The URL can be used to link to this page

09-11-06 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, September 11, 2006 7pm 1. Approval of Minutes August 28, 2006 Joint Planning Commission/Environmental Commission Meeting August 28, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing - Subdivision SU12-11 and Subdivision Variances - 5609 Olson Memorial Highway Applicant:, Terra Engineering Address: 5609 Olson Memorial Highway Purpose: The Subdivision would create four separate lots in order to construct four new homes. 3. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision/lot Consolidation SU11-08 - 5730 and 5750 Duluth Street Applicant: Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS) Address: 5730 and 5750 Duluth Street Purpose: The Lot Consolidation would combine two separate lots into one new lot in order to allow for the expansion of the existing building. 4. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit #113 - 2500 Mendelssohn Ave. N. Applicant: Lena Enterprises, LLC (Stephen Saunders) Address: 2500 Mendelssohn Ave. N. Purpose: The Conditional Use Permit would allow the applicant to install a drive-through window in the existing building located in the Commercial Zoning district --Short Recess-- 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment . Joint Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission and Golden Valley Environmental Commission August 28,2006 A joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Environmental Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, August 28,2006. Planning Commission Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 6 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser Schmidgall and Waldhauser and Environmental Commissioners St. Clair and Sipala. Also present was Director of Planning an Grimes, Director of Public Works Jeannine Clancy, City En Environmental Coordinator AI Lundstrom, Planning Intern Aa Consultant Perry Thorvig and Administrative Assistan a Commissioners Anderson and Pawluk were absen I. Lighting Ordinance Discussion o commissions to discuss the main goal of this meeting both Commissions. . Hanauer stated that this is the fourth m the proposed outdoor lighting ordinan is to receive feedback on the propo Hanauer stated that in writing t comments from the previou the Engineering Depart Consultant, Perry Thorvi ce has incorporated the Commissions' udied other cities ordinances, and worked with y Department, City Attorney and Planning Baker stated that h wattage and ~ can i"dinance had a good mix of language regarding ordinance deals with the concerns that the Commissioners vious meetings such as, over-lighting, light trespass, certain mum attage limits, height limits, curfew requirements, timers and ity requirements. He said there are provisions in the ordinance for on-residential properties. There is also a process to allow for riances and to allow for flexibility such as uplighting for flags and Kluchka asked Hanauer if he could highlight areas that could be contentious or potentially create a need for variances. . Baker referred to Subdivision 3(B)(4) and said that he thinks the word "minimize" is too soft of a word and he would like to use a better defined, more concrete word when talking about outdoor recreational facilities. Thorvig stated that one concern with softball fields is that the ball has to be lit in order to be seen. Hanauer added that if the lighting on a recreational field were to be re-done, City staff would review it. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Joint Planning Commission/Environmental Commission August28,2006 - Page 2 Baker referred to Subdivision 4(A)(3) regarding prohibiting lighting fixtures mounted to aim light only toward a property line. He said he thinks any mounted light fixture would be aimed at the property line. Hanauer stated that the provision is intended for wall packs where the light shines sideways or straight out toward the property line. Baker said he thinks the current language is going to create problems if it's not clear. Schmidgall stated that lighting fixtures mounted to aim light only toward the property line concern is also covered in Subdivision 9(B) where it states that illumination shall not exceed 0.5 footcandles at the property line. Hanauer said he would review the language and make sure it is clear. Lundstrom noted in Subdivision 6 there is a "grandfather" clause a would pertain to new development. Hanauer added that the onl would have to comply is when there is a property that has Iigh footcandles or greater, which will be considered a nuisance reduced to 0.3 footcandles. Baker asked about the penalty fo 0.3 footcandle requirement. Grimes said it would be c 'der code which is a misdemeanor. to e courage eliminating s would be considered 'e used. Cera asked if stated that legislation has . ue therefore the City can't require ked I there is a way to encourage said the energy savings would be the . Grimes stated that the City could do a help make residents and businesses aware of Sipala suggested that some language be put in Mercury Vapor lamps. Hanauer said that M legally non-conforming and that the bulb existing Mercury Vapor lamps could b said that non-conforming uses can property owners to replace these property owners to replace old incentive for people to repl brochure and stories in t the new lighting standar Keysser asked if Ex more energy e . municipalities t programs rs any rebates to people who replace their fixtures with said there is a program through Excel for u such as LED traffic signals, but she is not aware of any operty owners. ivision 5 that described the method of measuring light and asked easurements are taken at. Thorvig said all measurements are taken Lundstro ed if photometric applications will require a plan review. Hanauer said yes, and added that the applicant will responsible for providing all of the information listed in Subdivision 7. Lundstrom referred to Subdivision 7(B) and asked if it was referring to the type of bulb, or type of fixture. Hanauer said he would add language about bulb type. St. Clair referred to the sample photometric plans that were in the agenda packet and asked if the City has a computer program that creates the plan or if that is something the applicant submits. Thorvig said that the applicant would submit the photometric plan and the City has to trust that they've done it correctly. Minutes of the Golden Valley Joint Planning Commission/Environmental Commission August28,2006 - Page 3 . Kaisershot referred to Subdivision 8(C) regarding residential security lights and asked why it needs to be in the ordinance at all because it is ultimately tied back to Subdivision 8(B). Hanauer said he would review the wording in Subdivision 8(B) and (C). Kluchka asked why the light is measured at the ground level. Thorvig said that is the way light is measured in all communities. Kluchka said that as a resident, that doesn't make sense. Baker said he is surprised that light is not measured perpendicular to the source. Kluchka said he thought measuring the light a foot from the light post would be more appropriate. Hanauer said he would review how light is measured. Grim ed that the instructions he has seen with every light meter have said to lay the m tal to the ground. Hanauer said he w the lighting ordinan nced lighting level. Thorvig the property owners added that in no case can the Baker referred to Subdivision 9(C) regarding the mounting hei. said he thinks the definition of "vertical distance" is confusin Eck asked about the uniformity ratio. Hanauer explain out the minimum and maximum amount of light and the lighting design. McCarty asked why there is a basic lightin stated they have different lighting levels because some need an enhanced lev footcandles go above 7.5. . Grimes stated that the next ste concerns from this meeting for discussion. to incorporate the Commissioner's ordinance to the next Council/Manager meeting comments from this meeting and incorporate them into ready for the next Council/Manager meeting. II. . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28,2006 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 28, 2006. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Klu Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. II. July 24, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting I. Approval of minutes MOVED by Eck, seconded by Kluchka and motio July 24,2006 minutes as submitted. . Informal Public Hearing - Gen Applicant: ap Amendment Address: Purpose: ral Land Use Plan Map designation for the ,800 Xenia Avenue South from Light Industrial Grimes remind approval of ad City Cou stated designa to new hat at their June 12 meeting they recommended se and use category to the city's Comprehensive Plan. The w Mixed Use land use category at their July 5 meeting. He quest to consider changing the Comprehensive Plan in Site located at 700 and 800 Xenia Avenue from Light Industrial e land use category. at staff feels the Mixed Use category is appropriate in this area and it is consisten principals defined in the 1-394 Corridor Study. He stated that a mixed use development on the property would lower the peak hour traffic issues, is consistent with the Housing Policy and that residents have said that they would like to see uses other than just office space in the 1-394 Corridor. Frank Dunbar, Union Land X, LLC, stated that he had nothing more to add to Grimes' description. . Keysser opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2006 Page 2 MOVED by Cera, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to approve changing the General Land Use Plan Map designation for the properties at 700 and 800 Xenia Avenue South from Light Industrial to Mixed Use. III. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan - Union X, LLC, Miner Site - PUD No. 103 Applicant: Union Land X, LLC Address: 700 and 800 Xenia Avenue South tely and Purpose: To allow for a mixed use development that i 218,000 sq. ft. of office space, a 74 unit c about 10,000 sq. ft. of retail space Grimes stated that by the Commission recommending Land Use Plan Map designation they can now go fo application for the Miner site at 700 and 800 Xen' of the properties and stated that the north buildi building is vacant. e General us e PUD rred to an aerial photo ied and the south Grimes referred to his staff report and that there will be two buildings locate approximately 218,000 square fe approximately 10,000 square f second building will consist deck which does meet th nt's proposal. He explained site. One will consist of a will be 10 stories high with on the first level and a parking deck. The arket te condominium building with a parking ment at two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Grimes stated that t and there are some consulting Tra 'c En have submitted a Traffic Demand Management plan '1 need to be added to it as a result of the city's osed site plan and noted the large plaza area which is Ip draw people to the site. He stated that there will be a pond ted entirely on this property and that the applicants have done andscaping plans. He referred to the traffic concerns in this area and at the traffic will function well and will be maintained at a level that ptable for the area. He stated that staff has taken the traffic for other sites account when reviewing this proposal. Cera asked about the height of the buildings around this site. Grimes said that the office building will be shorter that the Allianz office building located to the west. He added that the Golden Hills redevelopment plan call for a step down of buildings along the corridor. Keysser referred to the Colonnade site and the large office development being proposed near this site in St. Louis Park and said that those potential developments would have to have an impact on the traffic. Grimes explained that the City is really stressing traffic Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August28,2006 Page 3 . management plans and added that there are going to be some additional traffic improvements that have to be made on Golden Hills Drive as a result of these developments. Keysser asked how much leeway the City has regarding changes to 1-394 access ramps. Grimes said that the City could propose the changes, but it is ultimately MnDOTs decision. Noah Sly, UrbanWorks Architecture, 901 North 3rd Street, Minneapolis, project, gave a brief history of the site and discussed the site plan. H part of designed this project they looked at the Comprehensive PI Redevelopment Plan, Envision documents, and the 1-394 Corrid the circulation of the site and talked about how the project wa the traffic patterns. Eck referred to the parking ramp for enclosed facility. Sly said the co above grade structure. Keysser grade. Sly said it has to be . ct for the that as a ills sed odate Sly referred to a site plan and stated that both propos at the corner there is a public plaza, a semi-public r eating areas inside the office building. He referr that it compliments the office building and make are focusing on sustainability by re-using th capturing their own storm water. the street, but g ar and private 'um building and stated ansitl n. He added that they existing two bus stops and . uilding and asked if it will be an ing facility will be an enclosed, secure, , ., rking ramp is proposed to be above ecause of the water table. Eck asked about guest p be guest parking in pa dominium building. Sly explained that there will Keysser asked' t Dunbar, Union will have one tenant, or multiple tenants. Frank licant, said it is their desire to have a single tenant. the City received from Canadian Pacific Railway expressing thi posal. Dunbar said he hadn't seen the letter, but would respond chance to read it. Grimes said he thinks it's a standard letter the housing is being proposed near railroad tracks because they want Cera asked about the price range of the condominiums. Dunbar said it is a tough market right now for condominiums, but they are thinking they would be in the $300,000 to $500,000 range. He said he thinks the condominiums would be built in a second phase, later than the office building. . Cera asked about the timing of the project. Dunbar said they would like to build the office building immediately, but that they would be prudent about entering the condominium market. