The URL can be used to link to this page

04-12-99 PC Agenda . . '." " AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, April 12, 1999 7pm I. Approval of Minutes - March 15 and March 22, 1999 II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (Lot Consolidation) Applicant: Dan Otten Address: Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Val-Wood Second Addition (Winnetka Avenue) Purpose: To review a request for a lot consolidation of Lots 7 and 8 in order to construct a single-family dwelling on one lot III. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - Home Occupation Applicant: James Lester Address: 1645 No. Lilac Drive Purpose: To allow for the operation of an existing engraving business at 1645 No. Lilac Drive, as a home occupation with a conditional'use permit IV. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan - General Mills Addition, P .U.D. No. 83 Applicant: General Mills, Inc. Address: 9000 Plymouth Avenue North Purpose: Review of the Preliminary Design Plan forP.U.D. No. 83 - that would allow for more than one building on a lot. This would allow General Mills to construct an addition onto the east side of the existing main campus building. V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals ' VI. Other Business . VII. Adjournment Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. With the completion of the informal public hearing(s) there will be a short recess before the Commission continues with the . remainder of the agenda. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments,and questions, the Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommendation from staff. Commission members may ask questions of staff. 2. The, applicant will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the Commission. 3. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember, your questions/ comments are for the record. 5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. . 0' . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 15, 1999 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, March 15, 1999. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, McAleese and Shaffer, absent was Martens. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Don Taylor, City Finance Director, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner, and Tammi Hall, Recording Secretary. Lester Eck was also in attendance. I. Approval of Minutes - February 8. 1999 MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 8, 1999 minutes as submitted. II. Election of Officers Chair Pentel stated that since three new commissioners will be starting over the next three months, staff has suggested that the election of officers be tabled until the month of May. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to table the election of officers until May. III. Informal Public Hearina - Review of the Capital Improvement Proaram tCIP) City Finance Director, Don Taylor provided a brief overview of the Capital Improvement Program for 1999-2003. Chair Pentel asked if the playground equipment included in the CIP is designated for a particular park. Taylor responded that the park will be determined based on a recommendation from the Park and Recreation Department. Chair Pentel asked why the CIP did not include funds for the new park at the north end of Sweeney Lake. Taylor responded that the City does not anticipate any expenditure at this park. Grimes stated that the City will be reviewing park plans in the next few months and develop individual plans for each of the parks in Golden Valley. Chair Pentel asked if the City will be offering the traveling skate park this year. Taylor responded that the company that provided this last year declined to do it again this year. Grimes indicated that the company is offering only a few sites around the metro Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 15, 1999 Page 2 . area this summer. He stated that insurance costs are high and the company could continue only sites with a minimum number of participants each day to maintain profitability. Grimes' indicated there will be a skate park near the Plymouth City Hall. Commissioner Kapsner asked about the street project. Taylor responded that, once the current project is complete, the streets should last for approximately 25 to 30 years. Commissioner McAleese asked if the street rating program was an ongoing process. Taylor responded that it is an ongoing program. Chair Pentel asked why the park improvement fund has no project for tree replacement after 1999. Taylor responded that this program was for expenditures over $10,000. He stated that the Park and Recreation Director determined that the necessary expenditures for tree replacement after 1999 will be under $10,000 and can come out of the general recreation budget. Commissioner Shaffer asked about the basis for the amounts budgeted for Y2K. Taylor responded that this number is an estimate. He indicated that the City has not yet found any equipment that will need to be replaced to address Y2K issues, but the amount is budgeted to cover any equipment replacement that may be needed. . Commissioner Johnson asked about the asphalt in-line skating rink. Taylor responded the rink is projected for Medley Park. The preliminary plan is to use the rink for in-line skating in the summer and hockey in the winter. Johnson asked if the rink will be supervised and have specific hours of operation. Taylor responded that it is in the preliminary planning stages and these issues will be addressed by the Park and Recreation Department as they progress in the planning. Commissioner Kapsner asked if the City has investigated fiber optics. Taylor responded that the City has not begun planning on this issue. Grimes stated that some of the businesses in Golden Valley have fiber optics and have obtained permission from the City to install it in the City right-of-way. Chair Pentel asked when capital improvements included in the proposed Surface Water Management Plan would be incorporated in the CIP. Taylor responded that the City will begin working out the details over the summer, after the plan is approved, and they will be included in the next CIP. Chair Pentel asked if the City obtains water from the reservoir in Theodore Wirth Park. Tayror responded that the City purchases water from the City of Minneapolis, which then goes into the reservoir at Theodore Wirth. He stated that the Joint Water . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 15, 1999 Page 3 . Commission is responsible for maintenance of the larger pipes from the reservoir to the city. He added that the city maintains the smaller pipes. Commissioner McAleese asked about the plan to replace the generator and suggested that it be purchased prior to January 1, 2000. Taylor responded that the City is assessing the situation and will purchase the new one this year if needed. Commissioner McAleese also suggested that commercial satellite data could be obtained as an alternative to digital aerial photos. Taylor responded that this option will be investigated. Commissioner McAleese asked why there was no funding for the GIS system. Taylor responded that the money for funding the GIS system is budgeted as a service in the General Fund rather than a capital item, since it is provided through LOG IS. Commissioner McAleese asked about the installation of radio-read water meters. He indicated that the City of Robbinsdale had recently installed these water meters and there was a problem obtaining. accurate readings from meters where there was minimal water usage. Taylor stated that the current system does not always produce accurate readings. He stated the City will investigate the new system in regard to small users to try to avoid the problems that took place in Robbinsdale. . Commissioner Groger asked about the plan for paving City trails. Taylor responded that this is still being reviewed. Grimes stated that residents have shown a strong interest in trails. He added that trails will be paved in the northwest part of the community because the residents were interested in year round maintenance of the trails. He indicated that some residents prefer bark chip trails but these are more difficult to maintain. He stated that the Council will be addressing this issue. Commissioner Groger also asked about continued funding for repairs to the pond banks at Brookview. Taylor responded that this project will continue but it is no longer large enough to "be included in the CIP. He stated it will be funded through the general maintenance budget of the Brookview Golf Course Fund. Commissioner McAleese asked if the City is trying to establish a larger presence on the Internet. Taylor responded that the 1999 budget includes funds for creating a City web site. Commissioner Johnson asked if the goal is to enable residents to conduct City business on the Internet. Taylor responded that eventually this will be available. He indicated that they are currently trying to determine which areas are most important to residents and get these areas up and running as soon as possible. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 15, 1999 Page 4 . Commissioner McAleese asked how the City funds for emergency repairs, such as broken water mains. Taylor responded that the city has a reserve account in the water and utility fund for emergency repairs. McAleese asked if the state sets minimum requirements for reserve accounts. Taylor responded that the minimum is determined by the City. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McAleese to recommend that the City Council approve the Capital Improvement Program as presented. Chair Pentel suggested that the workshop on the Storm Water Management Plan be moved to the next item on the agenda since City Staff were present to participate in the workshop. IV. Workshop - Storm Water Management Plan Jeannine Clancy, City Public Works Director, AI Lundstrom, City Environmental Technician and Dave Nyberg of H.R. Green Company were present for the discussion of the Storm Water Management Plan. Commissioner McAleese asked staff about the process for the plan. Grimes responded . that there will be an informal public hearing in April. He indicated the plan will go to the City Council after a recommendation of approval by the Commission. He added that the Council will hold a formal public hearing. Commissioner McAleese stated that the plan will generate some revisions to the zoning code and asked if there is a plan for proceeding with the necessary revisions. Knoblauch responded that the entire comprehensive plan should be completed and reviewed before code revisions are considered. Grimes stated that the City needs to focus on completing the plan to meet the deadline for providing the plan to the Metropolitan Council. He added that code revisions will be reviewed after the plan is approved. City Environmental Technician AI Lundstrom responded to some of the questions raised at the last meeting. He indicated that the current shoreline protection ordinance is based on the recommendation of the DNR. He stated that the DNR has issued an updated ordinance which is much more specific as far as standards and classifications. He added that the new ordinance also reduces the minimum frontage by 5 feet, from 80 to 75 feet. Public Works Director Clancy stated that staff needs to review the DNR's updated ordinance in detail before making a recommendation. Lundstrom also stated that snow is not dumped in Bassett Creek, but is hauled to a storage area. