
Site Plan
The certificate of survey for the existing lot does not include any information regarding
proposed easements. The final plat for the subdivision must include standard drainage
and utility easements on all lot lines consistent with the subdivision ordinance.
The developer will be required to post a street reconstruction escrow for future special
assessments. This escrow will be based upon the current (2006) special assessment
rate of $3,500 per unit, for a total escrow of $7,000. The lots will not be assessed for
street reconstruction in 2010 when the area will be part of the Pavement Management
Program. This escrow must be posted prior to forwarding the proposed subdivision to
the City Council for final review and approval.
Utilities
There is existing sanitary sewer and water within Cutacross Road to provide service to
this proposed subdivision. The existing home is currently connected to these utilities.
The developer will be required to install new sanitary sewer and water services to the lot
being created by this subdivision. In addition, staff recommends that the existing
sanitary sewer service be reconstructed to the City sewer main in the street. This
reconstruction will aid in reduction of potential infiltration of ground water into the sewer
system.
The developer will be required to obtain the appropriate City permits, including sanitary
. sewer, water and right-of-way permits, for the installation of the utility services.
G:\Developments-Private\209 Cutacross\Review 082205.doc
.
.
.
Gradina. Drainaae and Erosion Control
The construction of the two new homes within this development will be subject to the
City's Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Ordinance. Therefore, the developer will
be required to provide grading plans for each home at the time of application for building
permits. No site work can begin prior to obtaining the required grading, drainage and
erosion control permits.
Tree Preservation
This development is also subject to the City Tree Preservation Ordinance. Therefore,
. tree preservation plans will be required at the time of application for building permits.
Recommendation
Public Works staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision at 209 Cutacross
Road subject to the comments contained in this review, which are summarized as
follows:
1. The developer must post a street improvement escrow of $7,000 for the two lots.
2. The final plat must include easement dedication consistent with the Subdivision
Ordinance.
3. The developer obtains all the appropriate permits as outlined in this review.
4. Subject to the review and comments of other City staff.
C: Tom Burt, City Manager
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Eric Eckman, Engineering Technician
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections
Gary Johnson, Building Official
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal
.
, '
.
.
.
Narrative for the 209 CUTACROSS Simple Subdivision.
28 July 2005
The existing property at 209 Cutacross in Golden Valley is 35,430.2559 square feet in area
or 0.8134 Acres.
It is the intent of the owner to subdivide the parcel into two lots, Parcel A of 18,801.511
square feet and Parcel B of 16,628.7449 square feet.
Existing house:
The existing house will be removed. The original house was built in 1952 and has under
gone additions and changes. An independent inspector was engaged to evaluate the
conditions of the house. Numerous repairs and additions would be necessary to bring it
up to the standards envisioned for this area. Estimates of the cost of these repairs and
additions suggested that it would be more practical to remove the existing and build
new. Had the existing home remained it would also require a variance for the rear set
back. The rear property line is 27 feet from the existing house; code would dictate 44
feet.
Trees: There are numerous mature trees on the property. It is the intent of the owner that
they will remain and be protected during demolition and construction.
As the proposed site plan demonstrates the only tree to be removed is a 14" Apple tree.
New Homes:
The new homes planned for the property will likely be 2500 to 3500 square feet in size.
The style of the homes might be best described as utilizing traditional cottage style
house forms with a contemporary open floor plan. Front porches are planned.
I .,~
Wittman, Lisa
From: Segner, Jon [jsegner@Dominiuminc.com]
.t: Tuesday, September 06,200512:16 PM
To: Wittman, Lisa
Subject: David Spencer Minor subdivision request, 209 Cutacross Rd
Dear Lisa:
I received a notice regarding the above subdivision due to the fact that the proposed subdivision is within 500 feet of my home.
am strongly against such a subdivision for the following reasons:
. It is incongruous with the existing neighborhood.
. The neighborhood has suffered with almost a year of construction traffic and road degradation from the construction at 211,
235 and 245 Paisley. I do not wish to sign up for another year of that type of disruption.
. The construction traffic has taken its toll on our streets. I will be asked to pay for the restoration of the streets sooner rather
than later, and the beneficiaries are the very people who have damaged the roads.