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28,2006 Page 4 Kluchka asked the applicants if they have given any thought to having public art on the site. Sly said they would look into it. Kluchka asked if the trail could be extended to go around the proposed pond in order to make it look more like a Golden Valley park. Sly explained that there are some fairly steep grades in that area, but they would take another look at it. Schmidgall referred to the wetlands that run along the north part of this site and asked about what kinds of amenities could tie into the wetland area. Sly said h ' open for suggestions. Schmidgall stated that most of the vegetation is along t and suggested that the north side be softened up a little. Grimes adde h nts are providing a trail on the north side of the site and sidewalk conne s. 24% of the site is green space in a very urban setting. He. agreed t m ould be a good idea. Kluchka referred to the north side of the parking ramp engages the neighborhood and if it could be more f . explained that they've located the more active u explained that they are creating a layered parki solid concrete wall. eing built in the Twin Cities. posed condominium building will have considered building rental units ed the neighborhood that there will be posed condominium building will have a very developed in the Golden Hills Redevelopment r ted that there will only be 74 units and that e condominium market. Grimes added that from the mand that the buildings be condominiums and not McCarty said that there are a lot of co He asked the applicants if they are set empty. Keysser asked the a~ instead of condominiums. Dun no rental units. He explaine unique view and it is the area so the view will not they are going to w slo City's perspective it rental units. . ium building would be higher than the existing Golden Hills it would be slightly higher. e the bike racks are proposed to be located. Sly referred to the site int d out the bike rack location. Waldhau ed about the traffic management strategies for managing the traffic flow. Dunbar stated that if they have a single tenant, rather than multiple tenants they will have more control over the traffic management. Grimes suggested that the language in the Traffic Demand Management plan be tightened up and use words like "shall" instead of "may". Keysser stated their major concern is traffic. Mike Kotila, PE, the City's Traffic Engineer from SEH said that there is going to be a lot of cars. He stated that he looked at all of the traffic generators in the area when he wrote his report. He said the key to making this site Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August28,2006 Page 5 . work well with the others is the access points and focusing more of the trips toward the freeway to minimize the traffic issues. He said that currently there is quite a bit of capacity on the streets and that by estimating and modeling with the best tools they have they feel they will be serving people with a level of service they will be comfortable with. Keysser referred to the Duke site being proposed in St. Louis Park and asked if that traffic will go onto Xenia. Kotila said that traffic will be focused to the freeway as well. John Hagen, Traffic Engineer at SRF Consulting, stated that their firm is working on this project and is studying the traffic on the project to the south. He said that a sign' . amount of traffic is predicted to use 1-394. 1. 1-394 plained e work, ing to add Keysser noted that there are a number of references to constru and asked if that is something the developer does or if the Ci that generally with those types of projects, the City can petit" butthey are under MnDOT's jurisdiction. He clarified that the additional lanes to 1-394, just access ramps. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and Keysser closed the public hearing. ing to comment, . Eck said that it is obvious that a very lar proposal. . g had gone into this Schmidgall said he is inclined to and said he was very impresse rova of this proposal. Keysser agreed Kluchka said it would like' used by for parking by th hours. ear that the office building parking ramp can be wners and their guests especially in off-peak MOVED by Sc recommend a includes and ab y McCarty and motion carried unanimously to r sted PUD to allow for a mixed use development that ,000 sq. ft. of office space, a 74 unit condominium building etail space with the following conditions. . er Site Plan Submittal prepared by UrbanWorks and dated 8/22/06 shall rt this approval. 2. The and X, LLC Application for Preliminary PUD Plan and attachments shall become a part of this approval. 3. The Miner Site Redevelopment Travel Demand Management Plan (Draft) prepared by SRF Consulting Group, dated June 2006 shall become a part of this approval. . 4. The Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated August 2, 2006 shall become a part of this approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28,2006 Page 6 . 5. The Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated August 24, 2006 (with attachment) shall become a part of this approval. IV. Reports on meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other meetings Waldhauser stated that the 1-394 Corridor Advisory Group met last week and the consultants from URS are ready to put together their final report. The meeting was adjourned at r Keysser stated that he talked to Jeff Oliver about coming to a futur Commission meeting to discuss storm water issues. Grimes su come talk to them before one the Planning Commission meet" V. Other business Subdivision Ordinance and Infill Housing Keysser said he would like to continue disc housing at their September 25 meeting. . VI. Adjournment bdivision Ordinance and infill . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: August29,2006 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat and Subdivision Variances for Maywood Green (5609 Olson Memorial Highway)- Terra Engineering, Inc. Background and History Terra Engineering, represented by Matt Pavek, PE and Peter Knaeble, PE, has applied for a preliminary plat in order to subdivide the property at 5609 Olson Memorial Highway into four single-family lots. The property is currently three unplatted lots. Only the north lot has access from a street (Olson Memorial Highway frontage road). The property is 1.22 acres in size. It is designated on the General land Use Plan map for low Density Residential uses. The zoning map indicates the property is in the R-1 (single-family) zoning district. For many years, this property was used as the office and yard for a tree service. There was a single-family home located at 5609 Olson Memorial Highway that was part of the tree service property and occupied as either an office or dwelling by the owners of the tree service. The tree service ceased operation five or more years ago. The buildings on the site were torn down in anticipation of future development of the property. The tree service was a "grandfathered" in use. After its operations ceased, the property must now conform to the requirements found in the R-1 zoning district. The use of the property as a tree service was not compatible with the surrounding low density residential neighborhood and its removal was a relief to the surrounding neighborhood. In 2005, the City considered a planned unit development (PUD) application by Kingman Building Company for the development of this property and one adjacent property to the east (435 Turners Crossroad N.). This proposal was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at their May 23,2005 meeting. However, the City Council had several concerns related to the proposed PUD that would have created a private street for the development of 8 single-family homes. (One major concern addressed by the City Council was that a private road "surrounded" the property at 5605 Olson Memorial Highway.) The developer considered making changes to the PUD plan after consideration of the PUD was continued by the City Council. However, on July 28, 2005, the developer withdrew his application for the PUD. Since that time, the property has been put back on the market. Attached is a copy of the . proposed site plan for what was proposed in 2005 by Kingman Building Company. 1 . . . Description of Subdivision and Variance Requests Terra Engineering has decided to not propose this development as a PUD but rather as a subdivision. As part of the subdivision application, they are also requesting a variance from the subdivision ordinance that requires that all lots have full frontage on a public street and that all lots have to meet the minimum area and dimension requirements for the R-1 (Single-Family) zoning district. In the case of the Maywood Green subdivision, only Lot 1 will have its full frontage on a street. Lots 2, 3, and 4 will have shared access to a 16 ft. driveway that will run out to the frontageroad. Also, Lots 3 and 4 do not meet the minimum lot width requirement of 80 ft. These two lots are proposed to be only 74ft. in width. However, each of the lots exceeds the minimum area requirement of 10,000 sq. ft. with three of the lots exceeding 14,000 sq. ft. and one lot exceeding 11,000 sq. ft. The sizes of the four lots in Maywood Green are similar to the sizes of the lots in the surrounding neighborhood. (Terra Engineering incorrectly requested a side yard setback variance for the construction of homes on Lots 3 and 4. These types of variances can only be submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals at the time construction of a house on either of the lots is proposed. The required side yard setback is 12.5 ft for lots that are less than 100 ft. wide and greater than 65 ft. wide. For lots that are 100 ft. wide or greater, the side yard setback is 15 ft.). Terra Engineering believes that it is more appropriate to develop this property as a four lot subdivision than as a PUD. They may propose certain deed restrictions and covenants related to the development and maintenance of the property. These will be attached to the deed for each of the lots. Also, there will have to be cross easements for the construction of the 16 ft. wide driveway that will serve the four properties. In addition, the City of Golden Valley has the right to require a subdivision development agreement that will establish the responsibilities of the owners of the four lots. These responsibilities include the long-term maintenance of best management practices agreed upon by the developer to treat runoff from the site, maintenance of the driveway serving each of the lots, the overall landscape maintenance of the site, tree preservation, park dedication, and other issues raised by the Public Works Department and Public Safety Department. The Planning Department will recommend that as part of a Subdivision Agreement, the minimum setbacks are permanently defined so that no setback variances are requested in the future. In this case, it is appropriate to eliminate setback variance requests because the lots are narrower than the required 80 ft. on two of the lots and the houses along the Valleywood Circle are close to the west property line of Maywood Green. Staff believes that the size and width of the proposed lots provide more than adequate space for a house without the need for variances in the future. Due to the shape of the lot and the type of construction proposed by Terra Engineering, it would be difficult for the houses constructed on Lots 1-4 to meet all the requirements outlined in the PUD section of the zoning code. For instance, Section 11.55, Subd. 3 in the PUD chapter of the zoning code states that the setback for the principal building for a lot within the PUD shall not be closer than its height to the rear or side property line which abuts a single- family zoning district. In this case, Terra Engineering would like to build two-story homes that will be in the 25 ft. to 30 ft. in height range. It would be impossible to meet this requirement with this type of single-family home construction. Also, the PUD states in the same Subdivision that all principal buildings shall be set at least 15 ft. from the back of the curb of any public or private street. Again, the developer believes that this requirement would be difficult to meet due to the width of the lots and the size of the type of planned homes. 2 . . . Terra Engineering has submitted a complete application that includes all the information that is needed for a preliminary plat with the exception of information regarding any proposed restrictive covenants agreements or shared maintenance agreements. The City staff has asked Terra Engineering to provide drafts of those agreements prior review of the preliminary plat by the City Council. The preliminary plat has been reviewed by the Public Works Department and their comments are addressed in the attached memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE. In addition, Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections, has written a letter (attached) to Peter Knaeble, PE, dated August 16, 2006 regarding the conditions on which his department will approve the subdivision. Subdivision Variance Process Section 12.54 of the Subdivision Chapter addresses the process for the consideration of variances from requirements of the Subdivision Chapter. It states that the Council may grant a variance following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. There are special circumstances for conditions affecting said property so that the strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would create an unusual hardship and deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Economic difficulty or inconvenience shall not constitute a hardship situation for the purpose of this ordinance. 