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 15, 1999 Page 5 . In response to questions about street sweepings raised at the last meeting, Lundstrom indicated that this material is hauled to a storage sJte. He said much of the material is used for backfill on construction sites. He also stated that the City has been dividing street sweepings into two components, organic material and sand. Kapsner asked if the salt is removed from the sand before it is used for backfill. Lundstrom responded that the salt is not removed from the sand. Lundstrom also reported that the Highway 100 construction project has installed water quality monitors to be used throughout the project. Pentel suggested that the data from these water monitors be incorporated into the Storm Water Management Plan document. Chair Pentel commented that none of the maps in the plan reflect the Hidden Lakes project. Clancy responded that this plan has been a work in progress for several years so some information needs to be updated. Kapsner asked if the entire City is covered by storm sewer. Lundstrom responded that some areas still need storm sewers. He added that the pavement management program makes this determination. Kapsner asked if the City currently needs additional storm water ponds. Lundstrom responded that there are some specific areas where the City would like to add storm water ponds to deal with current situations. . Kapsner asked who is responsible for maintaining the storm water pond by Lupient. Clancy responded that she was not certain who was responsible for maintenance on that particular pond. Grimes stated that in many cases the City has maintenance agreements on ponds so that they can enforce the requirement that the property owner maintain it. He indicated he was unaware of whether there was an agreement on the pond by Lupient, but indicated that currently the City generally requires maintenance agreements on ponds. Pentel commented that the plan states the City should "discourage" dumping snow removed from parking lots along Bassett Creek. Pentel asked if the City could prohibit this activity. Clancy responded this could be prohibited by the City. Pentel commented that, in regard to reducing erosion, it may be helpful to have a best practices sheet that would educate residents. Shaffer added that the requirements should be realistic and practical. Pentel stated that the City storm water ponds should demonstrate implementation of the shoreline ordinance. Clancy responded it is the intent of the City that the regional pond, developed as part ofthe Xenia Avenue extension project, will bea demonstration pond. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 15, 1999 Page 6 . Kapsner asked about the tree preservation ordinance. Grimes stated that the Commission will be addressing this topic at their next meeting. He stated that the goal of the tree preservation ordinance is to save as many quality trees on a site as possible and to require replacement of trees that are removed. Groger stated there are a lot of references in the plan to adopting additional ordinances. He said it is difficult to tell what the overall effect may be on a property owner. He indicated one of his concerns is that it will become too burdensome for homeowners to do things on their own property. Groger asked if property owners in wetlands are able to make changes to their properties. Green stated that the draft wetland ordinance included in the plan is more restrictive than the current ordinance. He stated that the current ordinance is the minimum mandated by state requirements, but the City can implement an ordinance that is more restrictive. He indicated the current ordinance does not have a setback zone, which is included in the proposed ordinance. Clancy suggested that the Commission may want to use the word "consider" in regard to implementation of ordinances included in the plan. Pentel commented that it would be interesting to compile an industrial census of the City. Grimes stated that the City has not done a census of industry, but they know there are not a lot of high volume users of the sewer system within the industrial segment in the City. He added that the City has close to 30,000 full time jobs which is unusual for a city the size of Golden Valley. . In regard to Chapter Five, Pentel asked how the program priorities were determined. Lundstrom responded that the priorities were revised in response to the SWAMP Committee recommendations. Pentel suggested that the shoreline ordinance may be more of a priority than the tree preservation ordinance. Grimes. responded that the City currently has a shoreline ordinance in place, while there is no tree preservation ordinance established. He added that the state does not consider revision of the shoreline ordinance a priority for a fully-developed community. Kapsner asked how Minnesota is doing in terms of water quality. Green responded that this is difficult to assess. Clancy stated that water quality is an incremental thing, where it takes a lot of small actions to make a difference. She added that she will try to get some information from the "Friends of the Mississippi" organization regarding the status of Minnesota in terms of the river. Grimes added that in the past ten years there have been vast changes and improvements in regard to protecting water. . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 15, 1999 Page 7 Pentel suggested that Appendix 1 be updated to identify the new ponds at Hidden Lakes. Clancy stated that existing improvements will be updated by H.R. Green Company and incorporated in the plan. She stated that she would be uncomfortable including in the plan, at this time, changes occurring as a result of the Highway 100 project because it is still in the design process. Shaffer asked about the wetland zoning. He indicated that the ordinance in the plan states that if a structure is destroyed, it can be rebuilt within a year. He asked if this should be modified to fit better with current City code. Knoblauch stated that this will be reviewed with city code to be certain that they are in agreement. Shaffer also stated that the plan includes two different definitions of wetlands. He suggested the plan be specific and consistent in regard to this item. Groger asked if Bassett Creek is considered a wetland. Lundstrom responded that Bassett Creek is classified as a natural watercourse and an altered natural watercourse. He indicated there may be wetlands and flood plains along the Creek. Pentel suggested that a second workshop to discuss the plan would not be necessary. Grimes stated that an informal public hearing will be held at the first meeting in April. He stated that the hearing will be publicized in the Community Highlights section of the Post. He indicated that the informal public hearing will consist of a presentation from H.R. Green Company followed by time for questions. Pentel asked if representatives from the SWAMP Committee would be notified of the hearing. Grimes indicated they will notify the SWAMP Committee. McAleese suggested that Cable 12 be asked to give this issue some coverage. V. Renorts on Meetinas of the Housina and Redevelonment Authority. City Council and Board of Zonina Anneals Pentel asked City staff to request the City Council Liaison for the Planning Commission to attend the next meeting. VI. Other Business 1. Review of Attendance The attendance record was distributed to all Commission members. There were no changes to the record. 2. Discussion of Rescheduling 2nd Planning Commission Meeting in April Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 15, 1999 Page 8 . Grimes stated that the regularly scheduled meeting in April conflicts with the National Conference. He recommended, and the Commission agreed, to move the meeting up one week to April 19th. 3. Discussion of Planning Representative to National APA Conference - April 24-28 Shaffer indicated that he will check his schedule to determine if he can attend the conference in place of Rick Martens who is leaving the Commission. Groger also indicated he could attend if Shaffer was unable to attend. 4. Handout of Land Use Plan Map Grimes distributed information for each Commission member on the land use plan and the land use plan map. He stated there will be a workshop to discuss this topic at the March 22nd meeting. He added that the City would like to have a an informal public hearing on the land use plan at the Commission meeting on April 19th. Grimes indicated that the City Council plans to do some community surveys and that the plan can be updated . again after the results of the surveys are obtained. Grimes stated that the next meeting will consist of a workshop on the land use plan map and a review of draft ordinances for erosion control and tree preservation. City staff asked the Commission how they would like to honor the retirement of Commissioners Martens, Johnson and Kapsner. Kapsner indicated he would arrange for a gathering at his home sometime in May. VII. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Emilie Johnson, Secretary . ,. .. . . . II. . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, March 22, 1999. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:05 p.m. Those present were Chair Penteland Commissioners Groger, Kapsner, Martens, McAleese and Shaffer; absent was Johnson. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner, and Tammi Hall, Recording Secretary. Lester Eck and Jay Hoffman were also in attendance. Chair Pentel reviewed the schedule for the evening. She suggested the Land Use Plan Map Workshop be moved to the last item on the agenda. I. Approval of Minutes - March 15. 1999 Commission members had received only the portion of the minutes containing the Capital Improvement Plan. It was decided that approval of the March 15 minutes would be considered when they are complete. Reports on Meetinas of the Housina and Redevelopment Authority. City Council and Board of Zonina Appeals There were no reports. III. Other Business Draft Ordinances - Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control and Tree Preservation City Environmental Technician, AI Lundstrom, was present for review of the draft ordinances. There was some general discussion in regard to the draft ordinances to be reviewed. Chair Pentel asked about the procedure for introduction and implementation of new City ordinances. Lundstrom indicated that the draft ordinances to be reviewed by the Commission were recommended to the City Council by the SWAMP Committee. The City Council then requested staff begin working on the ordinances. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, added that proposed ordinances can come to the City Council from a variety of sources. Lundstrom indicated that, after discussion with City staff and with other cities, it was decided the draft ordinances should be added to Chapter Four of the City Code. He stated that this portion of the code is administered by the Inspections and Engineering Departments. He indicated that the Planning # Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 Page 2 . Commission would not be required to hold an informal public hearing for the draft ordinances, since they will not be part of the Zoning Code. Grimes stated that there will be a formal public hearing on the draft ordinances at the City Council level. Commissioner Shaffer asked about the procedure for obtaining a variance from the ordinance. Lundstrom responded that there is no process for obtaining a variance. Knoblauch stated that there is a provision within the City Code for individuals to go directly to the City Council if they have a problem with an administrative decision. Lundstrom stated that staff obtained information on similar ordinances. from several metro area communities. He indicated that the draft erosion control ordinance is based largely on the Maple Grove ordinance and the draft tree preservation ordinance on the Eagan ordinance. Commissioner McAleese expressed concern with the lack of an administrative process for appeal. Knoblauch, City Planner, indicated that it has been suggested that the City may want to re-establish the Environmental Commission, which could become a review body for these ordinances. Draft Ordinance - Tree Preservation . Lundstrom stated that the tree preservation ordinance impacts only new construction and that existing homes do not fall under the scope of the ordinance. Lundstrom explained how the ordinance will be applied. Commissioner Kapsner asked if trees that are removed can be replaced. Lundstrom responded that a certain percentage of removals are allowed before replacement is required. Commissioner Martens expressed concern that, under the ordinance, it would be impossible to develop a site that is heavily wooded. Lundstrom responded that the goal of the ordinance is to ensure that tree preservation is considered before development occurs so that proper planning can be done to minimize the number of trees lost. Knoblauch added that the ordinance would not prevent a site from being developed but it would increase the cost. McAleese asked if statistics are available on the number of trees presently in the city compared to prior years. Lundstrom responded that the ordinance is not designed to protect the City's native environment, but to protect its current environment. McAleese asked how much impact this ordinance will have considering that Golden Valley is a fully developed community. Commissioner Groger stated that there is incentive to preserve trees because they increase the market value of property. . Lundstrom responded that one of the problem$ with implementation of the ordinance is that everyone has a different idea of the value of a tree or block of trees. Lundstrom . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 Page 3 stated that he currently reviews all landscape plans that are submitted to the Building Board of Review (BBR) and makes recommendations in terms of tree removal and replacement. Pentel stated that the ordinance would formalize this process by making it a part of the code. McAleese stated that he would favor an approach that was more cooperative. He added that developers generally do not find it in their best interests to clear-cut a lot. Kapsner stated that he was in favor of the tree preservation ordinance. He-added that the ordinance simply elevates the value of trees to equal the value of wetlands, which are also protected by ordinance. Kapsner indicated he felt the ordinance shows foresight on the part of the City and that it will be important as land becomes more valuable. Lundstrom stated that the majority of the west metro communities have tree preservation ordinances. Martens stated that he felt most of this could be addressed in the existing landscape review process. He indicated the current review process provides more opportunity to address the individual situation of each property. He expressed concern that this -ordinance gives tremendous power to the City staff responsible for its implementation. Pentel stated that the ordinance does accommodate individual properties because a formula is applied based on the number of trees present. McAleese stated that the ordinance would not prevent a developer from clear cutting a lot if they were willing to pay the extra cost required for lost trees. He stated that appears to be no historical basis.for implementing a tree preservation ordinance since the number of trees in the City has been increasing rather than decreasing. He stated that it seemed the best reason for having the ordinance is that other west metro communities have them and he did not believe this was sufficient reason. Lundstrom responded that the thought behind the ordinance is recognizing that the City currently has a limited number of trees and that we want to preserve them. Pentel stated that the City has lost trees to development and that they will continue to be lost if we do not require their preservation. Martens stated that trees can be preserved without going to the extreme of the draft ordinance. Kapsner commented that currently the City looks at development plans and their impact on trees through the BBR process. He stated that the ordinance will formalize this process. Groger stated that he felt the concept was excellent, but that the draft ordinance is too rigid and will not be understood by the average citizen. Lundstrom responded that City staff obtained input from other cities on what has been successful in implementation of the ordinance. He indicated that the City of Eagan said that developers did not have a problem with the ordinance. Martens asked if the Planning Commission could review a project in terms of tree preservation. Grimes responded that most projects do not come before the Planning Commission. Knoblauch added that communities that review all projects have established a designlreview board for this purpose. Lundstrom stated that currently erosion control plans are reviewed by the City Engineering Department and landscape plans are reviewed by the Building Board of Review. He stated that he reviews both erosion Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 Page 4 . control and landscape plans when they are submitted to Engineering and the BBR. He indicated the plans are reviewed in terms of tree preservation and recommendations are made for changes as needed. He added that building permits are not issued until the plans are approved. Pentel asked Lundstrom if he felt the ordinance would be beneficial to him in administering this process. Lundstrom responded that the process of forwarding erosion control and landscape plans to him for review has only been in place for the past three to six months. Kapsner stated that the current procedure would allow the Environmental Technician to block a building permit and the ordinance simply provides a formal, written document that explains the requirement and the procedure. Pentel stated that the City Council believes in this process enough that they want to formalize it in the form of an ordinance. . McAleese stated that the wording of the draft ordinance indicates it would apply to single family homes. Lundstrom responded that the scope of the draft ordinance is new construction or an expansion of the footprint of commercial or industrial buildings. He stated that the City Attorney is reviewing the document with the goal of ensuring that the ordinance does not cover single family homes. There was brief discussion regarding the wording of the document. Lundstrom indicated that the wording would be changed to ensure that it does not apply to the construction of new accessory ~~~. . Shaffer commented that the community of Eagan, which the ordinance was drawn from, has more undeveloped land than Golden Valley. Lundstrom responded that the ordinance would be more problematic in Eagan than it would be in Golden Valley because Eagan has more heavily wooded areas that have yet to be developed. He stated that Golden Vailey does not have any heavily wooded areas left to develop and that these areas would be the most challenging under the ordinance. Grimes stated that, outside of Hidden Lakes, the City generally has only three to five new single family homes built per year. Knoblauch suggested that Lundstrom should review the Medley Hills development to determine if the outcome would have been any different if the tree preservation 'ordinance had been in place. McAleese stated that the ordinance excludes existing single family residential, which is approximately 70% of the land in Golden Valley. He stated that most of the remaining 30% is developed. He asked how much land will be affected by the ordinance. Pentel responded that there are several large parcels of land that would be affected. Groger stated that it is beneficial to protect trees if possible, but that it should be balanced with the desire to obtain the best use for the property. He added that this ordinance seems so specific and detailed that it may not take into account the overall best use for the property. There was further discussion regarding whether or not there is a need for a tree preservation ordinance. Lundstrom stated that the ordinance is not being proposed to . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 . Page 5 address a problem, but rather to show that the City recognizes the value of existing trees and wishes to preserve this value. Kapsner stated that, based on the discussion, he concluded there were four possible recommendations the Commission could make to the City Council regarding the tree preservation ordinance. He reviewed the four alternatives and Commission members present voted for their preference. 1. The Commission does not support the concept of the tree preservation ordinance and recommends it be abandoned. There were no votes for this recommendation. 2. The Commission recommends adoption of the tree preservation ordinance with minor changes. There was one vote for this recommendation. . 3. The Commission recommends adoption of the tree preservation ordinance with the additional recommendation that the percentages of trees preserved be lowered. There were no votes for this recommendation. 4. The Commission recommends that the City adopt the tree preservation ordinance as guidelines rather than as an ordinance and that the City look for ways to strengthen the existing policies (minimum landscape standards). The Planning Commission would like the opportunity to review these revised policies before they are finalized. There were four votes for this recommendation. Based on the votes, the Commission will recommend to the City Council that the Draft Tree Preservation Ordinance be adopted in the form of guidelines rather than an ordinance and that City staff use the requirements of the proposed ordinance to strengthen the existing policy framework contained in the minimum landscape standards. The Planning Commission requests the opportunity to review the revised policies before they are finalized. Draft Ordinance - Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control . Lundstrom reviewed the draft ordinance for grading, drainage and erosion control. He stated that the City currently has an erosion control ordinance which is based on best Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 Page 6 . management practices. He indicated that the SWAMP Committee had recommended that the ordinance apply to any land disturbance of 300 square feet or more. He stated that City staff felt the ordinance should apply to a minimum land disturbance of 10,000 square feet or activity that requires a building permit. Groger asked why it was necessary for the City to have an ordinance when there are already federal and state laws in place addressing this issue. Lundstrom responded that the state requires the City to create an ordinance that, at minimum, requires the use of best management practices. Knoblauch added that the law is implemented and enforced by the City so it is necessary to have the ordinance as part of the City code. Lundstrom stated that there have been numerous problems with erosion control in single family home development. Grimes added that, since the City is essentially fully developed, much of the present development is occurring on marginal land and, consequently, it is important for the City to ensure that erosion will be properly controlled. Kapsner asked about residential driveway replacement. Lundstrom stated that this would be covered under the ordinance because most residential driveways go through . the City's right-of-way. Martens stated that under the ordinance you would need to submit a security deposit if you obtain a permit for paving your driveway. Pentel added that it does not seem necessary to require an erosion control plan for paving your driveway. Martens suggested that driveways be excluded from the requirements of the ordinance. Shaffer asked about the timing for release of the security deposit. He indicated that the erosion control ordinance releases the deposit after one year, while the tree preservation ordinance holds the deposit for two years. Lundstrom responded that two years is required with the tree preservation ordinance because this length of time is necessary to ensure that replacement trees are successfully established. He added that the two years also coincides with the minimum landscape standards warranty. Groger questioned if it is reasonable to require that property owners "prohibit" dust and dirt from leaving a construction site. Lundstrom responded that the wording can be changed to indicate that property owners will make a "reasonable attempt" to keep dirt confined to the construction site. Martens stated that he felt that it was unreasonable to allow 60 days for the City to respond. He indicated he felt it should be a maximum of 30 days. Lundstrom responded that the building department requires 5 to 10 days to review plans and 60 days for formal approval of plans. He indicated he would have concerns with reducing . the time since the process may be affected by the length of time required to review plans in the building department. He indicated he would be comfortable changing the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 