. I have not seen any proposals regarding the new homes proposed for the subdivisions.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish additional input. Thanks for your time, Lisa.
Jon
Jon Segner
125 Paisley Lane
Golden Valley, MN 55422
763.354.5620 or 763.543.1768
j~J~-9Der@dominiuminc.com
Wdominiumapartments.com
.
9/6/2005
.
CERTIFICATE OF SURV.
FOR: David Spencer
209 Cutacross Road
Golden Valley, MN 55422
.
~
, (<0&&''\)
-M~
LEGAL DESCRIPtION: Lot 3, Block 5, "TRALEE". (Certificate of Title No. 660794)
PROPOSED LEGAL 'DESCRIPTIONS: .-----..-,....
Parcel A: That part qf Lot 3, Block 5, "TRALEE" described as lying northwest@'rlyofthe folIowil).g described line:
<;::ornmencing at the rTlOst easterly corner of said Lot 3; thence Nortn 50 degrees West, assumed bearing, along the
northeasterly line of ~aid Lot 3 a distance of 85 feet to the beginning of the line to be described; thence South 34
degrees 13 minutes 3V seconds West a distance of 196.65 feet to a point on the southwesterly line of said Lot 3
distant 95.00 feet n0l1hwesterly from the most southerly corner of said Lot 3, and there said described line
terminating. (Area =118801.511 Sq. Ft. or 0.4316 Acres)
Parcel B: That partqfLot 3, Block 5, "TRALEE" described as lying southeastefIy of the following described line:
Commencing at the ,*ost easterly corner of said Lot 3; thence North 50 degrees West, assumed bearing, along the
northeasterly line of~ajd Lot 3 a distance of 85 feet to the beginning of the line to be described; thence South 34
degrees 13 minutes 3:7 seconds Westa distance of 196.65 feet to a point on the southwesterly line of said Lot 3
distant 95.00 feet northwest~rly from the most southerly corner of said Lot 3, and there said described line
terminating. (Area =j 16628.7449 Sq. Ft. or 0.3817 Acres)
f....
:.-' 0'
...J
""
.~
f),.
""\
D
L-
.,-
\1
~
/( \ ",-.
.' . ~.~' t10{vf?J ~
5' YOo ~~ ~l>~'
0;>. "\~. ...."~.. ..'~~;~
a . ~); Jr-'
? \ \\ ~~
, 5.: 00 "\
I ~'.S(3C'" <9~ if . " '. \,
. '<7%#10...
f' ,.
FJ. In., 'P r pf)
fits oe<!llfatldn
~'"
;,~'\.
"(~:.!; ~
-V~%.
I ~~ ~
~,~ L- 0
\,,' ~ '\...
~o "
1~ ~
"0"
"-Ic>~ ti;)
'f <II 'Y'
"aofl"
'-
~
..~<f"
," ,-~1 ~
....:J ".
'<~
I" ,~
v
\
if) 'a.~fO;;
'O~
"-
......
-;f
Ik
o
..189<!-
\Do ~ <Q
.~ ,~
I'( "~
........ 0,-,
""
/ .^'\
--<
6'9,
(; CJ;I'
e,\ \'1'
()~>r;
~
0"\
\...
\.}?
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION:
I hereb)t-terity that this survey was prepared by me and that I am a duly
Reg~~red ~and Surveyor under the s 0 he State of Minnesota. As
surv~~d b me this .1f...day of 2005.
,,/
/0
\. '
\
\
e\'
I
?! -=r~~~~~: ~'~ed
. Denotes Iron Monument Found
. 0 Denotes Iron Mon~ment Set (l) capped RLS No. 10948
e ( ) Denotes VertIcal Spot Elevations
-- . - Denotes 2 foot contour interval
'& P.P. - Denotes Power Pole
Note: Distances as measured are in feet, tenths and
hundredths of a foot.
Note: Area = 35430.2559 Sq. Feetor 0.8134 Acres
>-
Vi
...
~~
-Ii'
~QO
""'"'I
'>.1)1'0
'Jl
<
o
""
f...