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood in which said property is situated. The section also states that the Council "shall consider the nature of the proposed use of the land and the existing use of the land in the vicinity, the number of persons to reside in the proposed subdivision and the probable effect of the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the area. In granting a variance, the Council may prescribe such conditions as it deems desirable or necessary for the public interest". A recommendation by the Planning Commission shall also be made on the variances at the same meeting that the preliminary plat is considered. Matt Pavek, PE, of Terra Engineering, Inc., has submitted a letter dated August 21, 2006 stating the request and reasons for their variance request. This letter is attached. Recommendations There are two different ways that this development could go forward. One way is proposed by Terra Engineering. This is going forward with a subdivision without going through the PUD process. This requires that certain subdivision variances be granted by the City Council. The other method to develop this property is by the PUD process. The PUD process would include the platting or subdivision of the property along with the issuance of a PUD permit that would outline the specific development. In either case, the City will require the subdivider to sign an agreement. If it was a PUD, the developer would be required to sign a PUD agreement. If it is a subdivision, a Subdivision (Development) Agreement would be required. This agreement would specifically outline the requirements for the development and maintenance of the properties within the subdivision. 3 . . . These requirements may include the maintenance of sewer and water lines, maintenance of the private driveway in order that emergency vehicles have adequate access, restriction on parking for the driveway, setback requirements (including the restriction that no variances be allowed for future construction on the four lots), construction and maintenance of best management practices for water quality improvements, tree preservation requirements, and other issues related to site. In this case, the staff can see the advantages of using only the subdivision process with a Subdivision Agreement. The PUD ordinance specifically states any building on lots within a PUD shall be setback at least the height of the house from any adjacent R-1 zoned property and at least 15 ft. for a street or driveway. These two PUD requirements cannot be met. If the subdivision process is used, there are no such setback requirements. However, there are two subdivision variances needed for lot width and lack of frontage on a street for three of the lots. Staff believes that it is important to look at the effect of the proposed development on the surrounding neighborhood. Compared to the PUD that was proposed last year with 8 lots, the current proposal will have less impact on the neighborhood. With only three homes adjacent to the rear yards of the houses along Valleywood Circle, the impact will be less even with the 12.5 ft. setback along the west property line. The previous proposal had four homes in the same area. Staff recommends approval of this development using the subdivision process and not the PUD process. However, staff recommends that a Subdivision or Development agreement be included that addresses issues raised by City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, and the Chief of Fire and Inspections Mark Kuhnly. Also, the Subdivision Agreement should specifically state that setback variances on any of the lots will not be allowed. The City Attorney has stated that such a deed restriction is legal. In this case, the City would be approving lots that are smaller in width than the normal lots and without public access on a street. Also, constructing structures closer than 12.5 ft. from the west property lines of proposed Lots 1,2, and 3 would not be appropriate because of these lots are adjacent to the rear lots of the homes on Valleywood Circle. The building envelope area indicated on each of the proposed 4 lots is more than adequate to build substantial homes and meet the required side yard setback of 12.5 ft. on Lots 3 and 4 and the 15 ft. side yard setback on Lots 1 and 2. The following recommendations for approval are recommended: 1. The Preliminary Plans for Maywood Green dated 8/18/06 shall become a part of this approval. These plans were prepared by Terra Engineering. 2. The recommendation of City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, found in a memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated September 1, 2006 shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations of the Chief of Fire and Inspections Mark Kuhnly found in a letter to Peter Knaeble, PE, of Terra Engineering and dated August 16, 2006 shall become a part of this approval. 4. A Subdivision Agreement will be required prior to approval of the final plat that will include the recommendations found in the memo from Jeff Oliver, PE, and Mark Kuhnly. 5. The Subdivision Agreement will also include a requirement that deed restrictions be developed that will state that no setback variances be allowed after the lots in the subdivision are created. 6. A park dedication fee determined by the City Council will be paid prior to final plat approval. 4 . . . Attachments Location Map (1 page) Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated September 1, 2006 (3 pages) Letter from Chief of Fire & Inspections Mark Kuhnly dated August 16, 2006 (1 page) Preliminary plans for Maywood Green dated August 18, 2006 (7 pages) Preliminary site plan for what was proposed in 2005 by Kingman Building Company (1 page) 5 5828 5l'I08 " '\."" ~~~ O~, ,,1;,~.II ".:0,\ ,\. ' I Subject Property. , \ , ~ ~ i i OlSON MEM01UAL HWY HlGtfWAY 55 525 5801 0lS0H MI\'MOlUAl HWY HlGtfWA Y 55 520 520 .573$ $n9 SlS :ill ! ~ :E .... ~ 444 50tI sos 44S 435 434 510 4SO ; \ A o ~ \ % Ull 449 4S9 469 419 5730 S726 5114 $100 S630 ">> WOODSTOCK AVE 5n1 5711 sns S701 "15 SIS05 SSM S625 C! i i: X lO 1:1 :ill 401 sno S8005140 S100 >>S nao 5G2O HOO l.OfUNG LN SS40 SSM 5520 5845 "3 5745 _5 570S ;~ .MlD(,~.~"~A,,"cNS' ~~+t.oot$GlS~)5 . 3IlI>!l ~ \ A o i \ i < i ! i d m WI ~ \1\ :ill ! V 5 L [ '. . . . Memorandum Public Works 763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax) alley Date: September 1, 2006 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer ~ Preliminary Plat Review for rff:!~ Green From: Subject: Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat for Maywood Green, a four lot single family development located east of Valleywood Circle, and south of Trunk Highway 55 South Frontage Road and Turners Crossroads. Preliminary Plat and Site Plan: The proposed development consists of four single family lots, with access to all four lots provided by a shared, 16 foot wide driveway. The developer will be required to dedicate an easement for driveway access between the four parcels. This easement must be signed and ready for recording as part of the final plat submittal. The final plat must include drainage and utility easements consistent with the subdivision ordinance. In addition, the final plat must include drainage and utility easements over the sanitary sewer and water mains providing service to the site. These easements must extend 10 feet each direction beyond the centerline of each utility. In order to minimize access onto the frontage road, access for Lot 1 must be onto the internal driveway as shown on the plans. The developer will be responsible for removal of the existing driveway into the property and the installation of concrete curb and gutter and sidewalk on the frontage road. The developer will be required to enter into a Subdivision/Development Agreement for this subdivision. This agreement will be developed by the City as part of the final plat approval process. Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water service to this proposed development will be provided by the extension of existing utilities in the frontage road to the site. The new utilities within the site will be owned and maintained by the City following completion. The sanitary sewer and water will be constructed consistent with City standards and specifications as a G:\Developments-Private\Maywood\PrePlatReview 090106.doc " . . . public improvement project. The public improvement project and the associated costs to be funded by the developer will be part of the Subdivision/Development Agreement discussed above. The individual sanitary sewer services for each home will be owned and maintained from, and including, the point of connection to the City sewer main to the home. The individual water services will be owned and maintained by the City between the water main and the curb stop. The homeowners will own and maintain the water services from, including the connection to, the curb stop to the home. The public improvement project will also include the installation of a draintile system extending from the storm sewer in the frontage road into the development. This draintile system will be within the easement dedicated for the sanitary sewer and water, and will include individual service stubs for each home. The draintile main will be owned and maintained by the City and the services, including the point of connection, will be owned and maintained by the homeowners. All sump pumps installed in these homes must be connected to the draintile system. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control: The proposed subdivision is located within the Sweeney Lake subdistrict of the Bassett Creek Watershed and is therefore subject to the review and comment of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC). The development must be in compliance with the BCWMC's Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals. Because the development site is less than two acres, the installation of water quality ponding is not required. The developer has submitted a preliminary drainage report with the preliminary plat to address the non-degradation standards of the BCWMC. While the report does indicate that there will be less impervious surface on site when compared to the previous land use (tree service yard), it does not provide any supporting information on phosphorus loading. The developer will need to provide this supporting information as part of the submittal to the BCWMC for its review. The preliminary grading plan submitted provides information regarding elevations of the proposed homes, and proposed information regarding driveway construction. Based upon this information it appears that there will be adequate storm water drainage within the development away from homes and onto adjacent streets. Each of the proposed homes within this development will be custom graded at the time of home construction. Therefore, each builder must submit an individual grading plan, and a city permit must be obtained, prior to issuance of a building permit. Each grading plan must be prepared according to city specifications. G:\Oevelopments-Private\Maywood\PrePlatReview 0901 06.doc ~ . . . No building permits will be issued in this development until all public utility construction is completed and accepted by the City. In addition, the driveway providing service to the development must be paved prior to the issuance of any building permits on site. The driveway must be designed to accommodate the City's fire equipment as outlined in the Fire Chiefs letter to the developer. Tree Preservation: This development is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Tree Preservation Plan submitted with the preliminary plat indicates that four category "B" trees must be planted on this site. Therefore, the developer must submit a plan for the location of these trees with the final plat submittal. No building permits will be issued for this site until the developer has obtained a Tree Preservation Permit from the City. Summary and Recommendations: Public Works staff recommends approval of the. proposed preliminary plat of Maywood Green based upon the comments contained in this review, which are summarized as follows. 1. The developer must enter into a Subdivision/Development Agreement for this plat. This agreement will outline the public improvement project discussed in this review, cost responsibilities of the developer and the developers' obligations for the subdivision. 2. Subject to the review and comment of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. 3. The developer must submit a revised utility plan that includes the draintile system discussed in this review as part of the final plat submittal. 4. Subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney, Building Official, Fire Marshal and other City staff. C: Tom Burt, City Manager Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator Eric Eckman, Engineering Technician AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Gary Johnson, Building Official Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal G:\Developments-Private\Maywood\PrePlatReview 0901 06.doc old e QU'cigo!&n~ll~S . City Hall '7.800 Golden Valley Road Colden Valley, MN 55427-4588 76.3~593-8000 763-593-8109 (fax) 763:593-3968 (TDD) Mayor and Council 763c593-8006 City Manager 763-593-8002 Public Safety Police: 763-593-8079 Fire: 763-593-8055 763-593-8098 (fax) Public Works .3-8030 .. 93-3988 (fax) Inspections 763~593-8090 763-593-3997 (fax) Motor Vehicle Licensing 763-593-8101 Planning and Zoning 763"593-8095 Finance 763-593-8013 . Assessing 763-593-8020 Pa.rk and Recreation 200 Brookview Parkway . Golden Valley, MN 55426~]364 763-512-2345 763-512-2344 (fax) 763-593-3968 (TDO) . .,'< August 16, 2006 Mr. Peter Knable, PE Terra Engineering, Inc. 6001 Glenwood Avenue Golden Valley, MN 55422 Re: Fire Lane Design- Maywood Green Dear Mr. Knable, Fire Department staff has reviewed your letter dated August 11, 2006 regarding fire lane design for the Maywood Green, 4 lot single-family subdivision. Fire Department staff is in agreement with the proposed 16' paved fire lane. We are requiring that the fire lane be designed to accommodate a fire apparatus load of 68,000 pounds. A minimum vertical clearance of 13'6" shall be maintained over the full width of the fire lane. Fire lane signs shall be installed to identify where the fire lane starts and ends, with a spacing not to exceed 100' in accordance with the city ordinance. The Clm-ent plan does not meet that requirement. A perpetual maintenance agreement through a recorded driveway maintenance agreement shall be established. The houses on lots 2-4 will be constructed as proposed, with a fire suppression system designed per city and state requirements. The proposed on-site hydrant appears to be in the correct general location. The city may require the hydrant to be relocated due to water service locations for lots 2, 3 and 4. The city engineer may require that the dliveway access for lot I be relocated from the public street to the fire lane. Sincerely, I/ iit' /}:L~Uo/ Mark Kllhnly, C~if of Fire & Inspections City of Golden Valley ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ '\,. ."