Page 7 . wording to indicate that plans would be reviewed in a timely manner not to exceed 60 days. . McAleese expressed concern that the ordinance would require an erosion control plan for any activity that requires a building permit. He indicated he was required to obtain a permit for installation of a bow window in his home. Since that activity caused no land disturbance he felt it should not be necessary to submit an erosion control plan. Lundstrom responded that the City would not require submission of an erosion control plan for building permits that involved no land disturbance. He added that staff is recommending development of an educational brochure which could be distributed to residents who are not affected by the requirements of the ordinance but are undertaking a project that involves land disturbance. Grimes stated that the wording of the ordinance could be changed to include building permits that involve significant disturbance of the land. McAleese expressed concern with clarity of some of the language in the ordinance. Lundstrom responded that the ordinance is currently being reviewed by the City Attorney. . McAleese also expressed concern that the City would have the authority to stop construction on a project if there is a problem with the erosion control. He stated he felt . a speedy appeals process should be in place if the City has the authority to stop construction. Martens stated that he would be in support of this ordinance because it extends to single family home development, which is an area that is not covered in the current ordinance and has been the source of some erosion control problems. Martens asked if the ordinance would apply to the installation of lawn irrigation systems. Lundstrom responded that it would apply only if the installation was occurring in the City right-of-way. Pentel stated that she felt this ordinance could be recommended for approval to the City Council with the changes in language discussed. Kapsner asked if the ordinance could address the scope in terms of the amount of land disturbance. Lundstrom responded that some communities have a requirement of 50 cubic yards of land disturbance. He added that the SWAMP Committee felt that a minimum land disturbance requirement would not adequately address all situations. . The Commission concluded they were in agreement with the ordinance subject to the revisions discussed. They indicated they would like to review the ordinance a final time after the proposed revisions are made. Lundstrom responded that the ordinance is scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council at their meeting on April 20th, which Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 Page 8 . would not allow time for the Commission to review the revisions before it is forwarded to the Council. The Commission agreed that the ordinance will proceed to the City Council with the revisions as discussed. Workshop on the Land Use Plan Map Knoblauch reviewed the four categories of proposed changes on the .'and use plan map: A. Changes that have actually been approved B. Map errors C. Changes due to the revision of the institutional categories D. Changes due to existing land use or projected changes in the land use The Planning Commission had no questions or comments regarding the first three categories, so staff went directly to review of properties in the final category. Knoblauch indicated that the Brookview Condominiums is currently designated Office . and Professional. She indicated that the recently approved housing plan recommends consideration of designating it as medium density residential. She stated that there are serious concerns regarding access in this location for an Office/Professional use. She added that the condominiums provide good affordable housing. The Commission agreed that should be designated as medium density residential. Much of the Valley Square is currently designated only as a "study area". Knoblauch referred to Valley Square Area 0 and indicated the zoning and the existing use match and no change is being proposed. She stated that the block to the north contains one lot that is a single family home that is proposed to change to office use. She stated that no change is being proposed to the Calvary complex or the City Hall block, since the zoning and existing use match. Knoblauch stated that staff are proposing the entire Area C be changed to commercial. The post office property is one potential exception, since it combines uses that might individually fall into several categories. Groger stated he would rather see the post office designated as public facility. He added that if the post office were to move there are some commercial uses, such as a fast food restaurant, that would not be appropriate for the site. The Commission agreed that the Post Office should be designated as a Public Facility. Knoblauch stated that Area B is currently zoned commercial. She indicated that the redevelopment plan calls for mixed uses. She suggested that the entire area be left as commercial at this time and that once the redevelopment plan is finalized . comprehensive land plan changes can be done if needed. She added that if the plans . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 . Page 9 are finalized soon, the changes will be added to the comprehensive plan before it receives final approval. Knoblauch indicated that the bank and the clinic are both zoned commercial and are presently study areas. She stated that the long term best use for both parcels would be office, but indicated they could be designated commercial to match the zoning. The Commission agreed that both parcels should be designated commercial to match the zoning. Knoblauch stated that the far end of the Dave Trach shopping center site is zoned for office use. She recommended the designation be changed to commercial. Knoblauch referred to the vacant lot at the comer of Golden Valley Road and Boone Avenue. She indicated that it may be impossible to develop this property in a cost- effective way. She recommended no change to the current designation of light industrial. Knoblauch then reviewed proposed changes in the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area, part of which is also now designated only as a "study area". She stated that staff are proposing that the Turner's Crossroad parcels north of Glenwood Avenue be changed from low density residential to schools. Pentel commented that she was concerned with changing this designation since the duplexes were donated by the owner to the Minneapolis Foundation who may wish to use them to provide affordable housing. Grimes stated that the City has a purchase agreement with the Minneapolis Foundation to purchase the property and that plans are underway to relocate the tenants. He added that all of the tenants will receive relocation benefits as required by the state. Knoblauch stated that the area just north of laurel and west of the Xenia Avenue Extension is a mix of railroad right-of-way and medium density residential. She proposed it be redesignated as open space - public/private, since it will become a City pond site Knoblauch stated that the west area of Golden Hills is a "study area". She proposed retaining the existing zoning, which is industrial, for about 75% of the area. She proposed that the pond area be changed to open space - public/private. In regard to the Holiday Inn, Knoblauch indicated staff would recommend retaining the industrial designation, even though the use itself is more commercial in nature. Knoblauch stated that the printing company in the central area is currently zoned . light industrial. She stated that, based on the redevelopment plan, it could retain its current designation or be changed to an office or mixed-use designation. Knoblauch recommended no change since the options for the property are open at this point. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 Page 10 . Martens stated that light industrial is not the best use for this property and suggested that the designation be changed to reflect the best use for the property since that is the purpose of the comprehensive plan. Pentel stated that it is important to balance existing industrial with commercial. It was decided to leave the designation as light industrial since the options are currently open. Knoblauch indicated that the site to the south of the printing company is split. She stated that the southern part is a study area and the northern part is light industrial and commercial. She indicated that all of the proposals for the site have been mixed use. She suggested, and the Commission agreed, that the site be designated commercial. In regard to the Colonnade site, Knoblauch proposed changing the comprehensive plan to a commercial designation to match the current zoning. Knoblauch then reviewed the site on the east side of Turners Crossroad. She stated that Golden Hills Shopping Center is a "study area" with mixed zoning of office and commercial. She indicated that there is limited access to the vacant land east of the shopping center and the best future use may be office or residential. She proposed that the entire site be designated commercial. Knoblauch also indicated that the Mayfair Apartments are a "study areaA. She proposed the entire site be designated as . medium density residential to match the existing use. None of the North Wirth redevelopment area is designated as a "study area", but staff had some minor changes to propose. Knoblauch stated that part of the Animal Humane Society site is designated as office use and part as railroad right-of-way. The zoning is a mix of light industrial with no zoning for the railroad right-of-way area. Knoblauch indicated that the use of the property best fits an industrial designation which allows kennels. She suggested that the designation be changed to industrial or light industrial. The Commission agreed to change the designation to light industrial. Knoblauch reported that the North Wirth City pond lot is designated as industrial. She stated that the zoning was changed and recommended that the comprehensive plan be changed to open space - public/private to match the zoning and the existing use. Knoblauch stated that the Dahlberg site is now designated as office. She indicated that the zoning is light industrial and the actual use is mixed. She proposed the designation be changed to light industrial. She stated that the Grow Biz site is designated as industrial. She indicated that the use and zoning are light industrial and proposed that the designation be changed from industrial to light industrial. She proposed that the remaining development site also be designated as light industrial. Knoblauch indicated that the Shaper area and the White House property designations were approved in previous plan amendments. . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 Page 11 Knoblauch stated that the Valley Village apartment site is made up of two parcels. She indicated that the apartments are located on the western site and the eastern site is a mix of very steep and very wet areas. She stated that both parcels are designated high density residential. She indicated that it would be best to leave the sites designated as high density residential with the understanding that the pond site will not be developed. Grimes stated that the eastern site could not be developed because it would be impossible to meet the setback requirement from the pond. It was agreed to leave these parcels designated as high density residential. In regard to the 1-394 corridor on the north side, Knoblauch indicated that this area will be considered separately after the plan has been adopted. She proposed no change to the current industrial designation. She stated that the City Council has established a task force to address this area. Several properties around the City have been rezoned over the years without first amending the plan map. Knoblauch stated that staff would recommend changing the plan to match the zoning at this time. The commissioners agreed. There was brief discussion regarding changing the designation from high density residential to commercial for the Super America property on the corner of Duluth Street and Douglas Drive. The Super America has been successful in this location. It was agreed the designation should be changed to commercial to match the existing use. IV. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Emilie Johnson, Secretary . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: April?, 1999 Golden Valley Planning Commission Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - MINOR SUBDIVISION, OTTEN LOTS; 1500 BLOCK OF WINNETKA AVENUE _ DAN OTTEN APPLICANT . The subject property consists of two vacant lots, one 65 feet wide and the other only 35 feet wide, located just north of Olympia Avenue (preliminary sketch and location map attached). The owner wants to consolidate the properties into a single, 100-foot-wide lot for residential home construction. Other lots to the north and south in the same block are all 100 feet in width. Unlike previous applications for consolidation of this site, the current request does not include any related request to rezone for two- family use. The larger of the two existing lots, while it could not be created today, would be considered a "grandfatheredD situation for construction purposes and could be developed for use by itself as long as the house meets all setback requirements. The smaller lot was originally intended to be a street right-of-way in accordance with a master thoroughfare plan dating back to the 1940's. City records show that the street was determined to be unnecessary shortly before the plat of the area was approved in the 1950's, but there is no recorded explanation of why the extra footage was - not simply incorporated within the limits of the adjacent lot. A 35-foot-wide lot is unprecedented for stand-alone construction purposes in Golden Valley; this tiny property only has value if used in combination with an adjacent home site. Considerations for approving or denying minor subdivisions are set out in City Code Section 12.50, Subdivision 3. Staff findings on each of the nine points are as follows: A. PROPOSED LOTS MUST MEET REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT - the SUbject property is zoned for single family residential use. The new lot will comfortably exceed minimum lot size requirements of 80 feet in width and 10,000 square feet in area. . . B. BUILDABLE PORTION OF ANY NEW LOT MUST NOT BE EXCESSIVELY ENCUMBERED BY STEEP SLOPES OR WETNESS - there is no problem on either of these counts. C. PUBLIC SEWER AND WATER CONNECTIONS MUST BE AVAILABLE - they are. D. APPLICANT MUST GRANT ALL NECESSARY EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES PER CITY ENGINEER - the new lot will have to reflect standard utility and drainage easements of six feet along side and rear lot lines, and ten feet across the front. E. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WITH SOME FORM OF JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MAY APPLY THEIR OWN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - Winnetka Avenue is a county road. Comments on the current application have not yet been returned by Hennepin County. Based on established standards for county roads and on previous consolidation applications for the subject site, the applicant will be required to dedicate additional right-of-way as a condition of approval. Such dedication will not reduce the new lot below the City's minimum required land area. F. 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. This minor subdivision is quite simple, and a review of title by the City Attorney is not believed to be necessary. G. APPLIES ONLY TO NONRESIDENTIAL MINOR SUBDIVISIONS H. A PARK DEDICATION FEE MUST BE PAID FOR ANY ADDITIONAL LOT CREATED BY THE MINOR SUBDIVISION - since the subject property is going from two lots to just one, no fee is required. I. REFERS TO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE ONLY TO MINOR SUBDIVISIONS FOR DOUBLE BUNGALOWS . Staff Recommendation Staff recommend approval of the proposed minor subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall reflect standard easements along property lines and such additional easements as the City Engineer may find desirable for public purposes. 2. Final plat approval shall be withheld until receipt of comments from Hennepin County and compliance with any applicable conditions listed therein. . Attachments: . Preliminary Sketch .. Location Map 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF . VAL-WOOD THIRD ADDITION ~ ~q; ~~ ~- - , ~ 66 ...... ~ ..... o~ ~ 06 II . -l '" 0 CD ~ \1.-0 e:: ~ ~C11P ~ -I '" to LO >. <~ W < z Yci . ~ ti a::: 0 ~d 0 -u . ~-O o o o 0_ z ~ ~ E XIS TlNG HOUSE ~3/.' x.~32..1 AOO/"tJtV 10 () VfJ.L-t..vO{) :..; z Of 2. '3 , lit 2.b 1 1.72 E- -1:..- ~ -Eoll.&'RHeAt) Gt,E~, I INP IP 0038 ~ SET ,p 200 Fi" '" & 0.08 1/. C- EAST' OFOr'T OR -J...qzq.b " IP SET A~ ~.J~ ~ - LOT 8 I _ _ _ _ ~ _ ~89."'8' 35"~ _1.5t.72 _ -1- _ _._ t.V/d (3 I ;e.q 2+.~ I 2.~,31: B~'}. IN A rr ~ I ' ~ S'PIZi/tt.e I LOT 7 ~;:. 3 3s- z 0 ~ ~ I 'I i~ .0 ~ _SG,eAt}.(.. LINE B3 0 o pp o o . o o ~ w . . INP IP 0.45 N '-0 INP :P 0.10 \I Of COR SET -- OF CCR ~ Z -J..qZ/,'1 N 89046' 00" E 131.72 4'2.6,3 q1-Z,lJ7 VAL-W{)ul) 'SC<:"(.I/V ~ ADo/nt/N -s ANI TA~'I oJ. ~q.l+,/. Srwe,e .., EXIST G 60 SF1i7l/~c q2.4-.~ HOUS~ SCALE IN FEET BEAR~GS ARE ASSUMED o DENOTES 112 ~CH DIA. IRON PIPE SET . DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND OWNER AND SUBDMDER: DANIEL OTTEN 9114 MEDlEY CIRCLE GOLDEN VALLEY. MN 55427 !viER/LA & ASSOC/A TES 'NGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING 8401 73RD AVE. NO., SUITE 63 BROOKL YN PARK, MN. 55428 TELEPHONE (612) 533-7595 fAX (612) 533-1937 lI/olloflsC ZClNIIV ti ~ /<.e:5//JeNTiAL- lI-~eA- :;= /3/72 Sf' ~7: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 1, VAL-WOOD SECOND ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA. P/JefJA~F/.) ~ /J? 1J.e~ilI7119 9 '1 WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENT A TION OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND AND OF THE LOCATION OF ALL BUlLD~GS, IF ANY, THEREON. AND ALL VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, IF ANY FROM OR ON SAID LAND. AS SU~VE7; THIS 'Zf7/1 nAY OF 1i/;~V4~ 19 '19 q,,/~d~?, wtlNESOTA UCENSE No/93<?Y LAND SURVE~R II' . MERtLA PROJECT NO 9.rC/73 SHEET LOF LSHEETS ~.. ill ~ ~ - ~~. ~~~:~ \~~ '--.' ;-. ;s ., ~ ~ ~ . '. ~ If~. .' -'n.,4....~7: 6 ~~ . ~ - -.... ....9 C; o. 7 ~. 2- 10 ' Q ~ ~~. 10 :e c\' . OP .8 .f' .,,:.:~ ~: _J~. 16 ~G GO ;" t. .0. ,,' E. ~ , . 15 ... " or .. i ...... . -! . <a..:: . ~f. :t 9 ..: "! . ~ 8 ... .~ ., )3 -. '~3 G. .& ~ ~:.. 13 ~ :l -:t.. ....~::: .12 , .-.-----...... < ", 6. l ).;: .;0 :: 7. .. .12 : olf...e 8. :~.' ~ ~'\ . ot;~ ...! ~'\O~ ~,L .- I Ii 1- 3 Q ~...... ~ .. I :j ~:- ~ ~. II _.....~ J=i... 1 - .:J". -_.~~" .,' ,., ~ ..:. ;f :.:~ 9 ~ : 8; J......;. '? - ~ - I ~~ 'r ..' ..-"':1. ' J. -. I,: Je. . f ~ '':'~lS .. OR'VE':;1t~ ;:t '" .. "" .. t ':J. . .... ::. . ~ ~..o '. I :! :.:: 15. i 1 .....: ~ W\ ~ i :. .. '0 _ ~~~ L J" ' i' ~. 6 Ii! 3. ~:: r.'.6 , . 9 .,,,ot.2 :..' ...." r 0" , -~. " ... :. ~" ! ,;;... 14....' 2.!::> 15' i1 ,~," I~I Z ~~':I,tI' ~.3?~ ~ I';~f"'~~: SEfON~..~I'DDI_, ... :.\1 'l 5 ':1 4....~ ..'"T.5 ~ ~ ... e ...r--~l.5! ~ ~ 3 . . i~' 'J.;O.... ~.~ :: ...... ~T.~ I "-!H~~ .........4 ~.a~ 3lZ ~' II'-Z':::! llfl. ~ .. 11111 -:." O~~I-"'J.~~~5- . .,:;1. 4. : ::: -~ ';.78.50 v ~~,.. ,Ai. 7 i ~_ i ;: ~::: ... :; ,'1" ": ~ '^ ~ II · :! I 5. "'- . " ~ ~ ~'. ~ f -, ~I .. ,Ii Ir!" I .- :;~: --:-; Z ..~ c.C .'C,,, .: ':' .., . I )"' ..- .-- 10 ~ 6. ~ l~": -. .IJ: '.; 3. : .,; .~ll' .4 4-: . ,: -.'" - - - - . 10 ! .:~,.; ~ ~; ~" ~ ~ ... ~j '0 .- 10--:' .. ~I . ... :" -z ~I W -- '-- ;>,: ::.: ,8 !~ I ~ ~ ~~::..: OJ---r----- ,,' .. 0.02- ~. ~~ ~ "2 ,t,n '\ I~ .__ tf'J" .. . '.~ - a ~,- 32 " ::.... - &,' = . - - "'" ;,. ,~~ ~" :.' -- , ~f:\'.3 _~'. ./U; ... .... ~~. 4: '-~- .- ... .. - . ... '.Ct. .. ......i... rZ'" -- .. ~ a ~ .... \ .6.. ... ,.... - ~... .1S~..:.- , ~~- I;" , ~-. ':S ~.. .7 '!. ~ ... "- 50 t- .10 0,' -'- . - .., - ~. ".... -~ lLI > ~ .. 10 '# !. ~ 1! - ~ ;;= ., ::~ . '.c. . .... .. 0 ;-9:;C '.0 ., -8 iO g ~J : 0' .. 19 .~. <. f:. 2 .~;:I!'" .~.r: ~ _ .::,:) ; .4~' ..., ~ .40;" ~ ..4 ~ .. ;-. ~;~ I; - .~ _t t "!I f" . M E M 0 RAN D U. M DATE: TO: FROM: RE: April?,1999 Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes Director of Planning and Development Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Allow a Home Occupation at 1645 North Lilac Drive - James and Beverly Lester, Applicants . Jim and Bev Lester have applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that would allow them to operate a home occupation in a new home that they will be constructing this summer at 1645 North Lilac Drive. This new home is directly to the west of their existing home and will have the same address. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will purchase their existing home along with the front portion of the their property in the near future for the widening of TH 100. (MnDOT has already purchased several homes to the south of the Lester home on Lilac Drive.) Construction on TH 100 is to commence next year. The Lesters have worked out an agreement with MnDOT that will permit them to remain in their existing home until the new home is completed later this year. The new home will be primarily located on the rear of their existing lot. MnDOT will not purchase the rear of this lot. In order to get the required minimum lot size for a new lot (minimum size of 10,000 sq.ft. and a width of 100 ft. for comer lots), MnDOT has agreed to sell the Lesters a small portion of the property to the south that MnDOT now owns. In order to create this new lot for the Lesters, MnDOT and the Lesters will be coming to the City for a subdivision to create this lot. This will be before the City in the next couple months. However, the Lesters only want to build a house next to their existing house if they get the CUP for the home occupation. Now back to the CUP application. As noted in the information submitted by the Lesters, they have operated an engraving business at their home since it was built 43 years ago. Only Mr. and Mrs. Lester operate the business. They primarily engrave stainless steel panels and plates for customers in the electrical and sound fields. Essentially, they want to duplicate what they have in their existing house in the new house. Up until now, the Lesters are operating their business as a non-conforming use. have reviewed the City's zoning code that was in effect when the Lesters began their business. This type of home occupation was not permitted 43 years ago. . " . Somehow, they began their business and have operated it with no complaints from adjoining property owners or the City since 1956. The City added a Home Occupation section to the residential section of the Zoning Code in 1985. (In 1985, the Zoning Code did not permit home occupations at all.) The home occupation section of the Code lists those businesses that are considered permitted home occupations and those that are strictly prohibited. The code states that if a home occupation is not specifically permitted, nor specifically prohibited, persons may apply for a conditional use permit to operate. However, in considering the CUP application, the thirteen governing requirements for all home occupations should be considered and used as a guide. I am attaching a copy of the home occupation guidelines for your review. I am also attaching a copy of a description of the business prepared by the Lesters along with pictures of their existing business. A plan for the new house, which shows the location of the business in the new home is also attached. I have been to the Lester house. From the outside, you are not aware that the house is used for a business. There are no outside signs. A couple of rooms in the basement are used for the business. The photos indicate the neat condition of the basement rooms. I have given the Lesters a copy of the home occupation ordinance. They believe that they meet all thirteen requirements found at the front of the home occupation section. I will review each of these requirements and comment on the Lester application: 1, The use of the dwelling for the occupation shall be incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes - The house will be primarily used as their residence and secondarily used for the engraving business. Over the past 43 years, the Lesters raised their family in their existing home with the business in the basement. Although the business is full time, it is operated only during the Monday through Friday normal business hours. 