()
-.J
BEN<?H MARK: Top of Water Hydrant @ Sputh Side of Cutacross
Road III front of Lot 3, Block 5, "TRALEE" == 890.105 feet (NGVD-~
Golden Valley Engineering Dept. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
~O----st:rEp~m-
N
~
'<:::'c:::.., /..". ,aDl,;;" --,
~.
.~~ '
.~
'" '~
~
"~
"~
..
I
/
..~
'. .........6'
~;
"
,
.
~,,/
~
/'f
/ ""';'
'1/ II / I
--R/feCt3C ".;e; . ',/,,<
/'. \
~ /. 'v
" I'~
IffX1STI/Y1; ~ @ ,I '6'\
'1CJ ;;?e1A1N '-.,. /:'
~~/'::,-;:~.I
'\J · '
~ {i
/
I
.
.
.
.
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
August 29, 2005
To:
Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing to Operate a Child Daycare Facility at
St. Margaret Mary's Catholic Church at 2225 Zenith Ave. N.-
LoveWorks Early Childhood Academy--Applicant
LoveWorks Early Childhood Academy, represented by Patrice Dorrall, has requested a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a child daycare facility in a portion of the school
located in St. Margaret Mary Church. Within the Institutional (1-1) zoning district, child care
facilities are allowed with a CUP. Within the 1-1 zoning district, only churches, elementary
schools and secondary schools are considered permitted uses.
.
The school portion of the church is about 33,000 sq. ft. in size. Up until last spring, the
Minneapolis School District leased the space for an elementary school. Starting this fall, a new
school will operate in the space. LoveWorks Academy for Visual and Performing Arts, a
kindergarten-grade 8, free charter school will operate in the space. They plan to have abou~
150 children enrolled when school begins on Sept. 7, 2005. They have an agreement to lease
up to 33,000 sq. ft. from the church. Due to high enrollment this summer, it appears that they
may eventually need all the space sooner than they had originally anticipated.
The LoveWorks charter school plans to lease about 4,200 sq. ft. of the space they are leasing
from the church for the operation of the LoveWorks Early Childhood Academy. The Academy
is proposed to be located in the north portion of the west wing of the school. According to Ms.
Dorra", there will be no connection between the charter school and the child daycare facility
other than they share a name and will be operating in the same building. The childcare facility
will not provide before or after care for the charter school students. The charter school will
have their own separate, before and after school room, for their students. The childcare is
proposed to serve 40 children ages 6 weeks to pre-kindergarten. However, more children
could be enrolled in the future if there is adequate space and the additional size is approved by
the State.
.
In order for the daycare to operate in this location, the State will have to approve the location
and issue a State license to operate daycare. In 1986, the City did approve a CUP for daycare
at the church when the church operated the school. I believe that the daycare operated for
several years and ceased operation when the Catholic school closed.
1
The City's Building Official and Fire Marshal will also have to approve the plans to operate the
daycare facility at the church.
Overall~ this is a good location for a daycare facility in Golden Valley. There is more than
adequate parking and playground space for the children. There is a good sized parking area
between the two wings of the school where parents will drop~off and pickup their children.
.
The Zoning Code provides that in considering a CUP application, the Planning Commission
shall make findings and recommendations to the City Council on ten items, which need not be
given equal weight in the consideration. Examination of the proposed daycare facility at St.
Margaret Mary School in view of each of the ten items follows:
1. Demonstrated need for the proposed use-The applicant believes that there is need for
daycare at this location. In Golden Valley, the churches seem to provide most of the space
for daycare. This location will provide another daycare opportunity for those living and
working in the northeast section of the City.
2. Consistency with the General Land Use Plan-The General Land Use Plan map
designates this area for schools and religious facilities. The proposed daycare facility in
conjunction with the church and school is in conformance and consistent with the school
and religious faculties designation in the General Land Use Plan.
3. Effect upon property values in the area-Surrounding land uses include parkland to the
north and west, Wirth Parkway to the south, and single family residential neighborhood
across Zenith Ave. to the east. The proposed daycare use will not change the appearance
of the school and will have no impact on property values in the area. The property has been
used as a school of many years and a daycare facility has many similarities to a school
operation.