... .J ~':0{i,'t'()~ ,,*i "', n i" '" N '" ~ 0 z ~ 0 ;;J ~ '" 0 -- -n - " ...I;~ ,-- ,-- , , ,-- , ,-, 'T' , _, I 1 __ll. --. ,- "-- , " ,-, '-' - ,-, '-' I, . ,-, ... '-' --" r-, '-' llJ r 0 ~ G) '!!: 15' . 32 I I~ 22 g llJ r 0 G) ~ ~ " <::: " -:: '" ,-, ~ '-' ~ =ti :lS' (T'rP) ,-, '-' ,-, ,_, ".... ~ " , I I ~ " ,., 1i! 0 ""- '- '- llJ '5' '4' '- r 0 '- G) '- ~ '!I, '- .j>. " 58' '- '- I'" '" 22 ""- /~ /' \ \ \ ., o ,. + - -:: I.... :.- -- ,-- , ,-- , 'T' 1'1 ll. '" '" ~ .. :.: L --- ----- . , , " __ll. I I ,1',...... 1 1 y L_ 1.._ I ...'" ^ r....r....'-'-'.....,." I J_' I II II , It 11\1 , \ l.../ L.... I I ,........ I 'f \~~ o .., '- '" "- "- "'- "'- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- 4.t..3!..41 "-I I '1 R5 . t In I 81 13' R5,' RS' "- 1 "'~ , Ro . . . "!. 17' 20 \oj 40' llJ r 0 G) ~ ~ " I to I ~ '" I llJ I r I 0 G) ~ L 1';i 2' I 36 \ 30 x 891.50 --. ---- . , , " __ll. I........ I r" , /I I'" -I ,\ I ,~ "... I I 1. " I ,_, ~\I~ ~~<: I "I' \ I I L.. _ "..... , I ^ r', i', I -t- I ,.... " t ,_, I I I I I I I I It' I , \ L.... L-..... -, -, I."'''' r 'I MAYWOOD GOLDEN V ALLEY, MN FOR KINGMAN BUILDING COMPANY PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN John Oliver & Ass.ocia tes. Inc. !'tV<< Engineni.ng. Land Surveying, Land. Planning o Dodge Avenue k RiveT, Mi71.'ft€so(.Q,' 55330 2072 FAX 768-441-5665 ~~CertifY that this plan, specif- DATE: ~. reporl was prepared by me r u ~direct supervision and DESIGN By: that, I 0 d~t! licensed, ProfessioMI DRAWN BY Engineer er te of Mtnnesota . lolu'es See 7~3261.5 ~~~,~KED BY ignature: A1? TEXT: Xx,-.:xx x. XX)(Y,>~ \__ Date: xx/xx/XXXX Lie. No, r FilE NO: 4/11/05 ~rg' TM CSA TM 8482-10PGRD NONE 8482.10-00 DATE OESCRIPTlON m\ Offices in: Elk Rive,". Bur7tsville a.nd, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota ~ ~;lR- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ---------~-----------~ , ' , , , , , I , I ''< , , , , , , .;>- .;.; , .;.; , .;.; , .;.; , .;.; , .;.;.; , ".;.; , , .;.;/ " ~.; , , ' '\ , , , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I I - r--- I ( \ \ \ \ 1 , 1 I ' / " --------- /', - // ' - ' ---~_/ " I ' I " I J"! ", I ' I " I " r 469 I : '1~ 12,425 SF : - I I I I I I .__________ I ---.,-1- ----------------T----- I --- I I I I I I I I I I I 521 14,726 SF 7843 SF " , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 511 14,651 SF J.,. -9<( ~)-~ ',- <>~ '\ 0 SF , ~C \ (~ I I J I / / / .; --" --- , , , , , , , 500 -:]48 ~- --b --- :t <<> -- ~~ --- . r....: --- g~ (/) 489 PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR: MA YWOOD GREEN GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA ~ :t: ::E UJ :::; Z ~<'I o I' (/) - cS 10 1.0 10 ( I I I I 1r'I13' co' ~<'41 (/) I I z (/) I ~I SI in I ~ lG' 4l I N I 30' SB F S ~ I _ L___ _____3 I 14,129 SF ~ HOUSE m NOT SPRINKLED 100' :e ~ I~~ ~io <'II"") b o (/) ~ (/) 21, 758 SF co (/) (/) 35' il:r-- <'II ~~ ...., ,,,," I :... I I I I I , ........... / ) : ""V / IHOUSE SPRINKLE}" I 30' RS8 / L..:--2---..J FlS 14,178 SF /~. 75' FLS SHED ~O <'I 16,988 SF i3' S89'29'45"E 49.00 435 35' 1 1 I , I I I 1 I lco I ' I~ CO~OUSE SPRINKLE~ ~I ,.... .1 4 I 01 I -I 14,028 SF , I I I I ~ I I - I 40' RSB ' L________.J co "'" ... lco I~ I. 10 I- I I IHOUSE SPRINKLED I I I I L--3-3CrRSSJ 11,096 SF 75' != B233' ~~ GAR. tJ 001"") ~b 4~ 5l HOUSE 425 . 26,060 SF 0> 0> 74' 1 I I I b600 WOODSTOCK A V. : Fl <"' \ 13,887 F 12,432 ,,)F SF I .-- I I - J I I 149.00 I S89'29' 45"E I F610 WOODSTOCK AV. I I I I I I I 5700 18,564 SF 5630 18,591 SF 5620 WOODSTOCK A V. 18,916 SF 14,025 SF .~ 1.ncA. 110N UAP NO SCALE SHEET INDEX SHEET 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN PRELIMINARY NOTES, DETAILS & SWPPP I~D: ~ 8-5 DENOTES SOIL BORING _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DENOTES SILT FENCE/GRADING LIMIT _ -1<]56- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS -1056- DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS _>__ DENOTES SToRM SEVoER _) > _ DENOTES SANITARY SEWER _" .:: DENOTES WATERMAlN x 1"",,.~ DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATlOO X 1056.0 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION E(F.10159.0 DENOTES EMERGENCY O\€RFLOW ELEVATION N ... ... ... '" 0 '" '" ... ... .., It) .., '" 4) B <0 ::0 0 ... ~ : )C ~ 2 Lf g~~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ... .. It) g ~ ~ '" ::E ... t If al ! I1CSJGJD p.JJUI(1U'. 1/I/JI1IN HIU'. ~".JJ(. ~ ~lsg :ll ! ~ 'c ,; "~.alO z ~Uj ~ il . lil;JS - q~ t I . 1 3- 0 :i ;t~~! 1'6 " .; lh;d . .. -~ ~ ----r ~ 0 % (J) l.&.I :5 % % 0- ~ ~ ~~ iii >- ~ C>c( c( c> % 0% ~ ~l.&.I ::i l.&.I c(~ ~ 0- ~C> w ---cr ___ E I ~ D/Jrc S 8/18/06 :xl 0 30 60 lmurr JC I FEE~ 06-111 SCALE IN WARNING THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTlN(; UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHO'lttl IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE EXCAVATING CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXlSllNG UTlUllES BEFORE COt.tMENClNG WORK. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE ,OR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTlUTlES. . sHCCr IoU 1 .... co '\0 .... (J\ .... ~ (J11 (J\ ~! .j>. o~ VI ..., u> 01 N o ,/ t... / I , \ ,%"~':O /~/I'Ai / / --~' ~ J2.-v 1-;' I 0");g/ r / j> ~ )- 0)lr ; [ /{;'f/ .. p (...I // I 1..-'/"/ '-N~CA 1 l/...If, 1ft'" 1;:3 ~ I 0; I ';:11/ ,. Iu>- I ;:::~: ~ I en cr I ~ ~o ~ j '1 ~/.. i'}/ $ I ~.~i }I .l m- i () TN qj Y. Yl ljl~ I II. .,. 0 I liE;::: 01 81 J!N r~ Oi ...... r- r/ 701.. I~~\'" , ~ '" ! r \.UN / / ~ ~/ fTI/, lID (0 ....... _ /.../ I',,).z; ~'.rll.-\..t_7'" ~ .. T~---~ -l,crt.) 7;fl /0 '\.~~ ~ ~ VrvoO) /'1"'1/ :Q". 0' Or?< ./ Z-O -' 0 .....,....'" .;:;~(,,) // fl1 f;i VI ..., ...... o ru \0 VI ..., ...... .j>. b I'\) (J1 .... W Co CO -..J ~c!j!:~:;!1 r-p"" -<'" ~-<"'~r "''''~r-~ O~~~~ ",oC>:;!l! ~~c:mcn ;;J~~~~ -<"'Pjrr1~r"1 ~\il~~~ >>~~~ ;:;t~QC>'" )I. ~O~ %o~<>l!ti O~il!3 ;g>I:>~ la:=2~8 ';000",% ~~~"'o > ::I:c ~~~F~ d~~l:l o5?",,,,Sl 2:1:<>1;", ~~~ili~ 5....~:i!g "'lIln"''! ::0 ~fTI- ~!<~x% g~>~~ % '" ~~~R~ Ea~~2J iilCDO~~ "'-<CD > . ::I:"'~;;l '" '" l5 n ~ ~ l!: :~+z 1"1 ~ .,. .... 0 I ~ir. (J1 // \ .j>. g / / I CO /1 """ \ / / ~\ "\ 7/ ... ^~ /~-':..,---~",/ .;> ( ^~t'" I, ~" , ~ " ~ "'-" ~ / \\l C/ ..., ~ I -- \ I I , I ....(J1 \ I .j>.(\) \ , I \. ,I , I \. \ ) /' / / / / / / , / / / / / I I ,,- /' / / / / / / f { I I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ "- " " '" '- I' ICO Ic.o / I I I I I I I I I I I / / ,,-( / \ / \ ,,'" , " \ ... , \ r-- I I I ::E o o CJ (,1 d o I ^ I )> I ~, ./ . I ---~ ",.1 -----crr--:; -.----~- I o ~I ::E 10'" g ~b ~ ~o o rri o VI ^' ..., )> ---- - < """ ~ L__/'99' _.<iJb<?r 19'&(>0 I ...~-8!fl"" "- o Ip ,'" S90036!40" ~ " ~ \ ~ /' j l1~~.?-~'vi'Ji~ "'\ R '/ j I~ \ "~y --/ i t ( F! ~;~T::'~~I ('~------~".!8 ~ "\ ~ \ 0 I \1 VI t)'r;\tl .l::E I J f1'I\ (J1V ,. -flj, 0 ,.___ ~ ru t. \.:...J { \~'--g'-- I \ ?' .j>. 1\ \ WI Vl I \ 0 (\) [I] \ ' [ ru'- d I \ g; (J1 J> I . " : ';0 I ;U \ , '-c.-,/ ^ /.....-,.. '\ VI . ~ \ [;) '"'1 >_.---/ 1\ ',..., V!. J> _-,--< 1\ ' ;U . 1\' ' ----u.-----~\ \ ~ r- ; (';\ i ~ .c::>_ -_........j\; I U ~/ c" ::1"::E I~ I ~ it:!;' ~ ~I' ~ !I; \: I ~ U1 ......~I../--------- jlY o I;' I '.t!f /'0 0 :; \ l' II ff , ..., ^ ,i \ ,--j k '1 ~ ,I", : " "f) '//1 . I" I /' 'J>~' / -----------1 \ "-.... .................( ,1~/ /1 ()l . t '\ -____--- // / 8"--- - '\1 \ ,;//", / o \1 \ // / (). ::E ',-- //'l/, ()..:-U. 8 h'- -~~.... /'// 0..1.) ~ 1\ """,,"" //;V -i I \ ","'" , / ! ~~ '''''-...- / //>>' ~~ ',- /,/./// ----"'" //,' / I " ~/\,/. ,,' " / ...-.--:--:-~,;t -........ ~ J'/"""""// ,// // VI '"'1 -..J CO .j>. W o Q to"...--..." n- "' ii' ~'2U !,.. .....- \, . .. 1--- '" '"""-' 3: r , , ~ ~='='"\ , ,.1 - "I , , .'" MI I " , O~OJO I c \ 0: " ;: \ ..._1 _ ~+"J {)1E- (I 0 \ !:j ~ N g: "," I: -n'" " J?} I ~ 'vl" \ ~"''f z' z '" '-I '\ ",I '" If. I " :Ii " ::I: ) l .fl'( 0_ c \ \ ,...... ~ \ , b(~" \ \ , , ... \ J J ... / / / "" "- I / ,,-oJ , " \ " , 1 ...., I . ~ 1\ ~ii.~ 0.. ~~ ,--~ I ~ J I -u ~1' OI~ "'00 (lJ1 ,,~ I ~ ~ i I I \ I , , \ \ , .., ;:; 0J~\ ~ . ?Q r;; ,~, I dth /... ~ ~~ I~ VI ..., f ( J ! --' , ... / , -' // / / / // / " / / / ! I I f / / / / ! / I ( , I ,/ /'/ // .... /i // /' ( I I I I \ (J i j I I ! I , I I \ I \ , \ \ \ \. \ \ \ , \ , " '" i I \/\ \ \, I "\ \" '- ", / ( /, / ./ ./ "- , '- " ~;i 11.HW~ti _jlitl 11g:0'>1"'~ 10 fYy I: : o :;I2:;1:;1~!i!lil:;l~:;I zzzzzzzzzz ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~i~i~ii~~ ~~i!~i!I:Oi!~CD % ",>~",1Ilc> !il <> 16l!: "'8Q l!: ~~~ !!l~~!~'" ?a;;:e !li g~~ 6~~ Gl"'~ :E)o';t c: ~::lCl!: I: <~ =i )0' ::l i ~ !l u pnOf' III 0 COOl ,.port WOI == by me. Of' EXISllNG CONDlllONS PLAN unci... my recI MlJ::::ln. and en '- ~,,:,;m ..::- ~ Iawo of the I ~ .... CO ~ 18_ K-li-- .... '- I'f/DJCCT MA YWOOD GREEN iH" .... . ~ .... 0 Peter J. Kn~ P.E. en GOLDEN VALLEY. MINNESOTA Date: 8/18/0$ Roll. No. 14844 a is I\) . - ;10>"- 0>>< !'>~ N::r \". ("I / ! \". / I , ~ ,/ / /' / ,/ ~ CJ" / I ;' I / I 1 I I / I I / / ( / I I I I 1 I / / / / / I I / I ~....., / I // / " I / I / I I \ , , -I /j /1 /1 I /.. I I / I / I / / ( ( 1 I ) ........./ ...- \ \ I" I I I '- \ \ __---J ,/ / / / ---......., / i I J I I I \ \ / / / F 1 I / / / / I \ /'-.. , \ \ \ \, \ \ \ \ '- / / , I / / / ( \ , , " "- \ \ " ..... ", "- '-, ", " , " "- ", \ , , '\ " '-~ .... '- Terra .......-. .... - 6001 Glenwood Avenue MinneBpolls, Minnesota 55422 763 593 9325 Fax: 763 512 0717 ""- __0""- - ---------------- --.-- \ -- -- \ --- \ -- -- \ --- \ ...,...."" \ 881.48/8]5.63'~ \ f'"-..- 882.23/876.28~..t \ I -......... I . \ \ \ \ \ \ --~-----------~, ------- '" , , I " I , I '-{ , , , , , , ........>'\ ....... , ........ , ....... , ... ' ...... , ...... ' .... ' .... , " ........ , , ;'" ' '<.... , " \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , I I I --- ,.....--- , ( \ \ \ \ I I 1 I ' / " I " --------... ..../ ", ......-,/ ..... ......----1- ' '.......... I ;--; "" , ' I " I " I ' I I 469 I ' 12,425 SF I , I I , I I I -------------,L----------------T-------- I I I I I I I 5630 I : 18,591 SF : I I I I I I f ' 521 14,726 SF 511 14,651 SF ::Ii l4J :::ii 7843 SF ~ ~ o III ;0 III , , ", , , , " , " , , J,., ~< ~~ " ~ SF\ ~l'., \ -<~ ) , J I / / ./ ... --- , , , .... .... .... .... .... 500 -:!/ 5700 18,564 SF ~- -~ ------- io~ -" r>,.... - 0<0 ~<d' 489 ~ :t r-----------, ~ 35' FSB ! ~r---------- ~ I'~ <'I. 0<0 <'II') ~ I I I , I I I . I I I I I I I I 30' RSB I 1 L--2----I I I I / L__L4.Jla..SF...I ~OED <'I 16,988 SF S89"29' 45HE 49.00 r-------, / 35' FSB I ~/Ir-------,I Vf/II d II I I ( ( II r----------l I: Ii I I, II I, I I, 'I I 35' FSB ' I I I 'r--------" 'I lab , , II I, 131 I I ,I " ',1 m I I~ cD, ,~ lfI I , \oU1 I I .1 , I!Q '1'1 4 'I It! I 1'(' 11>1 I I l' I~ il 14,028 SF I, I ' II I' II i..:.t I I, II II , I I I I co. I I , 1 I 'I :!j' 40' RSB I I I I 'I 1 L________.J I I ' 'I I / I L--~--r-R-S-BJ I I , 1m I \oJ 30 I, 1(1) I 11,096 SF 'I I L__________J L__________J 75' 74' 435 21,758 SF --------------------------~------------- 233' I GAR, I ~ 8~ <<i~ (I), "'0 o Vl 8 o 425 26,060 SF ~ - - - -- -- --,--- -- ---- -- -- ~~-----------,--- ----- I I I I I I I I : 5550 WOODSTOCK A V. \5530 WOODSTOCK A V. I I : 12,432 SF : 11,194 SF I , I I 149.00 I S89'29'45"E I p610 WOODSTOCK AV. I I I I I I I I I 15600 WOODSTOCK I I I I I 5620 WOODSTOCK AV. 18,916 SF AV. F 13,887 14,025 SF 10,269 SF SITE INFORM" TlON EXIS11NG ZONING - R-l (SINGLE FAMILY) PRa>OSED ZONING - R-l (SINGlE FAMILY) NO CHANGE TOTAl.. SITE AREA-53.432 SF (1.23 ACRES) lEGAL OFSCRIPTlON That port of Lot 3, Section 33, Townahlp 118, ROI1ge 21 IWlg Southweater! y of the highway right of way ae d..aibed 'n Book 1382 of Oe.d., pog, 19, Eoet of a line ~ed at right onglee ta the North line of sold Lot at 0 point therein 929,8 feet Eoet along eold Ifne from the Northwest com<<, of eokl Lot and North of a line drown from 0 point on the Weet Ifne of sokl Lot, 420.4 feet North of the Southweet comer of sokl Lot to a point on the Eaet line there<)f 414.8 feet North of the Southeoet comer of sold Lot. Except that port which 11.. North of the South 198 feet thereof and Eoet of the West 100 f"t meoeured olong the South line of the oboye deac:iil>ed tract. And oleo except that port of the South 198 feet of the oboYl described tract which II" Eaeterly of the Weeterly 149 feet thereof, according to the United States Go~ment Survey thereof and eltuate In Hennepin County, Mlnneeoto. Being regletered land oe Ie evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 732187. 