2. The exterior appearance of the structure shall not be altered for the operation of the home occupation - As stated in their description; the new home will look like a house. There are no signs or commercial vehicles related to the business. 3. There shall be no outside storage or display of anything related to the home occupation - There will be no outside storage or display as related to the home occupation. I have been to the existing house and there is none now. 4. The home occupation shall not be permitted in an accessory building or garage - The use will be located on the lower level of the new house. 5. Notwithstanding that a use may be a permitted occupation in a residential district, it shall not result in noise, fumes, traffic, lights, odor, electoral, radio or TV interference in a manner detrimental to the health, safety, enjoyment and general welfare of the surrounding residential neighborhood - The engraving operation should not cause any problems . . 2 r' . that are listed above. The Lesters have operated at this location for 43 years without complaints from adjoining property owners. 6. No physical products shall be displayed or sold. on the premises except such that are incidental to the permitted home occupation - Nothing will be sold on the site. The product is engraved and then delivered or picked up by the customer. 7. No signs or symbols shall be displayed other than those permitted for residential purposes - There are no signs proposed other than those normally permitted in the residential zoning district. 8. Clients, deliveries and other business activity where persons come to the home shall be limited to between the hours of 9 AM and 5 PM - Although the proposed hours of operation are from 8 AM to 4:30 PM, the CUP will restrict deliveries and clients trips to between the hours of 9 AM and 5PM. 9. No more than 20 percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling shall be used for the home occupation - About 500 sq.ft. or 14.5% of the dwelling will be used for the home occupation. 10. No home occupation shall generate traffic, parking, sewage or water uses or garbage services which are detrimental to the health, safety, welfare and enjoyment of the residential area - As stated in the Lester description, the home occupation will not generate traffic or the need for parking that will strain the existing area. The small business will not create a large need for municipal utility services. 11. Parking related to the home occupation shall be provided on the property where the home occupation operates - There is adequate room in the proposed Lester driveway to handle the occasion client or delivery vehicle. . 12. A home occupation shall not generate more than eight client trips per day and serve no more than two clients or customers at a time - This business will not exceed this requirement. 13. All other applicable City, State and Federal licenses, codes and regulations must be met- This requirement would be made a part of the CUP. . The proposed Lester house will be located on St. Croix Avenue and Lilac Drive. The house will be across the street from the Copa Cabana apartments. An existing single family home is located just west of the proposed house. To the east, a freeway sound wall will be constructed. To the south, MnDOT has purchased the existing single family homes and lots. This property is currently zoned Residential. If there is adequate area, this property could be used for new residences. . Analysis of Ten Factors required by Planning Commission for Any CUP The Planning Commission is required to make findings and recommendations to the City Council on the following factors: Staff comments are as follows: 3 . 1. Demonstrated need for the proposed use. Generally, the City has let the market determine if there is a need for a specific use. In this case, the Lesters have been. operating this business for 43 years with success. 2. Consistency with the comprehensive plan. Certain home occupations are considered consistent with areas designated for residential uses. 3. Effect on property values in the neighborhood. The use of this house for a home occupation that has operated in this area for 43 years should not have a negative effect on property values. This proposed home occupation is a known quantity and it has not had an effect on adjacent home or land sales. 4. Effect on any anticipated traffic generation upon the current traffic flow and congestion in the area. The proposed occupation does not generate a large amount of traffic. The proposed house is to be located on a St. Croix Avenue (both a state aid street and collector street) and the TH 100 frontage road. Both these streets are designed to carry more traffic than a normal residential street. 5. Effect of any increases in population and density upon surrounding land uses. The home occupation will not increase population in the area. 6. Increase in noise levels to be caused by proposed use. The equipment used for the home occupation will be in the lower level and will not be heard outside the house. 7. Any odors, dust, smoke gases vibration to be caused by the proposed use. The use has operated for 43 years without complaints. Since the same equipment is to be used, there should be not problems related to these issues. 8. Visual appearance of any proposed structure of use. The new house will look just like other houses. There will be no indication from the outside of the house that there is a business inside. 9. Any increase in flies, rats, or other animals in the area to be caused by this use. This home occupation will not cause any of these animal problems. 10. Other effects upon the general public health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents. Staff does not believe there are any other negative effects of this proposed use. . . RECOMMENDED ACTION The staff recommends approval of the CUP for the operation of any engraving home occupation for the new home to be built by the Lesters at 1645 North Lilac Drive. The proposed home occupation appears to meet all 13 requirements outlined in the Zoning Code for the operation of home occupation. The engraving business does not appear to have any greater impact on the area than any of the other home occupations that are listed as permitted. Although the use of the existing business in non-conforming, the Lesters have a track record of operating a quiet and safe business that has little or no negative impact on the area. The staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: 4 .' . 1. The conditional use permit shall be valid for only as long as Mr. and Mrs. Lester own the property. 2. Only the occupants of the home shall work in the business. 3. There shall be no sign age other than that permitted in the residential zoning district. 4. The home occupation shall not take up more than 600 sq.ft. of floor space on the lower level of the house. There shall be no use of the garage or accessory building for the home occupation. There shall be no outside storage related to the home occupation. 5. Any clients coming to the business shall park in the driveway and not on the street. 6. Deliveries and client's trips shall be limited to the hours between 9 AM and 5 PM. 7. No products shall be sold from the house. 8. No more than eight client trips shall be generated in a day. No more than two clients shall be on the property at one time. 9. The required City platting process must create a new lot for the house. . Attachments: . Site Plan . Preliminary Plat Plan . Narrative from the.Lesters . Site plan and House Elevation · Colored Photos of Business Operation . 5 ~'&\ - CJ . ~I- ~ Jo -? 1J /{t . ", ;" 331 "7 ~~,;~'r--- . "oj: o. i:::'''H Y '. UJ- l:;ULutN VALLEY I 157 .... '!:! Gov't z: ...... ..... :'fa =H) ~H) ., s- TRACT ~o \..- A 2 ../3 HW5r48-C I'''': = ..; H) H S,'4S'J8''W tJB i:: N ...!=: ,V:b ~- Nuon'4s-r lS2.SZ ." \.. -- N" 00 - co '" I" , I:,. i ,. - I, . ~ ~. ~ t N ... '" III II Q . 'f)'n't - 40 i........'ii..... >- ~ ~ ...0 =- --:'" :I: ~ a It 1ft N", ~ :I: Q "'''' . !J6O!S-9$ ()IJt.UTH . ~ . "'\.. SI15"W ~ ~ _1~S3 -;:= .. 88'Z955;., 150.1' ~ !J6!J0 sr. CROIK . 1 0,1 SWIrW'" 7 ~o. ,:;: .: .a f! Nss'zHn 31'1.'4 :;.::: PART OF LOT 10 ::: , HI ,,/Is l;GR~~'EFui.i:'i .~....~tP....., 8 .1- 9 ~ ~ ~ _1.0 <0 ~ "LAZA'f..:.ADDITION . -:..~ '-4 Ie .,. I I IllS -- .w 0 "'... '" . 3 ....... ocn . .0- :z: 5800 40 "5.1 !JmA}!~~U~61!J . i 1'1/ 14 << SAc. . . & , I,,, I,., ", r "I,. . J IT' ~ tilt .4 ... .. ~O . .,.. .-. tilt -. 10"'2 '.... 4' ..... r_ -,; .. . ." I \ .opographlc InformatIon required. Show north arrow. Proposed R/W lIne & access takIng. OutlIne & locatIon of buIldIngs' Improvements. \'-1 .1' Lot lInes & dImensions. .Streets or highway frontage .~SOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION s. P. 2735-134 <100=130-23) COUNTY HENNEPIN OWNER Jomes Alon Lester et 01. PARCEL NO. 230H Scale lcrn =10 m . 0 ~ 0 - + O"l a I ~ I -. 4 J <::l j -.( 0 ~ ~ ..., \0 ~ Q ( ~ ~ 0 0 ...-I I l- e c 0 ~ D \ \ ! ex: a !.oJ .... ex: 0 ex: 0 <Ct 0 ID + - Z I"'l <Ct .... 0 !.oJ :::E --------- _ 00 0:0:> 00 0 0 o ---------------.., I I I "* J I l Dote 8/29/98 I I I II I I IN RD. ) o I 't ~ '<ro' -~.. r / ; \ V'~ 0 o v/ I J \T, P , / I / \1 I o * * * o 9 * @ o *\ L,t~~ (~)I _ ~c-<\ , I 1- ~{- o -i:jj~ I ' I ~.~ ~ ~ < & o Layout sketch by OEM Parcel No. 230H . James & Beverly Lester Our goal is to build a new dwelling that will be our home and we will be able to continue our 43 year old business. The dwelling will be a rambler with a tuck under garage, facing St. Croix Avenue. Total square footage of the dwelling will be 3500 square feet, including the garage. The shop will be approximately 500 square feet or 14~%. Lester Engraving has been in operation at this location since 1959. It does not affect the neighbors or create any traffic problems. We wish to stay in this location because of our customer base. It is accessible and convenient. Also, it would be a hard business to relocate in another residential location. Jim is the sole operator of the engraving machines. Bev does the books and miscellaneous. It is truly a mom and pop business. We have no other employees. We offer a service to customers in the electrical and sound fields, i. e. stainless steel panels and plates provided by the custo- mers, also Romark labels and plastic keycaps. . In an average week, we may see 6 to 8 customers in person. UPS or other delivery services maybe 2 to 3 times a week. Hours of operation are 8:00 to 4:30 Monday through Friday. . From the street, no one would know there is a business here. There is a sign by the driveway with the name LESTER on it. There are no vehicles parked in the driveway or street except for an occasional piCk up or deli very. We generate far less traffic than a family with teenage children. It is imperative that we be granted a conditional use permit (CUP). Without it, we will not be able to build. We would lose our home, business and income. This dwelling would be an attribute to the neighborhood and make good use of the land. We would also remain on the tax roles, both real and income---beneficial to Golden Valley. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. .' . OJ > ..-l ~ o (J RS .5 . James & Beverly Lester This drawing is based on a lot 100 x 100. We do not know the exact size yet as MN/nOT has not notified us of their determination. We expect to hear shortly. The lot could even be a little larger. The house is 30x50. Fm. Rm. 21x12.6 r 21 ft. J, r--\ . Shop ~35 ft. ). 15 ft. (' > r-== J~ 1 St. Croix Avenue " . . . f! :'.. -, ~. '- ~. ~:" .~ {..- lii:~.' ~:i'" " .,.. .~ "~,,,"'1!... I,.r;.. ""c. . t:~ l4M'c....ls..t-.l__..__~~ 'I 1;"1-- __. _... .II"Jo. ta.. - ~~-r f'-='-1 z.Jlo ..,- ~. ..<"it:-- -.. .'" . t-~ Ig"..1 J<" -.1&+-1 1c.....1Iu ~,..~ ~'. -' ~ -.. . ~,. -" .. :-~. .-:.~ ::;...;.,f:>~_:Z, ~..;' ~h :.~~~.~ .if~~c:.~;:- .~~: _:~;~~:.~' ." .. ..:::.,:,' :..:, ~~~-~~~?:'.;~~:~:i~. ,t~~i~ -, h."...