. 4. Effect of any anticipated traffic generation upon the current traffic flow and
congestion in the area-The daycare facility will generate additional car trips to the school
site in the early morning and late afternoon prior to the time most students arrive at the
charter school. The daycare trips will be spaced over a period of several hours in the
morning and in the afternoon. It is not anticipated that the additional trips to the daycare
facility will create traffic issues. The daycare facility is slated to begin operation in the fall of
2005 with around 40 children along with the necessary number of teachers and aids to
meet State requirements.
5. Effect of any increases in population and density upon surrounding land uses-The
proposed use will not result in any increases in population or density upon surrounding land
uses.
6. Increase in noise levels to be caused by the proposed use-The proposed daycare
would not add greatly to the noise now generated at the school site. The children from the
daycare will occasionally be outside and will make some noise. However, the nearest
residence is across Zenith Ave. which is a couple hundred feet from the playground areas.
7. Any odor, dust, smoke, gas, or vibration to be caused by the proposed use-The
proposed use would not cause any odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibration.
8. Any increase in flies, rats, or other vermin in the area to be caused by the proposed
use-The proposed use would not result in any increase in the animals or vermin.
9. Visual appearance of any proposed structure or use-The proposed daycare facility will
not involve any alterations to the outside of the building. Signage for the daycare facility will
have to meet the City's sign code requirements.
10.Any other effect upon the general public health, safety, and welfare of the City and
. its residents-Staff foresees no other effects on the general public health, safety and
welfare.
2
.
.
.
Recommended Action
Review of the proposed daycare facility in view of the ten factors for examination of a CUP
indicates a favorable recommendation. Staffsuggests that the Planning Commission
recommend City Council approval of the CUP for LoveWorks to operate a daycare facility at
2225 Zenith Ave. N. The daycare facility will be located within the school subject to the
following conditions:
1. The daycare facility shall conform to all requirements and recommendations of the City of
Golden Valley Building Office and Fire Marshal. It. may be located within the space of the
LoveWorks Academy for Visual and Performing Arts. The number of children within the
daycare facility is limited to the license granted by the State of Minnesota.
2. The daycare facility shall be licensed by the State of Minnesota and shall operate in
conformance with requirements and provisions of the State license.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Site Map ( 1 page)
Map showing proposed daycare location and entrance (1 page)
3
.
L~end
HiiJllllrIhkld Fealu...
Ho.... Null'lba..
MuIllU1llls
S_I C<tolllllinaa
Clay Lirnil
Ol>"o Wale.
$_....
Pat%a
P1!lfCIIls
p
[l[J
jV
~
I.lttill
[l[J
28
<l)
PID:1702924240001
2225 ZENITH AVE N
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422
.
.
L)_l
~ l:'<.-'J
n
.~
....--;
-J
1: '"
''t \> 1
a; :-- v-..
.::~ ~';', """""""1
~ "
u4 f';'~ ' _.
::4 ~~.. ,
;~~l
,~ ;. ,.-.i;,:.1 ',' ~
~*'~ '
"'I' ~<, li'~
......
-'~-(?'J
. g:~J
-.z., C.j
1~. c::J
a:
~;
[=1
C-:.:.
,....-'i
--/
9\'.
-::::J
~
>
.
/'
-1, .
1> '.
:.. ~
'.-~ :it
:Jo ~
. ~ ,
p'~. ~." .t .!.. :! , ·
. ~' '~'. t>
- .,~. -
~;;'A!"
."!i.J';: -:. ;~ ~~
,)11 ~ -'~J' t
~~ r.' .i
.. ...~,..~.
, "
:j -
.. ~'
.: ~ .
- ~ .~.
~
. .~
-g
~
~
~
.J"'
~
~
~
~
~
~
....
~
-
..
~
~
~
l k
~~
z .
8
..
::..
". ~ . ..:~ -
" '
JI}
~
::l
<>
u
'!2
2
2
'"
....
...
:...
<
~
..
::.
---~\
\
I
,:' .;:
~/: ;'T
.:!> ~
~
~
..
~
~
....
'-
;;
...
"
;
N
.
i
\J
~
~
~l
~ "V"" ~ "
~ i~ ~ ~
l-Jj ~~
r"
~
L
\f
ll..
.-
f-
Z
W
CHURCH