1. R-1 ZONING STANDARDS IotIN. LOT AREA - 10,000 SF IotIN. LOT WIOlH - SO' (0 FRONT SETBAa< UNE) IotIN. LOT WIOlH (CORNER LOT) - 100' (0 FRONT SElBAa< UNE) IotIH. LOT IlEP1H - NIA FRONT SE18Aa< - 315' REAR SETBACK - ~ OF LOT DEPTH SIDE SE18Aa< - 12.5' (15' FOR LOTS> 100' IN VI1DlH) IotAX BLOO COIlERAOE - 3OlIO 2. SITE DATA TOTAl.. PROPOSED SllE AREA NUIotBER OF LOTS S1lE DENSITY IotIHIIotUIot LOT SIZE A \'ERAGE LOT SIZE A \'ERAIX 8l.DG FOOTPRINT A l/ERAGE 8l.DG CO\'ERAGE 1.23 ACRES 4 3.25 UNITS PER ACRE 11,096 SF 13,3157 SF 1.900 SF (ASSUIotED) 14ll 3. SITE NOTES T'IPtCAI.. FRONT ORAlNAGE.t U11JTY EASIotEMENT - 10' TYPICAl.. REAR ORAIHAIX& U11UTY EASIotDlENT - 10' T'IPtCAI.. SIDE ORAlNAGE&UTUTY EASMEMENT - 6' (SEE PREl.lIoINARY PLAT FOR LOCA 110N OF OTHER ORAlHAGE ANt> UTUTY EASDlENTS) IOHT-Ol'-WAY LINE LOT LINE r I I I II :1 II IL_ I L___ 1 I GARAGE FRONT ElEVA 110N FB PAll T'I1'E (FUll. BASElIENT) BASDlENT ElEVA110N ~D ElEVATION AT REAR eulLDING SE18Aa< UN[ T'W'P. LOT DRAINAGE & UllUTY EASElIENTS (TYP.) (10' FRONT, REAR TYP.. 6' SlOE TYP.) U':C9ft ~ B-5 DENOTES SOIL BORING _ _ _ _ - - - DENOlES SILT fENCE/GRADING UIotIT -. -105&- - DENOlES EXfSllNG CONTOURS --1056- DENOlES PROPOSED CONTOURS __>- DENOTES STOmI SEIER ......., > DENOlES SANITARY SEWER ~" 'N DENOlES WA lERIotAIN . ,...... DENOlES EXIS11NG SPOT ElEVA110N X 1056.0 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ElEVA110N EDF "1051.0 DENOTES EIotERGENCY O\lERfl.OW ElEVA 110N N w E 30 o S 30 SCAlE 'IN WARNING THE LOCATIONS OF EXISllNG UNDERGROUND UllUTIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXlMAlE WAY ONLY. THE EXCAVA11NG CONTRACTOR SHAlL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF All EXlSllNG UllUllES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES TO BE FUllY RESPONSIBlE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH IotIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCAlE ANO PRESERVE ANY AND AlL UNDERGROUND UTILlllES. I"- ... l"- NO N ('oj ... ... II> II> II> .., .. l!l to '" 0 l"- e UJ .. ! ~ ~ 8~l!:l J: co .., c:; == en .! & (I) <ll co '" .... ~ It) 8 c .., - to CO :l; I"- . iil~ p.JX.ACRJI. HI/J'. p..J/C . 80 :::::::l ~ 0 (J) W Z Z I- ~ :5 I~ D. >- D:: < 8> z ~ ~~ :J w <9 D:: 28 D. ; DAre 8/18/06 -;~:'111 I . SHCCT H4 3 FEET 'I , '-.. , , , , ,- " , ...." L. .__ ~_/' ( "-'- , """ / ",-,/" / / / / / / / ~"', ----I ' --~---- \ "" \ ',,- \ " \ ' , ' '..... '------\ '-. , \ ~._-------,./ \ \ \ \ /" \ " \ ./ "-- - - -, -. - --. --"'" // ( I I \...., '''-..., -, / ............... ...' --- ----...-/ , , -- / / / / I / .-- ,... , " '''-.... --\ " , " \ '\ , " "- , "- '. / / / / ./ /' / .......'" / I / I / ,/ .-- .-- ,... -- " , -- , , -- " , , " " " " " , " , , " " " \ ", " ',,- ~ .--/ ',''-----~_/ ./ "", "-......... (" - -" "'''-, -...:::> " "------------ "" "-, "- " I I / / / / / ,/ ,/ ,... ;' ./ ~==---~~.=- /..- ~" "'< " <~ ,', J-,,, , ' "'4 500"~\ ~ 14,648 Sf'\ ~ ~ - ) ~ I J, IJ // I _----../ I ( ,::., ----. - - -- " , " , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ "-'a ao, ...... ......,"- 469 12,425 5700 18,564 SF 18,916 SF 10,269 SF SITE INFORMATION: TOTAL SITE AREA... 1.23 ACRES TOTAL NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA = 0.36 ACRES (29%) ~ 1 . SILT FENCE BY BUILDERS 2. SEE DETAIL SHEET FOR GENERAL GRADING NOTES AND SWPPP. 3. INSTALL TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT EACH 4. DRIVEWAYS BY BUILDER. 5. ALL PADS TO BE CUSTOM GRADED BY BUILDER. BENCHMARK: TOP NUT OF HYDRANT SOUTH SERVICE ROAD AND VALLEYWOOD CIRCLE ELEV. = 887.52 R1GHT-oF'-WAY UNE r-------l I I I I ill FB II II iL_ I L____ LOT UHE GARAGE FRONT ELEVATION PAD TYPE (FUll BASENEHT) BASEMENT ELEVA nON (;ROUND ELEVA.TION AT REAR BUILDlHG SETBACI< UHf: nP. LOT DRAINAGE .so UllUTY EASENENTS (TYP.) (10' FRONT, REAR TYP., 6' SIDE TYP.) U:GBiD: ~ B-5 DENOTES SOIL BORING _______ DENOTES SILT FENCE/GRADING UMlT -. -1056-.- DEHOTES EXISTING CONTOURS -1056- DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS _>>->>- DENOTES STORM SEWER ->-->- DENOTES SANITARY SEWER --S"--W- DENOTES WATERMAlN X1C56.23 DENOTES 'EXISTING SPOT ELEVAllON X 1056.0 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVAllOH EQf'.10158.0 DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVAllOH r ( \ I ) J I N w s :xl o 30 c::::;.:.. SCALE IN .... .... .... '" 0 '" N ... .... It) It) It) '" 4) :! CD ::I 0 .... i = )( ~ a :J!. -g :i It) o . '" ~ ~ ~ .!! 8. ('I) <II '" Cl> ... .. It) o ~ ('I) o '- <D <D ::E .... . iilij I/C$ItiIO p..JXAUIP. _... HU. CHCC1CU I'.JJ(. 15151 ~ tUc'$ l' j .U~l h!l~ nU, ~ . ~ g o.z en c>:3 ~ ZOo Z c..J ~ <0 0::0:: ).:' C> F ~~ >- Z 0:: 0:: 0 C> <0 > ~z 8z ::iOiw ::liii )- 9 wo -' 0:: 0:: ..... 0 0.l.LJ::iC> ; IIArc 8/18/06 &0 = PIfD.EC: r NI1 . FEET 06-111 WARNING lliE LOCAllOllS OF EXISllHG UNDERGROUND UlIUlIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY OHL Y. lltE EXCAVA liNG COHTRACTOR SHALL DETERMIHE lltE EXACT LOCA liON OF AU EXlSlING UllUlIES BEfORE COMMENCING WORK. lltE CONTRACTOR AGREES TO BE fULLY RESPONSIBLE fOR ANY AND ALL DAN AGES WHICH NIGHT BE OCCA.SlONED BY HIS fAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UnUllES. $HCCT NO. 4 ... .... ... NO N N ... .... III It) III <t) .. l!l CO '" .. ... e en .. ! ~ ~ 8~g: ~ ~ ~ .!! R C") C!l .. Ol .... l!1 It) o c <t) 0- CO CO :It ... , ' -------- ------.-.- \ -- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ---------------~, - . , , , , , I , I ',< , , , , , , ...>-- ...... , ...... , ... ' ...... , ...... ' ...... ' ... ' ...... ' " ...... ' , ...... ' ~... ' , '\ , , , , \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I I _- /--- I ( \ \ \ \ I I 1 I ........ / .... / ........ ---.. /........ --......'// .......... .....--J" ............ \ ........ l ~............ I ........ I ........ , ........ I I I SF : I I I I I I I ----------,J- ----------------T-------- , , , I : I 5700' 5630: I 18,564 SF I 18,591 SF \ I , I , I I I I . 521 14,726 SF Jilij ] ~ W :::;; 7843 SF 5 (f) ..J o Il'l U; Il'l 511 14,651 SF .... .... , .... .... .... .... .... , , DCS1f1IG '..JX.ACRJ'. .IlWA~ NIt/'. 't:IID:J(U "..AI(. i ~~6! .1_ Ij.. 'WJ,JU . 'u;~ Hid 1 ~ ~ 0 fI) 0- W Z ~ z ::I :i F z>= ::) ~~ >- a:: '-'< c( c> z Oz ~ ~w ::I w <9 a:: 28 0- J.,.. 1'< ~.h ...., ~ ", ~ o \ ~ 8 SF \ ;?p() \ (~ I , J I / / ./ .... ... r--------~;:~~. , '" FROII ..:. I , I , l STA=2+40 I ~ , eS=887.0 I c( , INV 0 MAIN-878.42 ,W llNV 0 END=879.14 I~ I I :Z I . SNf S[R'l1 ~ I :.S' .. saw:1-.!!! I llXi. I , , NHI 4' FJ6u a. I _hOlf"''f' I 2 I M I I I I L_______..J 10' EASE. 4' SAN. SEJlV. I.S" ... SEJlV. r----------l I , I I 'STA=2+68 I 'eS=8g0.5 I IINV C MA'N=878.9~ ,INV C END-880.55I 1 I I I I , I 1 1 I ,I I :1 , I I I I 1 I I 3 1 , I 1 I I I L__________J ~OED C'l 16,988 --------------- SF LECEN&. ~ 8-5 DENOTES 5aL BORING _ _ _ - - - - DENOTES SlL T FDlCE/ClV.DtNG UIAIT -- -1056- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS -1056- DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS _>_>- DENOTES STORM SEWER -~ I DENOTES SANITARY SEWER --e" u,' DENOTES WATERMAlN I l0ee.23 DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ElEVA llON X IOSM DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVAllON ..'051.0 DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION Z4O'-S" DIP ... '" FROII SAN. a. 11II. .. CCMR YD./GV 4" SNf. SEJlV. U" WIl SEJlV. ---1 , , , I I ISTA=2+65 I ICS-889.5 'INV 4) MAIN=878.8q i,NV 0 END=879.76I I I I I I I , , I I I I '4 ' I I I 1 , I , I 1 1 I ,. I L I I I , , , 1'0> 1 , Ol , 1 L__________J 10' EASE. 489 435 WYE STA TlON (FROM OO\\1>lSTREAM MANHOlE ClJRBSTOP - TOP ELEVA nON INVERT AT ...A1N END OF SER't/ICE INVERT ELEVATION (....T EASEMENT UNE) 21,758 SF ---------------------------------------- 23.3' I GAR. I lII'IUTY ~ 1. ALL SANITARY SER't/ICE PIPE SHAU BE 6" PVC SDR26 2. WATER SER't/ICES SHALL BE 1.5" Ti'PE K COPPER El o N 425 26,060 SF W~~ E Ii ~ IMTC S 8/18/06 30 0 30 60 l-.ccr /C1 I ~ 06-111 SCALE .IN [l] --- --.-- -- ---- -- -- - -~~-- -------- -,-- ------~~~ ------ I I I ~\ , I , I I ' I I I I I I b600 WOODSTOCK AV. : 5550 WOODSTOCK AV. :5530 WOODSTOCK AV. 15000 WOODSTOCK , , I I I~ \ I I I ILl 94 SF, \ I f 8871F I 12,432 SF , ,\ I' I I I 10 2 9 SF \ , I I I' \ I I , ~ -, \ \ I I I p610 WOODSTOCK AV. I I I I I I . 5620 WOODSTOCK AV. WARNING 1liE lOCAllONS OF EXISllNG UNDERGROUND UllUllES ARE SHO\\1>l IN AN APPROXIMATE w....Y ONLY. THE EXCAVAllNG CONTR....CTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCAllON OF AU EXlSllNG U1lUllES BEfORE CONMENClNG 'M:lRK. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES TO BE fULLy RESPONSIBLE fOR ANY AND ....Ll DAMAGES \\1iICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS fAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY ANO ALL UNDERGROUND U1llI1lES. SHCCT No. 5 14,025 SF 18,916 SF . ' SF :::i. w :::;; 7843 SF ~ en ..J o It') a; It') 01~ PINE 6L 4 "oLE :"r' 012 PINE 18 PINE3 40 I \ ~276ASl1 1 l4 Bl SPRUCE o /.\ '13(~ 31 Wl~AK\i' -. 2 . 12 PINE I:~ (.)17 18 10,:ASSH I. (f PINE I I 14 PIN~" . 19~1 I I:) .17 PiNE 15 MAPLE 21 L.--.._. 21 MAPLE GRADING LI 22 r:z. \iJ 823 " 15 ASH ----T-------- I I -----------------. OPNE ~ (0 435 < PINE 21, 758 s{0 f1~__ (0 ---------- ~. .-jo8 r: 4 2; MAPLE . 15 MAPLE 29 f;\ (0 13 PINE \:..)27"0 15 MA,oLE ,IT 19 MAPLE {;\ 25 24 f:\ V BlK CI1V 26 \.: 15 CA 26, [I] ----------,------ I I , N w E WARNING lHE lOCAlIONS or EXISTlN<; UNDERGROUND UTlUTlES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXlMAlE WAY ONlY. lHE EXCAVATING CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE lHE EXACT lOCATION or ALL EXISTING ununEs BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. lHE CONTRACTOR AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBlE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES \\HICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS fAILURE TO EXACTlY lOCAlE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UllUTlES. s 3D o 3D 60 SCALE IN fEET .",,,,,,,,,....,.. ....".. ........" ........."...."",.. "..."....... .." ,~,..."."".._. . '"''''~''''''''''' "",,,"'n""" .. . .., ",,,,.... ........ PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION MITIGATION FORM ."........... '-PH ...~...,_". ,_ ",...",.."........, ......... ._."." ,. ......,............. " .'..",............', -,_....--,-..--,._., ., .--.--.",-,--...,., .. ,..--............. MAYWOODGRE8II, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 8/1812006 ... r.. .....m .. ..mmr . .... .......... . .................. . ..... ... ... .....T.. I I i Defi nit ions : f "Significant \Noodland" Tree cluster over 500 sf, with deciduous trees 4-12" dia. or ---~. coniferous trees 4:12' hig ~. --~-T- -E----.- 12' or rrore in height. I -. ~--- --- -- --- ~ 5' or rrore in heigth. -L __ ___ ____ ___ Ironwood, catalpa, oak, hard rraple, walnut, ash, hickory, birch, black cherry, hackberry, locust, and basswood. '=r=== Cottonwood, poplars/aspen, box elder, willow, silver rraple, and elm -Healthy hardwood deciduous tree 6" dia. or rrDre; softwood deciduous tree 12" dia. . ~ or rrDre; coniferous tree 12' or higher. =r== =r===L_.__ Healthy hardwood deciduous tree 30" dia. or rrDre; coniferous tree 50' or higher. ..0 . ........ ..mI . .._m.. .omJ:m . m. ..]mmommJmmm:mmT m ..........mm +' .............. ........mmm ........... .mmm .......mm ....... ......mom ... .. EXISTING SIGNFICANT OR SPECIM EN TREES ON ENTIRE PROPERTY: ! ; --r ~ i .__:I==r--= TREE ! TREE TREE I SAVE OR TREE NO. I SPECIES l-SIZE~- CONDITION TYPE -L REMOVE 1 j blue spruce i 14" poor non-signif 0 j rerrDve 2 ! pine I 12" poor non-signif. j rerrDve 3 I pine i 12" significant j rerrDve 4 1 pine i 18" ~ significant j rerrDve I --4----- 5 1 rraple I 14" significant j save I 6 j ash -----1- 27" __-+- significant jrerrDve (pass. save) 'I ---L-__ 7 1 red oak ~ 29" ----l- significant i save -C---t----~-- 8 I blue spruce! 11" poor I non-signif. j save! -+-____! ___ 9 1 pine I 8" poor I non-signifo j save I I ! 10 ! oak ! 12" significant I rerrDve ---Y----=E---r--- 11 ! pine ---r 15" poor non-signif. i rerrDve ---r--rl -- ---+--1----- . ~~~ ~~.. ~..~ ...~ 12 j wtoak j 18" poor non-signif. j rerrDve ___....L__ .__ 13 I wt oak I 31" specirren. jrerrDve (pass. save) ! 14 ! elm r 12" __=1= significan!...L~~I__ -,--- 15 elm I 14" significant I save 16 .1 basswood i 10" -poor non-sig nif. i saveE- ---T- =..0 17 I pine 1 12" poor! non-signif. j rerrDve !! 18 ! pine I 12" poor J non-signif. j rerrDve __ __L____ 19 I pine I 14" poor non-signif. j rerrDve __ ---r- __ I __ 20 ' rraple j 15" poor non-signif. j rerrDve --r-- ~ 21 ! pine j 17" poor non-signif. j rerrDve I I 22 \ rraple j 21" significant i save I I ; .: 23 ! ash I 15" significant i save.--L 24 I blk cherry! 9" significanrr--save ----1-== 25 { rraple I 19" __ Significan!...L.~~=r==! _ 26 ! cat. I 15" ____ significan!...L.~~ _ ;~mlm .. :~::m! ~ ;:: ~66~ ......... ....~6~~:~~::ml......m ::~:mm .... ........0. ................. ...... . .. ... ..Im .... ..mm' .... .. m .. ...m ... ...mmO mmmmjmmm ......mmmm' ......m ..................... 29 ! pine I 13" poor non-signif. I save 30 j rraple i 22" significant r--saV'e 31 ! rraple ! 17" - significant-r-' rerrDve ------y- , - -----r"---!-."'-~- ,-"--"~--- TOlal nurrber ~f existing "sig~'icanr' or "spec"""n" trees on-sOe: i ___ ~ 16 trees - ~. _ ;~::: ~~::~ ~~~~s~~ +===-t==-=--t =- '1;~:__=- -~= Allowable nurrber of significant and specirren trees that can be rerroved __ I __ I __0 without rritig~tion (at 40% f?r single farrily, lTlJlti-lot developrrent): i _ 6 tr~ !~! \ i I I _ i I__ Total estimated nurrber of significant or specirrent trees to. ..be rerroved: 0 +_ 6 tre~_-t-o Total estimated nurrber of significant or specirrent trees to be saved: o----r----~ 0 trees -t--- r ' I i-rH~OR.E,tII0 TREE MITIGATION IS REQUIRB:>. . I I! ... ... ... N 0 N N ... ... :g It) ., J!l 12 ::0 0 ... C (j) .. ! ~ ~ '0 .- o ::e It) o . N ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ... .. It) Q a (') 0-'" '" ::e ... . iil~ I/C$IGNC11 P..J.I:./IUU'. ,....., HU. CHECIiD P..JX. ~~l ~ i .1 _ W!t1ljl . '11 !h~ ~ Ill-I~ In~ - ~ ~ D.. Z ~ 0 ~ z ~ z ~ L&J i~ 0::: D.. ttl ~ 8> >- ~~ ~ z <~ :i 2" ~ ; D.. DAre 8/18/06 I'RD.Jt:J:T NO. I . 06-111 SHaT NO. 6 . ' I. TO 2. CRUSIEl) ROCK IIEE'lJoIG REClUIROIEIlTS or MnOOT 3137.2E FOR CA-I ,~ CITY EIlGlNEER APPROVED lIAY I. 200t ~. ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE REG 23110 ~ey GY-a:.070 (lE01ElC1l.E F AIlRIC L-FAIlRlC NlCHOAAGE TRENCH. IIAO<FlU. 11I111 TAMPED NAlVRAL SOIL. .-rr- i.. :1 _~ 200t CITY ENQNEER REG 23110 SILT FENCE ~ey 8V-&010 j _r~ ; i I ....- ~~2~ CITY ENGINEER REG 23110 ~ ~I~ I~~ ~ 1Il1i'l~ 6~ ~db il!ii ~!!i t~ ... mi II' III i I ~I ts. ! i I ~ ~ ! SANITARY SEWER SERVICE .... ~i .... APPROVED MAY I. 2001 ~ .. l!i ":w ... l!lO lo~ ~~ is I~ ~~~~ ~ili! I!! i ~--' TYPICAL WATER SERVICE (ON 6" TO 8" DUCTILE IRON MAIN) 7=" CITY ENGINEER REG 23110 ~ey 8Y..ss.DlIO .