-:-~ "V"l::"~-'~~'!"'~~"'~ .-....~~.~i.~.~.;-: _.~I:~:~:~.1fi:~.... _." .~ . . . Jr:'. " 4-~: ~tf-;> gC \ j ~e.u ~~~. ~ ~ ..... .. . . ~.. . . .~ ..... . 1i;:;Li:::.~f:!~~':i:.~t.i.t.t; ..~<.tf~:.:'~:;: ._. . . .,'b,;:":~~~; 'S. ~~"':~~.~l';:! ~ ".f<,'. ~. . '..!,~" ~~e.. ~~"".. 41N:t k~ . ~.. .~.~~~;;~~ ~ . . . ~...- ~~. ~- ~.' 'fi: .,; ~" ~~~., ~'. }.:;. ~ _ .....: _or_ " ~ff'~. . .'! ..-./.:::;~....:---..- ~"~:-~_::~"~~" : .-.~...:=""""'~~~" ()..1Pm' . All' WlaAIf '/J1U~r J -/ . .:'. . ~ t RI)~). ri.AZZu .~ t.~ .r- )..? . r-J" ~ r-/J~ ;; _ r ./ -.I ~ '". I I.. ~-- - ,. i.;' -' . . .....: .:.-....'... .:.~t!t~: -:';'";. .~::.~:-r- ". ......:. '. . -:.;' ~_.~:; ", :':"-. :. ... :,..; \ ~o!o. 'I,,' :~ft-'.:.:. '. - . ." ~:~~-~. ~. ';':~~::Y :~ .;1: .;.} ;.1"" "'ii.. ~~ll -. .A''21 oft. ......--R !"'!"'~:' - ~. ~'o"' _ .< , .. ~ . 1'::s;' , , . . . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: April 7, 1999 Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes Director of Planning and Development Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan Review for General Mills' James Ford Bell (JFB) Technical Center Campus, P.U.D. No. 83 - 9000 Plymouth Avenue - General Mills, Applicant BACKGROUND General Mills (GM) has applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in order to allow an expansion of the main officelresearch building on their James Ford Bell (JFB) Technical Center Campus. The construction will include a 50-70,000 sq.ft. three- or four-story, building addition which would include both office and conference space. GM is also planning to add about 490 parking spaces of which 400 are to be "proof of parking" spaces. The JFB campus is located on about 110 acres north of Plymouth Avenue in the northwest quadrant of the City. The site was initially developed by GM in 1960 in order to expand food research capacity. It has continued to play that role over the past 40 years. About the north half of the site is undeveloped with the exception of a system of walking trails and some limited material storage by GM. The City does have an agreement with GM, which permits the public use of the trails, and, in return, the City maintains the trails. The City does have street and utility easements for Duluth Street at the north end of the site. Other public easements will be identified as part of the platting procedure. The JFB property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan map for light industrial uses. However, the zoning of the property is Industrial. The existing uses of the JFB complex are consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and zoning of the property. All uses discussed by GM for the use of JFB are consistent with either the Light Industrial of Industrial chapter of the zoning code. As stated in the letter from Todd Messerli of HGA Architects, dated April 6, 1999, the JFB campus buildings have been added to since 1960. In the past, these additions have only required a building permit. When GM came to the. City with this latest proposal, it was quite evident to staff that there is more than one structure on the site (see site plan). The zoning code permits only one principal . . structure on each lot. Therefore, the only way that the addition may be permitted is to go through the PUD procedure that permits more than one principal structure on a lot. The PUD process will allow the addition to be constructed, and establish the exact requirements under which the development will be built and operated. There are two states of approval for all PUD proposals. This is the first, or the preliminary plan stage. The purpose of this stage is two-fold; to give broad concept approval to the proposal, and to call out issues that must be addressed in detail as the proposal moves ahead to the General Plan stage. Preliminary Plan approval does not guarantee that a proposal will become reality. It gives an applicant some assurance of being on the right track and some guidance in how to proceed. In the case of the Planning Commission, in particular, the limitation of Preliminary Plan approval is clearly laid out. CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 6.D provides that: "The Planning Commission's consideration of the application shall be limited to a determination of whether the application constitutes an appropriate land use under the general principals and standards adhered to in the City and, if necessary, its report shall include recommended changes in the land use planned by the applicant so as to conform the application or recommend approval subject to' certain conditions or modifications. " . SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL GM intends to add a three- or four-story addition to the east side of the JFB main building in order to add more office and conference space. There will be approximately 50-70,000-sq.ft. of new space. There are currently about 800 employees on the site that perform various office and research functions. The new addition will not add employees. Those who use the lab and do not now have office space, .in addition to their lab space, will primarily use the new office space. However, the new conference space that is added may bring more people to the campus. In order to better accommodate the new conference room space, GM would like to construct 120 new spaces along with the building addition. They are also showing a "proof of parking" total of about 400 more spaces. These spaces are proposed to be built only if it is shown they are needed. About 30 of the new spaces are on the east side of the bUilding which will be for visitors. After construction of this visitor parking lot, all truck deliveries will enter around the west end of the building. (The temporary covered walkway to the north building will be removed and the ring road will be reopened after construction.) The north half of the 11 O-acre site (approximately north of Olympia Street) is vacant and will remain so as part of this development. There is a network of trail systems over the site. The City has an agreement with GM, which permits these trails to be located here. It also appears that GM has a limited area for outside storage on the north part of the site. With this development, GM will be required to provide some ponding for water quality and quantity purposes. This ponding will probably be built north of the fence. The City also has a civil defense siren located on the property. This agreement will remain in effect that permits the siren. . 2 . ELIGIBILITY OF APPLlCA liON PUD's are regulated under City Code Section 11.55. Four subdivisions of that section come into play when screening PUD applications for eligibility. Each is discussed below in relation to this GM application. After considering the JFB development in view of all four subdivisions, staff find that the proposal is eligible as a PUD and may enter the Preliminary Plan stage of application. PUD Definition PUD's are defined in CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 2. This proposal clearly meets the terms of Subd. 2.A.2, which allows developments with two or more principal structures on one parcel of land. PUD Purpose and Intent Applications must also meet the general purpose and intent of PUD's in Golden Valley as set out in CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 1. According to Subd. 1, the PUD process is designed for use in situations "where designation of a single use zoning district or application of standard zoning provisions are too rigid for practical application." The type of development that now exists at the JFB campus would be difficult if not impossible with standard zoning due to the nature of the use, overall size and shape of the parcel and the topography. Access to the site from a collector street is limited to Plymouth Rd. Therefore, it is an advantage to the City to encourage a development that would limit its access to the south rather than using residential streets for access. Standards and Criteria for PUD's City Code establishes basic requirements for different types of PUD's in Sec. 11.55, Subd. 5. Office and Industrial uses are discussed in Subd. 5.C. There are eight items covered under this basic standard for Office and Industrial PUD's. Staff believes that it can be demonstrated that the proposed development meets these requirements. The items are listed as follows: 1. All office PUD's shall have no less than 100 feet of frontage on a public street. This development has over 1300 feet of frontage on Plymouth Road with additional frontage on Boone Avenue, Flag Avenue and Duluth Street. 2. The development shall be served by the City's public water and sewer system. City water and sewer serve the JFB site, although it does have its own well system for cooling and fire protection. 3. The surface drainage system shall be constructed according to a plan approved by the City Engineer. The existing developed portion of the JFB campus does not have storm water ponding. As part of this approval process, ponds will have to be constructed on the campus to both enhance water quality and to hold water on the site. This ponding and drainage system will have to be approved by the City Engineer and the Bassett Creek Water Management Organization. Staff has had preliminary discussions with GM regarding storm water management. GM has indicated that they will be making an effort to construct ponds that will provide storage for the entire developed site rather than only the area that will be disturbed by new construction. . . 3 . 4. The entire site shall be utilized as a PUD. In this case, the entire site will be under one PUD. 5. The off-street parking spaces will be painted on the surface as per a plan. This will be done in this development. All parking at the JFB site is now striped. 6. Provisions shall be made for off-street loading to service the business. The existing loading areas will remain on the site. All loading areas are off of public streets. 7. Private roadways within the project shall be constructed according to a plan approved by the City Engineer as to type and location. The existing road system will not change with the new construction. The road system provides for good access for employees, customers, delivery vehicles and emergency vehicles. 8. Landscaping shall be provided according to a plan approved by the Council in accordance to City landscape standards. New landscaping will be provided around the proposed building in a manner to meet.City landscape standards. GM has done a good jOb throughout the City on landscaping their facilities. In the case of the JFB campus, efforts have been made to screen the parking areas along the west side of the campus from the residential area on Flag Avenue by a landscape screen or berm. The area north of Olympia Street will remain undeveloped so no additional landscaping is required at this time. . ComDleteness of ADDlication Packet The final screening of any PUD proposal for eligibility purposes is based on CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 6.A, which establishes the various components that must be submitted at the Preliminary Plan stage of development. The staff has determined that the information that has been submitted is suitably complete. . PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The types of issues that come up in connection with PUD applications can vary based on the PUD type and on specific characteristics of each PUD. Staff will highlight various issues for consideration by the Commission: Zonina The entire 110 acre site is zoned Industrial. Within that zoning district, office and research facilities are considered permitted uses. The proposed addition to the building is office space. GM considers the undeveloped area north of Olympia Street vacant land - waiting for development. Therefore, the zoning of the property for industrial purposes is appropriate. The use of this area for open space and trails will be indicated as a permitted use in the PUD permit for the site. GM also uses this undeveloped area for the storage of landscaping and other materials. As long as the storage of those materials cannot be seen from off the site, this storage may remain and not be screened. The Industrial zoning district states that buildings shall