~ ~1Il MI!:! ~I . li~~ ;;: ~~~iF i ii~~~ ~i~~l!lia . ~ ~~t;;~~ I~ ?c-6~! >,~2wf' ~ ~m~:ti~;8 ~a~lIi-<li,... '" I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ey GV.WM-030 Sin: GRADING NOTES PROPOSED CON1llUlS ARE TO F1NISI€D GRAD[. SPOT ~ATlOllS ALONG I'ROPOSED CIJfl8 OENOlE CUT1ER _ UNLESS 01HERWl5E HOlED. nc CONlRACTllR IS ~CALLY CAlJ110NED '/HAT nc LOCA11OIl ~/fJR ~AlKlH OF ElGS11NC U1aIl1ES AS _ ON tHESE PLANS IS I/ASUI ON RECClR!)S OF _ V.wooS UlIUTY COMPAN€S NIl:> WHERE POSlilllLE "EASUIlEIII!NTS TAKEN II THE FIElJ). nc INFORIIAlIOH IS NOT TO BE REI.IED ON TO BE EXACT fJR CClMPI..E1E. nc CONlRACTllR l4UST CONTACT ALL _!AlE UlIUTV COMPANIES AT LEAST 4lI IlQURS IlEF'OllE ANY EXCAVA1IOH TO REQUEST EXACT FIELO L0CA1IOH OF UlIUllU. IT SHALL BE THE RESPON$ISUTY OF THE COHlRACTfJR TO RELOCAlE ALL ElCISTIHG UlIUlES lIHlCII COHFUCT IIITH THE PR<lPOSf]) ~TS _ ON 1HE PLANS. 1HE CONlRACTllR SHALL \9lIFY L0CA1IOHS OF EXIS11NG UlIUllES BY CONTAC1IHG COPHEIl STAlE ONE GALL (8<>>-252-1188) PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVAllONS. 1HE CONlRACTllR SHALL NOT START _ UN11L ALL NECESSARY _TS HAIlE BEEN OBTAINED. nc COHlRACTfJR IS RESP<:INSIBLE FOR ~ TO THE RE\lURDIENTS OF THESE PERIoITS. nc CONlRACTllR SHALL TAIlE ALL PREC.WI1ONS NECESSARY TO AYOIO PR(IPERTV D.....A(lE TO ADJACENT PROPER1lES _ THE COHSTRUC1IOH PHASES OF THIS PllOoIECT. THE CONl'lIACTllR \\IU. BE HELD SOUL Y RESPONSIIU FOR ANY 0AI0IA<lES TO AOJACENT PR<lI'ER1IES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUC1IOH PHASES OF THIS PlIOIIECT. SAfETY N01ICE TO CONlRACTlllIS: II ACl:OROANCE WTH GENElIALl. Y ACCEPTED COHSTRUC1IOH PftAC'IlCES, nc CONlRACTllR I'AL BE SOLELY ~ CXlII'\.ETELY REllP<lNSlBLE FfJR ALL CONlllllOHS ON THE .IQII SITE, I<<WIlING SAfETY OF ALL PERSONS NIl:> PROPERTY DURING PERFORMANCE OF THE WORI<. 1IIS RECMRDIENT wu. APPLY GON1INUOUS\.Y NIl:> NOT BE UIoII1El) TO NORIIAL 'A'JRKtlG HWRS. THE DUTY or nc ENGINEER fJR nc OE\IEI.OPER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUC1lOH RE1IIEW (:A' THE CONTRACTfJRS I'tJlFOIllWlCE IS NOT 111ENOEO TO INCl.UOE RE~ OF THE ADEOOACY (:A' THE CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY IlEASURES IN. ON fJR NEAR THE COHSlRUC1ION SITE. THE SITE _ FOR THIS PRO.JEl:T SHALL MEET fJR EXCEED THE DE\iEL0PER'S I aTY'S fJR LOCAL 0QI.UlNING lHl'S SPECIFlCA11ON. lIHCH EIlER IS THE MOST SlRlNOENT. THE SITE CONSTRUC11OH SHALL ALSO CQ4PLY _ THE REQUlREllEIlTS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPfJRT. THE CONlRACTfJR SHALL COUPI.ETE THE SITE CRAOtlG CONSTRUCTION IN ACCfJROANCE 'MTH THE RECMREllENTS OF 1IlE OYINER'S SOILS ENGlNEfJL ALL sot. TES1ING SHALL BE COIlPLETED BY THE 01MR'S SOILS -. THE CONlRACTllR SHALL BE RESPONSIIlLE FfJR COOROtlAlIHG ALL REClUIRED sot. TESTS NIl INSPEC1lOHS IIITH 1HE SOILS _NEER. ALL SOlS CER11FlCA1IOHS SHALL BE PRO\IIOEO III THE _ NIl:> ENGINEER DURING NIl:> UPON COIlPLE1IOH OF THE PlIOIIECT. PR10R TO THE PLACEIoIENT OF 1IlE AOoREOATE BASE. A lEST ROLL WILL BE REOUIRED ON THE STREET SUBGRAllE. THE CONTRAClllR SHALL PRCl'IolOE A LOADED T_ AlCl.E 1R\JO( 11I111 A QROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TON$. 1HE CITY AND IlE\IEUlPER'S SOIlS ENGINEER SHALL BE PRESENT DURING nc lEST Ra..L. nc lEST ROWNG SHALL BE AT THE DIREC1ION OF 1HE SOILS ENOINEER ~ SHALL BE COIlPLElEO IN AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL OETERMINE lIHCII SEC1IONS OF THE STREET AREA HIE. UNSTABLE. CORREC'IlOH OF THE SIJBClRAOE SOILS SHALL BE COIlPI.ETED II ACl:OROANCE IIITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE CONlRACTllR IS REllP<lNSIlLE FOR PRO'IIDlNG AND ..AlNTAlNING ALL TRNFlC CONTROL llE'IICES SUCH AS _CAllES, WARNING SIGNs, DlREC1IOHAL SIGNS FLAGNEN AND UCHTS TO CON1ROI.. THE 1oIO\IEIoIENT or TRAFflC '/IHEIlE NECESSARY. TRAFF1C CONlROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORIoI TO APPROPRlAlE ..INNESOTA DEPAltlMENT or TRANSPORT...1ION STNII:>AROS. AFTER THE SITE _G IS COIIPLETEO. F DCUS SOIL .....TERlAL ElGSTS. 1H[ CONl'lIACTllR SHALL DISPOSE or ALL EXCESS SOIL .....TERlAL II A "ANNER AOCEPTABlE TO nc OWNER AN:) RECUl..AlING AGENCIES IN_\IEO. NO TREES fJR SHR\IBS ARE TO BE RENOI/EO IIITHOUT THE PRIfJR APPROVAL OF THE 01lNER. SALVAGED .....TERlALS TO BECOIoIE PROPERTY OF THE OWNER. 1EIoIPORARY AND PERMANENT SElllIoIENTATION PONDS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE H1IAL Gl'lAlllHC. THE SEDIAENT MUST BE REIoIO\IEO FRCU THESE POHOS, AS NECESSARY. PRIOR TO COIlPLElIOH OF THE PRO.ECT. ALL SLOPES ARE III BE ORAOEO III 3d fJR fl.A TTER. UHl.ESS OlH[RWSE SPECII1m 001 THESE PlNlS. THE NATURE OF THIS PlIOIIECT WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS REPRESENTED IN 1IIIS SET OF COHSl1IUC1ION PLANS NIl:> SPECFlCA1IOHS. nc INTENDED SEQUENCING OF IIAJCIR CONSTRUC1IOH ACTMlIES ARE TYPICALLY AS FQU..OWS: . 1. INSTALL STABIUZm ROa< COHSTRUC1ION ENTRANCE 2. INSTALLATION OF !ilLT FENCE AROUND SllE 3. CLEAR NIl:> 0R\JIl FOR liEIIIIIENT BASIN I POND INSTALL ~ ~ =:lll:=/OF~ e. S1I\1P NIl STOCI<PILE 1OPSOL 7. R<lUCII CRAOtlG OF SITE e. STABIUZE CENUOEO AREAS NIl:> STOa<PILES a. INSTALL SAlIITARY ~ WA1ERIIAIN STfJRIoI SE'fIER NIl:> SERVICES :~ =:1: ~ -:do..lILET PR01EC1ION AROUND ClI'S 12. INSTALL CURB NIl:> OUTlER 13. III1UIINlllJS ON SlREETS 14. FINAL GRADE BOULEVARD. INSTALL SEED NIl:> IIU..CH 10. REIoIO\IE ACCUIIULATEO SEOIlENT FRCU BASIN / POND 10. WHEN ALL CCIIlSlRUC110H AC1I'f1TY IS c:OIotIUTE AND TE SITE IS STABlU2EO. RENClIIE !ilL 1 FENCE NIl:> RESEED NfY AREAS IlIS11.MEO BY THE REMOVAL. nc CON1RACTr1R NIl:> ALL SUBCONTRACTfJRS 1Il'<<ll.\IEO IIITH A CONSTRUC1IOH ACTMTY '/HAT IllS1URBS SITE sot. fJR llHO IIoIPLEIoIENT A POUUTANT CONTROL MEASURE IlEJl11I1EI) II THE S'RlRIoI WATER POLW11OH PREYEN1ION PLAN (_> WST COIoIPl.Y IIITH 1IlE REQlIROWITS OF THE NAlIOHAL POUU1ION IllSCIIAIltiE EUliNA1ION SYS1EIoI (NpDES) GENEIW. PERIoIIT (DATED AUGUST 1. 2003 , 1INR10000l PACES 1-20) NIl:> ANY LOCAL ~ AtIDII:V HA'IING .alRlS01C1IOH CONCERHtlG EROSION NIl:> SEJ:llIoIENTA1IOH CONTROl. THE 0ClHTRAC1'0ft IS RESPONSIlLE FOR I<EEPtlO A COPY or 1IIS _ (_1IV!, PLANS NIl SPECS) ON SITE AT ALL 1IIoIES OF CONSTRUC1IOH AS \IlEI.l. AS COPIES OF APPUCAIILE PERIotIls AN:) lNSPEC1IOH REPfJRTS. ~ DAn'DI'fna ANO ~T.ntJN r.tlN1ROl: THE CON1IlACTOR SHALL ASSUME COIoII'lETE RESPONSItlIUTV FOR COHTROWNG ALL EROSIOtl AND SEllIllENTA1IOH OF 1IlE PlIOIIECT AREA THE CONTRACTfJR SHALL USE WNATE\'ER IoIEANS NECESSARY TO CON1ROI.. EROSION AND SEDlllENTA1ION tlCLUOING BUT NOT UII1EIl TO THE FOl.l.OIIING BEST IoIANACEIlENT PRACTICES <-'5): ROCK CHEO< DAIIS, ROa< ENTRANCES NII:>/OIt SILT FENCES SHOWN ON THE CRADtICl AND ~ CONTROL PLNL EROSION CON1ROI.. SHALL COlIIlEN<:E 1IITH SITE CRAOING AND CON1NJE _T THE PROolECT UN1L ACCEPTANCE or 1HE _ BY THE OWNER. THE CON1RACTllRS RESPONSIBUTY INCLUDES ALL OESIGN AND IllPLElIENTA lION AS REOOIRflI TO PREl/ENT EROSION NIl:> 1HE 0EP0lll11NG OF !ilLT. THE OWNER .....V. AT HlS/HER OP1ION, IllRECT 1IlE CON1RACTllR IN IIS~ IoIETHOOS AS 0EDlED FIT TO PROTECT PROPERTY NIl:> IIoII'RO\IEIoIE ANY 0EP0911NO OF SlLT fJR MUD ON NEW fJR ElGSTtlG PA_T fJR II I!XJS1ING SWftII SE-.RS 011 SWALES SHALL IlE _ AF1ER EACH RAIl NIl:> AFFECTED AREAS CLEAHED TO THE SA11SI'AC1ION or nc OWNER. ALL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CONTRAC1llR. !ilLT FENCES SHALL BE REIIO'om BY 1HE CONlRACTllR AF1ER THE TURF IS ESTAIlUSNEO. ALL 0ISTIJR8E0 AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED NIl:> WLCJlEO IIIIoEtlIAlEL Y AF1ER FINAL CRADE IS ESTAIlUSHEIl IN ANY PARlICUlNl AREA SEEDING NIl:> IlULCHNG SHALL NOT WAIT UH1IL ALL CRAOflC IS COIlPLETEO ON THE EK1lRE SITE, THE LOCA11OH OF AREAS NOT TO BE IlIS11.MEO IIUST Be IlEJl11I1EI) 11I111 Fl.ACS, STAI<ES, SIGNS, !ilLT FENCE E1C. BEFORE CONS1RUC1IOH BECJNS. COHSlRUC1ION AClMTY - EROSIOtl PREl/ENTION PRACTICES TYPf' r# ..OPE "AX 11IIE UNSEEOED lIIlHOUT ~1I\A v WINe ~ STEEPER THAN J: 1 7 OA YS 10:1 TO 3:1 14 OAYS f\.ATlER THAN 10:1 21 DAYS ON SLOPES J: 1 fJR GREATER ..AlHTAlN SHEET FLOW AND IIINIUI2E RUS NII:>/OIt CUUJES. SLOPE LENGTHS CANNOT BE GREATER THAN 75 FEET. ALL STfJRIoI _S AND N.ETS MuST BE PROTECltO UNlIL ALL SOIJRCES or POTEN1IAL _ HIE. STABlJ2ED 'IEIIIPORARY SOIl. STOa<PLES IlUST HAIlE EF'FEC1IIIE SEllIlolEIfl COHTROL NIl:> CAN NOT BE PLACED II SURFACE WATlllS fJR STfJRIoI WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEIls. 'IEIIIPORARY STOCl<PUS lll1IlOUT SlGNIflCAIlT AIoIOUNT OF SLT fJR CLAY fJR ORCNIC .....TER1ALS ARE EXEMPT. nnt.l'lJ'RfNn ANI) ~ DIUJHIHQ: 1lEW...1EIlINO OR BASIN _ (Lo.. PIM'ED lllSCIIAROES, TRENCH/llITCII CUlS FOR fJRAlIIAGE) RELATED TO THE CONS11lIJC1I(lN AC1II/lTY THAT..... V HAIlE 1IJ1lBI) fJR SEJ:llIoIENT I.ADOI _ WATER IlUST BE DISCHARGED TO A 1DIPORARY fJR PERIIANENT SEDlllENTA1IOH BASIN ON THE PlIOIIECT SITE __ POSSIBlL F THE WATER CANNOT BE OISCIIARGEO TO A SEOIIIENTA1ION BASIN PRIOR TO ENlERtlG THE SURFACE WATER. IT IIUST BE lllEATEO IIITH 1IlE N'PROPRIAlE ~ SUCH THAT THE _ DOES NOT AO\IERSIEIL Y AFFECT THE RECEI\1NG W"'TER. 00wmREAlI LANDOWNERS fJR WETLANOS. THE CON1RACTllR MUST ENSURE '/HAT _ POIITS ARE AOEQUAlEL Y PROTEC'1ED FRCU EROSION AND SCOUR. THE DISCHARGE IlUST BE 0ISPERSEll OIlER NATURAL ROa< RIPRAP. SAND Bo\GS, PLAS11C SHEATHtlG fJR OTHER ACCEPTED DERGY DlSSlPA1IOH IIEA5URE$. ADEClUAlE SEOIIIENTAlIOH CON1ROI.. lIEASIlRES ARt REQUIRED FOR _ WATER THAT CONTAINS SUSPENOED souos. ~1K'lNS AY') UAIN"I'nIANC'S. THE CONTRACTfJR IS RESPONSIBLE ...T ALL 1IIoIES FOR 1HE NAlNTENANCE NIl:> PRCl'ER 0PERA1IOH OF EROSION AND SEllllIEHT COHlIlClI. FAClU1IES. THE CONTRACTfJR SHALL ...T A U_ INSPECT. _AIN NIl:> REPAIR ALL OlSTURIlEIl SURrACES NIl:> ALl. EROSION AND SEDIIIENT CONTROL FAaU1IES NIl:> SOIL STAIIIlJ2AllON MEASURES ONCE EllERY SEllEN (7) DAYS 0URtlG AC1II1E CONSTRUC1ION NIl:> WI1HIN 24 HCIUIlS FU.l.OllING A RAINFALL OF 0.5 IICIIES fJR GREATER UN11L LAND-OISTURIltlC ACTMTY HAS CEASED. THEREAFTER THE CON1RACTllR SHALL._ THESE RESP<lNSl8lUlES AT LEAST wtEl<LY UN11\. \/EOETAlI11E COlIER IS ESTAElJSHED. BASED ON INSPEC1lOH RESULTS THE CON1RACTfJR .....Y IlOOIFY THE ~ IN r1RDER TO PREl/ENT POLWTANTS FROM LEAVtlG THE SITE ~A STORIoI WATER 1lUHCJ'F. THIS 1oIOOIF1CA11OIl WST BE IoIAOE _IN 7 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE tlSPEC1ION !Has OlHERWSE REOUIRED BY 1IlE TERIIS OF THE PERIoIT. LEGAL, REGULA IllRY. fJR PH'VSICAL ACCESS CONSTRAMS. 1NSPEC11OIl REPfJRTS IlUST BE KEPT ON FILE BY THE CON1RACTllR AS AN INlECRAl. PART OF 1IlE _ FOlI AT LEAST 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF COIoIPLE1ION OF THIS PR~CT. PllH lJ1lON ~1fON UUl.AcnlnIT~ THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IIIPl.E1oENT THE FOl.l.OllINO POLLUlIOH PREl/ENlION ..ANAGOIENT IoIEASURES ON THE SITE: SOUO WASTE: COUECTED SEllIlolEIfT. ...SPHALT AND CONCRETE 1oI1U.INCS, FLOAlING 0EIiIRIS, PAPER, PLASlIC. FABRIC, COHSTRUC1IOH AND DElIOUlION 0E:II1ltS ~ OTHER WASlES "UST BE DISPOSED or PROPERLY AND IIUS1' COIoIPLY WITH ..INNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL ~ (1oIPCA) DISPOSAL REOUIRElolENTS. HAZARDOUS WA'I'ER1ALS: 01., CASOUNE. PAINT AND ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES IIUST BE PROPERLY STORED. INCLUDING SECONOMY CONTAlNNENT, III PREllENT SPILLS, LEAl<S fJR OTHER 0lSCHAR<lE. RESTRlCltO ACCESS TO STORAGE AREAS MUST BE PRO\'lOtD III PREl/ENT VANOAUSIoI. STr1RA<lE ANO DISPOSAL or HAZARDOUS WASTE IoIUST BE IN COIoIPUANCE \/liTH IoIPCA REGULAllONS. EXTERNAl. WASHING or lRUa<s ANO OTHER CONSTRUC1ION IlEHK:l.ES NUST BE u.onm TO A DEFINED AREA OF THE SITE. RUNOFF MUST BE CONTAINED NIl:> WASTEWATER PROPERLY DISPOSED OF. NO ENCINE OEGREASING IS AUDllED ON SITE. FlNM... STABl..JZAnaN: THE CONTRACTfJR MUST ENSURE FINAL STABlUZA 11001 or THE SITE ACCOROtlG THE llEflNl110NS It! THE NPDES GENERAL PERMIT PART IV SECllON C. THE CONTRACTOR MUST SUBIlIT A N01ICE OF TERIoItIAlION (N.0.1.) IIITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER flNAL STAIlIlJZA1IOH IS eot.I'LETE fJR ANOTHER OWNER/CONTRACTfJR HAS ASSUIIEO CONlIlClI. OIlER All. AREAS or THE SITE '/HAT HAIlE NoT IHlEROONE FUlALSTAIIIlJ2A11ON. ... ..... ... N 0 N N ... ..... II) II) II) <I) .. :l CO ,. 0 ... C en .. 1 ~ .f 8~~ ~ en <I) c::: = 0) a ! m .. II) 8 ~ l:l co :IE ... iil~ . IICS1lifG P..,Uf./II.RP. -"'" HIU'. CHEDID P...JI(. ~~6 ~ I j !Ui 1L ~I . -.ll~t 80:11 .1 ~51l; nill - 0- 0- ~ ~ rn 0 ~ V) LaJ !I z z ~ ::e LaJ ffi>= c ~ ~~ "< 8> z >- ~ffi ~ z <9 5i ::e8 [it ; a: 0- /litre 8/18/06 I'IIDJI:f:r NO. I . 06-111 ~ 7 . . . Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: September 5, 2006 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Aaron Hanauer, Planning Intern Subject: Informal Public Hearing-Proposed Minor Subdivision/Lot Consolidation - 5750 and 5730 Duluth Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Local Government Information Systems Associations (LOGIS) has submitted an application and preliminary plat for a minor lot consolidation to join its property at 5750 Duluth Street with 5730 Duluth Street. Staff recommends approval of this preliminary plat subject to the comments contained in this review. This report and subsequent memos provides the analysis and staff evaluation. ANAL YSIS 1. Existing Property and Business Local Government Information Systems Association (LOGIS) is the owner of the building and property at 5750 Duluth Street. LOGIS provides Minnesota local government agencies technology solutions and support. 5750 Duluth Street is a 1.5 acre lot, zoned Business Park Office, and guided for office use on the Comprehensive Plan, General Land Use map. The two-story building at 5750 Duluth Street was built in 1998. 2. Surrounding Area To the east of the existing LOGIS building is 5730 Duluth Street (lot LOGIS is applying to consolidate) which is also zoned Business Park Office (BPO) and guided for office on the Comprehensive Plan, General Land Use map. 5750 and 5730 Duluth Street are bordered to the north by the Bassett Creek Natural Area and property owned by Mn/DOT.;T 0 the south of these properties are other BPO and commercially designated properties. To the west of 5750 Duluth Street are single-family homes which are zoned Low-Density Residential. 1 3. Description of Proposal The applicant is proposing to consolidate two lots: 5750 Duluth Street (1.5 acres) with 5730 Duluth Street (0.8 acres) to create a 2.3 acre lot. With this lot consolidation, the developer proposes to demolish the 1965, two-story office building at 5750 Duluth Street and expand the existing LOGIS building from 14,089 sq. ft. to 28,457 sq. ft. (the building addition would also be two-stories). . City Code outlines the requirements for lot consolidation eligibility. This lot consolidation qualifies for a minor lot consolidation by meeting the lot consolidation qualifications outlined in Section 12.50 Subdivision 1 (shown below). A. The land to be subdivided or consolidated must be part of a recorded plat or a recorded Registered Land Survey (RLS). B. Consolidations may involve any number of parcels, but subdivisions shall be limited to the creation of four or fewer lots from one or more original parcels. C. The subdivision or consolidation shall not necessitate any additional public investment in new roads or utilities to serve the lots. 4. Zoning Analysis 32 feet (variance granted for existing building in 1997 . 10 feet (variance 20 feet (for proposed granted for addition) existing building in 1997 The proposed building addition requires three variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals: . Section 11.45. Subd 5 (B) (2) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks- A rear building setback variance. 20 feet off the required 30 feet to a distance of 10 feet for the proposed building to the lot line on the north side . Section 11.70. Subd 2 (I) (a) - External front yard landscape setback . variance: 26 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 9 feet for the lack of landscaping for the front yard (Duluth Street). 2 ~ . . . · Section 11.70. Subd 2 (I) (b) - External side yard landscape setback variance: 8 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 7 feet for the lack of landscaping for the side yard. 5. Public Safety and Public Works Issues Attached are memos from Public Works and Public Safety that outline additional City requirements for this lot consolidation. CONSIDERATIONS FOR A MINOR LOT CONSOLIDATION Considerations for approving or denying a minor lot consolidation are set out in City 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 -This development requires one, new building setback requirement and two, new external landscape parking setback requirements. In addition, LOGIS should submit a photometric plan with their final plat to show their proposed outdoor lighting. 2. Building portion of any new lot must not be excessively encumbered by steep slopes or wetness - As the City Engineer points out in the attached memo, this development is subject to the City of Golden Valley Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Ordinance. Therefore grading, drainage, and erosion control measures will be addressed at the time any construction is done. 3. Public sewer and water connections must be available - Connections are available. 4. Applicant must grant all necessary easements for public purposes per the City Engineer - The existing six-foot side drainage and utility easements along the side and rear property lines and ten-foot drainage and utility easement along the front property line must be maintained. The new plat showing the newly created lot will need to reflect the required six-foot drainage and utility easements along the side and rear property lines, and a ten-foot drainage and utility easement along the front property line. 5. Other public agencies with some form of jurisdiction over the area of the subject property may apply their own conditions of approval - Two other public agencies must review this development proposal. Comments from Hennepin County have been solicited since Duluth Street is a County Road, but no comments have been received at this time. These plans must also be reviewed and approved by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission prior to the start of any work on-site since it is within the Main-Stem sub-district of the Bassett Creek Watershed. 6. The applicant may have to submit to title review and agree to resolve any issues that arise - The City generally requires title review for complex plats and may require it for plats where land or easements are being obtained from private property. 7. Proposed development must show that it will not cause undue strain on adjacent roads or on public utilities, or adjacent land uses -This expansion will likely increase traffic counts along Duluth Street, however, not to a point that would cause undue strain. 8. Applies only to residential minor subdivisions. 9. Applies only to minor subdivisions for double bungalows. 3 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the lot consolidation of 5730 and 5750 Duluth Street. Staff believes that in meeting/working towards meeting the minor lot consolidation requirements listed above, this development should go forward. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated September 1,2006 (4 pages) Memo from Deputy Fire Marshall Ed Anderson dated August 15, 2006 (2 pages) Boundary, Location Topographic, and Utility Survey dated August 8,2006 (1 oversized page) Site Plan dated August 10, 2006 (1 oversized page) 4 .. . . . . . . Memorandum Public Works 763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax) alley Date: September 1, 2006 To: Mark'@rlmes, Director of Planning and Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Enginee~ Subject: Preliminary Plat Review for LOGIS Second Addition Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat for LOGIS Second Addition, located north of Duluth Street, west of Trunk Highway 100 and east of Bassett Creek. The proposed subdivision will consolidate the existing LOGIS property with the existing office building located immediately to the east at 5730 Duluth Street, with proposed expansions of the LOGIS building and parking lot. Site Plan and Preliminary Plat This proposed development consists of a demolition of the existing office building at 5730 Duluth Street and expansion of the existing LOGIS building and parking lot on the consolidated property. The proposed subdivision will have two full access points, the existing driveway to the current LOGIS building and a reconstructed driveway on the eastern property boundary. An existing driveway onto Duluth Street at 5730 Duluth Street will be removed. The driveway along the eastern plat boundary is an existing access point. The driveway connects to an existing driveway to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and Minnesota State Patrol Headquarters, both of which are immediately adjacent to the proposed development. MnDOT has agreed to grant LOGIS an ingress/egress easement for use of this driveway. This easement is currently being reviewed by MnDOT. Because Duluth Street is a County Road (CSAH 66), this plat must be reviewed by Hennepin County Public Works. The proposed parking lot design appears to be adequate to accommodate emergency vehicle access in and around the site. G:\Developments-Private\LOGIS\PrelimPlatReview 090106 .doc . . . The existing LOGIS property has been previously platted as LOGIS Addition. The easements on the existing plat must be vacated, and rededicated as needed with the final plat for the second addition. This easement vacation will be scheduled for the same City Council meeting as the final plat. A Landscaping Plan must be submitted for review and comment. This plan must demonstrate compliance with the City's minimum landscape standards. The developer will be required to enter into a Development Agreement for this subdivision. Preliminary Utility Plan This proposed development will receive sanitary sewer and water service from extensions of the existing utility services to the site. There is adequate capacity in the City's sanitary sewer and water systems for this development. The Utility Plan submitted with the preliminary plat is a plan that is combined with the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. A separate Utility Plan incorporating the comments contained in this review must be submitted as part of the final plat approval process. The Utility Plan must include information regarding the sanitary sewer and water cutoffs for the existing building at 5730 Duluth Street. These services must be removed to the maximum extent possible. The proposed sanitary sewer and water services for the building expansion must be installed in accordance with current city standards and specifications. The City retains the right to require modifications to the Utility Plan at the time the developer applies for Utility and Right-of-Way permits. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control This development is within the Main-Stem sub-district of the Bassett Creek Watershed, and is therefore subject to the review and comments of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC). The site development must also comply with the BCWMC's Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals. The plans must be reviewed and approved by the BCWMC prior to the start of any work on-site. The developer has proposed meeting the BCWMC water quality and runoff rate control requirements by constructing a large, below ground vault that will function in a similar manner as a storm water pond. All new storm sewer on the site will be routed through the proposed vault, and will be discharged to the west into Bassett Creek, which is immediately adjacent to the western property boundary. G;\Oevelopments-Private\LOGIS\PrelimPlatReview 0901 06.doc 2 . . . As part of the submittal to the BCWMC, the developer will be required to demonstrate that the proposed storm water vault will provide nutrient removal efficiency equal to or better than a traditional storm water pond. The storm water pond on the western property boundary was constructed when the initial LOGIS building was constructed. However, the submerged outlet pipe for the pond was never installed. This outlet pipe must be installed at this time, and must be shown on the grading plan. In addition, the developer will be required to excavate this existing pond to the original contours following all site work. This excavation will re- establish the nutrient and sediment capacity of the pond. This development is subject to the City of Golden Valley Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Ordinance. A City grading permit must be obtained prior to the start of any work on-site. The existing driveway into the building at 5730 Duluth Street must be removed as part of this development, and be replaced with concrete curb and gutter and sidewalk. A Hennepin County permit will be required for this work. The grading plan must be modified to include the following information: 1. A Key with all line types denoted must be included. 2, The plan must include the total area of the property with subtotals for disturbed and undisturbed areas provided. 3. The Notes must include the City standard note regarding street sweeping. 4. The grading plan must include information regarding the final stabilization of the site, or a Landscape Plan must be submitted that contains this information. 5. The outlet. The grading plan indicates the construction of a retaining wall along the northern property boundary. The developer must obtain a building permit for this retaining wall. The Development Agreement for this project will require that the developer maintain the proposed storm water vault, all on-site storm sewer and the existing water quality pond according to City standards for Water Quality structures. Summary and Recommendations Public Works staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for LOGIS Second Addition subject to the comments contained in this review, which are summarized as follows: 1. The existing easements in LOGIS Addition be vacated, and rededicated as needed, as part of this final plat. 2. The developer must enter into a Development Agreement. 3. A revised Utility Plan must be submitted to incorporate the comments contained in this review. G:\Developments-Private\LOGIS\PrelimPlatReview 0901 06.doc 3 . . . 4. A revised Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan must be submitted to incorporate the comments contained in this review. 5. A Landscape Plan must be submitted for review and comment. 6. The plans are subject to the review and comments of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission and the Hennepin County Department of Public Works. 7. The plans are subject to the review and comment of other City staff including the City Attorney, Building Official and Fire Marshal. C: Tom Burt, City Manager Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Gary Johnson, Building Official Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall G:\Developments-Private\LOGIS\PrelimPlatReview 0901 06.doc 4 . Public Jl~y Memorandum Fire Department 763-593-8055 I 763-512-2497 {fax} To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning & Zoning From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Subject: Proposed lot consolidation at 5750 Duluth Street Date: 08/15/06 The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the Application and site plan for the proposed lot consolidation requested for 5750 Duluth Street. This review will focus on the following major issues of the Golden Valley Fire Department- site access, water supply, hydrant location and construction concerns. Fire Department Access . 1. The fire department access road shall be maintained during construction of the addition to the current building. 2. The fire department access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. 3. The fire department access road shall have a 45' inside turning and it shall not be obstructed in any manner, including the parking of vehicles. 4. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be installed in accordance with the Golden Valley City Ordinance. 5. The fire department access road shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26' in the immediate vicinities of any building or portion of building more than 30' in height. Water Supplv 1. The installation of fire hydrants will be required for the site. The new fire hydrant will be located on the SE corner of the new building near the concrete island. . 2. Post indicator valve for the fire suppression line may be relocated for the proposed site. 3. The installation of the fire hydrants on the proposed site shall be in accordance with the MN State Fire Code and also in conjunction with the City of Golden Valley's Engineering Department. . Construction Concerns 1. The current fire life safety features in the existing buildings will remain operational during construction of the new proposed building. 2. The staging of construction trailers and equipment shall not obstruct the fire department access road. 3. The use of any (LP) liquefied petroleum gases during construction will require a permit from the Golden Valley Fire Department and shall be in accordance with the MN State Fire Code. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065. . . ~. . . . Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: September 5,2006 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Aaron Hanauer, Planning Intern Subject: Informal Public Hearing-Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Lena Enterprises L.LC. - 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Lena Enterprises L.L.C is proposing adding a Class II (fast-food) restaurant with a drive-through window to its commercially zoned parcel (without expanding the footprint of the building) at 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required by the Zoning Code for this Class II restaurant to operate. Staff recommends approval of this CUP with six conditions. This recommendation is based on an analysis of the project using the ten factors outlined in Section 11.80 (Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Code. This report provides an analysis and staff evaluation based on Section 11.80 factors. In addition to securing a CUP, Lena Enterprises L.L.C. needs a variance for parking from the Board of Zoning Appeals for this project. ANALYSIS 1. Existing Property and Businesses Lena Enterprises L.L.C (Stephen G. Saunders) is the owner of the building and property at 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North. This parcel is 0.93 acres, zoned Commercial, and guided for commercial uses on the Comprehensive Plan, General Land Use map. The building at this location is one-story, 3,900 sq. ft building (60 feet by 65 feet), and was built in 1961. The building has two retail uses: Westview Liquors on the western half (1 ,895 sq. ft.) and Westview Groceries the eastern half (1,911 sq. ft.). Westview Liquors is open 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday thru Saturday, and Westview Groceries is open Monday thru Friday 7 a.m. to 8 p.m, Saturday 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., and Sunday 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. 2. Surrounding Properties The subject property is bordered on the north and east by properties that are also zoned commercially and guided for commercial uses by the Comprehensive Plan, Land 1 Use plan. The property to the north of the subject property (9405 Medicine Lake Road) is the Winner fuel station and Verizon Communications is to the east (2510 Mendelssohn Avenue). To the south of the subject property is the Medley Park townhome development. The townhomes are zoned R-2, Two-Family Residential, and designated as Medium-Density Residential on the General Land Use map. Mendelssohn Road (and Highway 169) provides the western border of the subject property. <. . 3. Description of Proposed Business The applicant is proposing to create an additional business at 2500 Mendelssohn without changing the existing building's footprint, for a total of three businesses (the attached survey shows four businesses). Lena Enterprises L.L.C plans to maintain Westview Liquors in its current condition and subdivide Westview Groceries into two businesses. Westview Groceries, a convenience-style, grocery store, would become approximately half of its current size (900 sq. ft.), and the eastern portion of Westview Groceries would become a Class II restaurant measuring 910 sq. ft, with a drive-thru window. A Class II restaurant is consistent within the commercial designation on the Comprehensive Plan Map and is a conditional use in the Commercial Zoning District, therefore requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant stated that a Taco Bell Express (a smaller version of a Taco Bell with a reduced version of the menu) is considering leasing the Class II restaurant space. However, this is contingent on securing the CUP approval. As previously mentioned, the CUP is to allow for the drive-thru (see Traffic and Vehicle Flow section for more drive-thru details). Other details of proposed restaurant: indoor seating for eight and proposed hours of operation are 9 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Monday through Sunday. . The applicant estimates this construction project will take two months with minimal side effects during construction for surrounding stakeholders. Westview Groceries would be closed during construction. 4. Traffic and Vehicle Flow The subject property is bounded by three streets and has two access points. Medicine Lake Road to the north is the main access point which also has an on/off ramp from Highway 169. Hillsboro Avenue, provides the second access point. The third street, Mendelssohn Avenue bounds the property on the west, but has no access. Drive-thru traffic would be able to enter by either of its current access points (Medicine Lake Road and Hillsboro Avenue). Vehicles entering from Medicine Lake Road would enter the drive-thru around the western portion of the building and loop around the building to the eastern side. Vehicles that enter from Hillsboro Avenue will have to completely loop around the building to enter the drive-thru on the western side of the building since the southern part of building will have one-way traffic east bound, and the menu boards and intercom being located on the south .side of the building. Vehicles when in the drive-thru lane, would continue to loop around the building to the drive-thru window on the eastern side of the building. . 2 . . . . 5. Zoning and City Code Analysis 3.6 or 4 spaces 22 spaces 33 spaces Curb and gutter to comply with parking 23 spaces Met condition, completed in 2005 The Zoning and City Code analysis shows that given previous setback variances, all requirements will be met with the exception of the parking requirements, which will require a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The existing property has ample parking, but the addition of a Class II restaurant, would substantially increase parking needs (requires one parking space for every 35 sq. ft. of gross floor area or one space for every three seats, which ever is greater). In the applicant's case, the 910 sq. ft. restaurant is required to have 22 parking spaces. In staff analysis of the subject property's current parking situation, the parking lot is often underutilized, and therefore it is staff's opinion the amount of proposed parking spaces, though below zoning code regulations, would be sufficient. The Planning Commission has the right to comment on the parking variance proposed by Lena Enterprises. If the Commission finds the parking variance unacceptable, the Commission can use this as part of the grounds for a recommendation of denial for the proposal. This vote of concern would be passed on to the BZA for their review. 6. Public Safety, Public Works, and Environmental Issues The Golden Valley Fire Department in their review of the plans stated in their memo that the change of use of the building will require the restaurant to have a fire suppression system installed in the building (see attached Fire Department Memorandum) Public Works had no issues with this development. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS FOR CUP FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION FROM SECTION 11.80 OF ZONING CODE In approving or denying a CUP, City Code requires that finding be made on ten specified factors. Staff evaluation of those factors as they relate to the current proposal is as follows: 1. Demonstrated need for the use: The City's standard basis for determining need is that an applicant has identified a market for the proposed good or service. In this case, the applicant believes that there is a market for a Class II restaurant. 3 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The plan and zoning maps identify the site for commercial uses. Class II, drive-thru restaurants are consistent with the commercial designation found for this area. 3. Effect of Property Values in the Area: The addition of a Class II restaurant and is unlikely to have a negative impact on property values in the area. 4. Effect of any anticipated traffic generation upon current traffic flow and congestion in the area: The addition of a Class II restaurant will likely increase traffic counts. The Engineering Department has reviewed the access points on both Medicine Lake Road and Hillsboro Avenue and finds that they will function adequately. 5. Effect on any increase in population: Staff does not believe that the number of employees or customers that will be on site will cause a negative impact on the area. The applicant has stated that during a shift there will be approximately four workers. Since this is a nonresidential development, there will be no increase in population of the area. 6. Effect on noise levels in the area: There may be some noise-level increase from the drive-thru intercom. 7. Any odor, dust, smoke, gas or vibration caused by this use: With the exception of food odors and somewhat increased traffic, no other perceived negative side effects should increase. 8. Visual appearance of the proposed structure or use: Overall minimal exterior improvements are proposed to the building. The applicant shows on the survey an addition of an awning to cover the drive-thru window, and two menu boards on the southern part of the property. 9. Any increase in flies, rats, or other animals or vermin in the area caused by the use: With proper waste disposal, pests should not be a problem. 10. Other concerns regarding the use: Modifications to the inside and outside of the building will be addressed as part of the building permit process. There are two other concerns. First, the potential of car lights when entering drive-thru on western side of building may shine into residential units south of the subject property. The second concern is the dumpster. The existing dumpster is unscreened and in close proximity to the proposed drive-thru. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the CUP for the construction of a Class II restaurant at 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North. Staff believes that this location is appropriate for a Class II restaurant for the following reasons: it is within the Commercial zoning district, another fast- food restaurant has been allowed to operate in the immediate area, this area has good access to the street and highway system. Staff recommends the following conditions: . . 1 . A new site plan reflecting the actual proposal be submitted at the time of permit execution. . 2. All signage shall meet the requirements of the City sign code for the Commercial zoning district. 4 . . . 3. If there is an outside dumpster, it must be screened from view and be constructed of material compatible with the building as determined by the Building Official. 4. Installation of a drive-thru intercom system that is constructed to minimize noise to protect residents to the south. If there is a complaint regarding noise from the operation of business due to the drive-thru intercom system, the applicant will work to mitigate the problem. 5. The memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson and dated August 25, 2006, is attached and his recommendations shall become a part of this approval. 6. All other applicable state, local and federal requirements shall be met. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated August 25,2006 (1 page) Existing Conditions Floor Plan dated July 6,2006 (1 oversized page) Proposed New Floor Plan dated July 6,2006 (1 oversized page) 5 A." ";). .~...V". :(. -~IC~d 10 64.75 N~9.W'11 "E ,~J! NJ' :'1' .H ofl ;,f',': . .'ft~ .',:CF /1 ,.:. ,~"/ lOr / i(.~ ,r.~. ;y. .~t,... "",. '! ....., i""'l< "\ o:;..,.n ~):' C) f;"~::');: \,)\..:, ~I fll ,~ /1-. /1 . ,.:f/! //1 ;.~1 !j<< 'f iC> .IN ''::J.Bl' .J.l! -.. 11/' .~~l ilfl 11/ ,Ill, "~I l.~i7' ff f -' If~ II, ~! u~ ~it; ~~E ~l IiI !!f!! ~' .;'jf-~i':.t~ . "~1" . (y~ !li~' _...____. jf1' IlL '}I) O' "'\' HI M.'. ,-. ill 1;'H q ~I ~~ 1 i ~ ; L_.. 9, '~l j '-":::' ("}, . I." l { i , J , f , . / ,j , i I . . t..::""'! "!;:~ .$ . "; ....\., . o ::0 ~ J i! ::0 g ~ t 6 i , I i i j , I ~~~Iletl Il)I'.l\l\o\"G~ ~Il~~~ "rP>~r;JIA~ r1,~:i'fJl.l'l.I>>l ~l li.t;" . ::"-.::. I / Y ~ ... o .-~,!J .>,'..," ~ 01 o 6'0 ./ tK......'......... 1Jtl ~. 26'l'l1 AVE H i1405 I Subject property... ~ 2S1O ~' ... )of I I -c ... 1Il z :I i 2345 w Q Q Z Z 01 IIJ W rJ ~ % ~ i ~~r23~02308 ^ C1 I LLt-23U.J-l-..23OliA !. I. r---r-.E~. ~~R. ".~ ~~'..' ..' ,.. 2U7 DUi23U......1 f2302 \It ~. I IaNGS ItAll.f!YRD 23llo , .- I ~. ~ <1> ~~~17 2206 \;;{ 22M \2209 "'.. ~~.. Sfm...... \clio~ A \ :A y22052203 .,~ \~ TAlo\AftlNn\. ~I.:'~ w;'tlN'C:NS. Cw,r::9'f. ~Cj tOOiSGtS4n)5 . MEDlaM!I.AKE RD .~ . . . alley Public Safety Memorandum Fire Department 763-593-8055 I 763-512-2497 (fax) To: Mark Grimes, Director of Zoning & Planning From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Subject: Conditional Use Permit for Westview Liquor, 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North Date: August 25, 2006 cc: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the application for the conditional use permit for the Westview Liquor Store located at 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North. The change of use of the building will require the restaurant to have a fire suppression system installed in the building. The fire department will require the following information: 1) Provide to the Golden Valley Fire Department and to the City of Golden Valley Engineer for approval a utility plan. This utility plan will indicate the type of fire suppression, underground water main, fire hydrants and the post indicator valve. 2) The post indicator valve and all control valves for the fire suppression system shall be electronically supervised for the fire alarm control panel. 3) The installation of the new fire hydrant will be required in conjunction with the fire suppression system installed in the building. If you have any questions, please contact me at #763-593-8065.