not be more than 45 feet in height excluding mechanical equipment. If GM chooses to construct the office to 4 . four stories, the height may exceed 45 feet. Due to the existing height of the mechanical equipment on the existing building and the distance of this building from the residential area to the east, the four-story building would not have a negative visual impact on the area. GM indicates a total of 1252 parking spaces on the site, with approximately 400 of the stalls being "proof of parking" stalls. In the case of the JFB campus, the proposal to have 882 spaces built to serve the site is more than. adequate with the employee count at 800. If additional employees are added, there is more space to construct parking as shown on the parking plan. (The Zoning Code does not have a specific parking standard for research or lab uses.) It appears that the JFB campus meets all the setback standards for the Industrial zoning district with the exception of the existing west parking area adjacent to Flag Avenue. The current front yard setback requirement for Industrial areas across from a residential zoning district is 75 feet. When GM 'constructed the parking lot in the early 1960's, the required setback was 35 feet. In addition, Flag Avenue was only 30 feet wide when the parking lot was built. Therefore, it appears that the parking area was constructed to meet the setback requirements of the day. (The City acquired the other 30 feet for Flag Avenue from GM in 1965.) The proposed site plan does indicate that the parking area along the west side is to be extended to Olympia Street maintaining the same setback as the existing parking area. As indicated above, the required setback is now 75 feet. If the City would permit the extension of the parking to within 25 feet from Flag Avenue, staff would suggest that a six-foot high opaque fence, landscape screen or combination of berm and landscape screen be constructed along Flag Avenue south of Olympia where it does not now exist. Staff has driven on Flag Avenue to see the effect of the development on the residences along the west side of Flag. They will not be able to see the new building addition. However,the extension of the parking lot will effect the homeowners south of Olympia. GM has done a good job with the existing landscape screen now in place along Flag. At the current time, there is a mound that exists on the JFB campus just east of Flag Avenue and south of Olympia. This mound would have to be removed if and when parking is placed in this area. This mound now acts to screen the site from Flag Avenue. Access Access to the site is primarily from Plymouth Road. However, there is a second access to the site from Boone Avenue. near Mandan. As indicated in the City Engineering memo to me dated April 6, 1999, the City Engineer believes that the use of this access point needs to be studied. Staff is suggesting that GM provide information regarding the number of trips that use this site now and in the future. The access point must remain for emergency vehicles. I have spoken to several neighbors regarding this access point and none feel that the number of trips that use it has a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. GM has told me that there are only 2-3 trips per hour using this access point. Enaineerina and Construction Issues As indicated in the Engineering Memo dated April 6, 1999, GM will be required to comply with the Bassett Creek Water Management Organization's Water Quality . . 5 . Policy. They will also be required to submit grading, drainage and erosion control plans for the new construction of the building and ponds. As indicated on the site plan, there are two potential locations for ponds on the site. When the plans are further developed, the exact location will be determined. As part of the platting of this PUD, GM will be required to dedicate Duluth Street across the north part of the site. At the present time, Duluth Street is an easement. Trail and Park Issues The City has an agreement with GM that allows the City to maintain certain trails for the public use north of Olympia Street. This agreement would remain in place as part of the PUD. There is also an agreement to permit a civil defense siren. At this time, the staff is not prepared to make a recommendation regarding park dedication for this development. This decision will have to be made prior to approval of the final plat. . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for the General Mills Addition, P.U.D. No. 83. The PUD will allQw GM to improve their existing research center without having a significant impact on the adjacent properties. The proposed 50-70,000 sq.ft. of new office and conference space will not add to the existing employment on the site of 800. Traffic patterns and access will remain as is. The use of the north half of the site by the City for trail purposes will remain as allowed in the existing agreement. Future development of the north part of the site will require an amendment to the PUD. The staff is recommending that future development of the north half be limited to those uses permitted in the Light Industrial zoning district. This is consistent with the Light Industrial comprehensive plan designation for the site. The staff is making the following recommendations for approval: 1. All recommendations of the memo from Jeff Oliver, City Engineer, to Mark Grimes, Planning Director, dated April 6, 1999 become a part ofthe approval. 2. The parking lot along Flag Avenue may be extended to the north as shown on the plan if an opaque six-foot fence, landscape screen, or berm and landscape screen is built. This screening plan shall be approved by the City prior to the construction of any parking along the west property line. 3. Up to 400 parking spaces may be "proof-of-parking". These parking spaces shall be constructed when the Director of Planning and Development deems they are necessary to meet increased parking demand on the site. 4. The vacant area of the site north of Olympia Street may be used for City trails as per the agreement between the City and GM. A civil defense siren is also permitted on this property as per the agreement between the City and GM. Future development of the north area shall be limited to those uses permitted in the Light Industrial zoning district. All future development is subject to an amended PUD. . 6 . 5. After the General Plan of development is approved, GM will be required to submit a plat of the property, which shall show all necessary street dedications and easements as required by the City Engineer. 6. The office addition of 50-70,000 sq.ft. may be either three- or four-stories excluding any mechanical space on the roof. Attachments: · Location Map · Photo of General Mills site dated November 17,1967 · Narrative from Todd Messerli dated April 6, 1999 · Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated April 6, 1999 · Oversized site plans (attached) . . 7 SnDd\I3NNIN .:ID ill::! IIII I B ! ! ~ ~ I I g ~ I I ! I I ft ~ I II I! ! II , . IiJ ! a 0 ~~~~: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I ! : : i ==~ ~~~~~.~; ~~ ~~1jf'--'~~~i.J) '~.'."." -:.~ '. ~ illS ~ ! ~: w ~).U'.).. ........... ~ . ~ r.":iJ .:, . '. ,,;,.:,.,..' -~;. ~ J:!1il I i ~ ~ :=~ ~~ ". i ~ ~'.;'~,:';I ;~,,,~:'.~~;>::":. ~.y,.) \1'::~..j iiB I A ~ i I 31WSNIlllllRl _-~~ ~. ~ ...1 ~:.:::<:{:-f'::'_.;~:'~1:;':::, 1~;L.;~~::~:~'. .";-:;:-:-"~"~.,,,~::~{.~ .:ID ...~ lIlU&-- A ...., ....'t:...-:.:;~"L'. -;';~'i 'f',:. ....<"'.::.~....... ,~'.. ...... ~'"ARARRRRR888 8! 88 ^..I.", U '" ~ ..:~.... ,.< ..... ~.~....... .'.....~_... ~mfll.II14,;lIfJ!!=!!:t~_!J:s aK- - P'~~, . ~'.'~ I: :~;:;.~:~\::>:.:.;:>.:.:~ :.~.~:~:-:::): :.: ~t.-::;;:.i:;-.., .:~.;.~..:.:.ll'...~'::,~,~=. --." "~--:'::::"" - 1m.... -';. -- 7':.~:.: U Jj ....:~. ..,.... -=.. ~I!:I.. - -......, ~ ! I I I I ! i!cm.-. .~:~ . ... - t J:<;.;:~~:;. 'lCji. <:J - 1\211! - ._1 L. ~ .....: '. I....~ _1._..'. _~__ _~...,;;:~ .g5:.:.,. ~r! :>..ii.'.;:~..:...::.~~.i.;(...., ~_ : ;TJ(:T ~; ;rT~~..~r :-,' ...;::c':.o II. "'........ ilk ~ .:"....:~,<.:i\: '" ~... . !lj~!t. : '" ir~:. it",g....:: ...1!"^.~~~ 7iJe~~~ :~}.~\~.1~~:.irl..~ ~~... r~ Jili'~:j '};== ~ '" w I~ d"'" ...... If! 111~-..u '. .:.-,,::.(: l ~~. ~-=(l ~_rt".~ ...~. ",-- __'I~,I:~B1"':~~~]J"" l:~a~~ .f~~"'\rll\~~~~ -...:=:: ~~:) \~~ ~ ;;: ~~al.;g ;-.::1",:':; "X, ~ ~~~ ~~; .., -~.t~ z --l; "~'{~'-~:~'~':";"'~)~>..1rU ~1 ~",;~I~~. lli~ ~~ ~t(; · == _-.Dr _ ~ \~_ JP... 0.... U _= .~~ ~\ ~r =.! ~;, ~""l11 ~~ .._~~! -_ :II lIlC!;- ",. ~. -. " ..' _ _ 'OM)IIilIIQ:If'n 001 ClIlI Wl '\\. -QUSS ==-:.t~~::-~ - ... ,:r ! ~~ d (. , ~ (,1 ~ ;is, , ,'-El~::: ~I ~ =:: ::=-:: - ~ .....j __ -:.: & 7"''<>" ,I , r; ll- dJ:.. "" ~ =:: ~ :::;~J} T~ I.~ oW ~ ~ ~I"" ....~r:;), '~rs;',"- == IX . I""";""" / ,~...~ -- "'",.~. 0Da9 U __ /"'~~:::-=- ~ -'t>o. -1.. So - 0DE9- -L .c-/can ,. ~ 'U:'n \ 'IJt \:w. r wrmr <; - '" -- ';'u:: . os 'JAw GlMG"ID -00E9 1:1 - ... . . - om-; ~ --C 0/<1 ~ ~ ==1-1 \ ~ ~ .... -.. E': .:&' =:: ~ --.!!. ~ i.\1 'lJf Ul ....\;1.......\ 't~'" "Ai1!;j; '. ~rl 5 -- - S ~ III ~ ~\ ..i:~.~ B :;;~'l6..:: ----It -G099 lIDL9- ~ 0- , ~.... "'r:..\ Ii I · .... ..... -lIDL' ::i ~~ 2: lt~!_~.il i s I' i i::" ji:::' ~~ :.,~ ~ j'- =:: --.' ~~ Q)'. l!':::~:7:~~. "'............1 lei ~1 r; E.. __}I~ ~r -QODL I t II -5=_ ~ ~ ~ '" d .' -.. I e ~ \t...&~.~l.~ ~~~(.) '" II",. i~_ =:. f!l % I lIOf:L- "'.... ~ CD =-; ~. Q 1 'l\4 ...r... _.....~ -lIOf:L ~ ! ao.L-L ~~ ~ 0 ~ .'" .... .::. ~ >. ~~...~~. .,,,:,,:; = .':.~ -ao.L __.__I~,'U' ~ ~ _.'WOKW 111I... .... _......""'= ~r-...., -llOl:L ~ co I119L- _ ~ -0 'Z' '1G _Ul_ t' I:i..... ~ ..- '\. · \ '/:'J:Fi'I ~ -'l'I - -.........' -III9L CIlUL- : : ~ 0:. Q) ... ~ I.... ~ ~.....'" - '" .... .......l- ::;f.~J. I_""~"G _ .- -CIlUL 1:1 '" ......... 0 0 ,.. I I! II E1\ i ,'.''=.;;,j. .- . """'-- I -llIlIlL GDBt- ~ a. "'J/l. I! _._~, - ...~.-...... - - '" g. 0 Q) -.. f'\.Q '" ~ ,.. h ....,;;.;;:~'."~ - ..... -. -lIlI5L 5 ... :=:. ~;~ ~ ~ C) ~ '. m... · ~ "112 ~, "!~!0:~ ~>.!:.;;}tJ. -~ '" ~-- ~ 0018- II !......!...1f ......u }; -""- ~ lJ i W;",..;~ ~:,!!J · -D018 !i! GII28--..~;II~., \ . ':':'tl- '1L.l5 .,' -fI /!~ ,.-:':'':''''i;!''~'.~~:i.:\.t'.~~i.~~:': Oiiii"" ~ ~ -G0a8 ~ :=j~l'" --:.JI "~~i~:;i~ ~ ~ .../~_ -;. ::.::::t~ ~~ -llllE8 ~ ==:~2i~'~ rl 1 ~~ ~ ',,,"': : == t: - ,.. - ~ -- ......1} -1IlWI 13-'....\\ " · -,' -- ~ -.t::I:;r ' , - _!... ~i ." , ~ ==:- '" ~~~f~i'j"" J- i ~ 'Wr l -- = ~Jt~r,2,;~~ff~! ~, ..' / ~,~~ _. -I~' ~ ~'III I I ~ ~-TQ~/ t1 ~ 1M! B m I , , , , . . , , I . . ~..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ !~~~.~&'i~~~~ H.LIlIlNJ.1d .:ID J.J.I:I .. .. '" .. '" .. .. .. :: .~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ '-4 C C,!) k. c ~ E-.... b I l- t - .. .. :: .. . .. l! ... .. "' -0061: co -- -- -- -aao.... ... .. ., .. .. .. I d I c . . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: April 6, 1999 Mark ~rimes, Dire~tor of ~Iannin: ~~d. evelopment Jeff Oliver, P.E., City Engineer ~,1'" Review of Preliminary Design PIaA-' or General Mills JFB Research Center PUD Engineering staff has reviewed the plans for the proposed expansion of the General Mills JFB Research Center. Based upon the review of the plans staff has identified the following issues that need to be addressed as part of the General Plan for the PUD. . 1} This site is within the Bassett Creek Watershed District. Based upon the size of the development, it will need to comply with the BCWMC Water Quality Policy. The developer's engineer has submitted information regarding two potential ponding locations that will meet the BCWMC requirements. The determination regarding which site to use will be based upon upcoming discussions regarding storm water management and wetland issues on site. These issues will need to be resolved prior to forwarding the General Plan ahead for approval. 2} There does not appear to be any revisions to the City sanitary sewer or water systems required forthis development. 3} Access into this site is provided primarily from the access road off Plymouth Avenue. However, there is also an access via a residential area onto Boone Avenue on the east side of the site. Although this eastern access is still needed for emergency vehicle access, its use as an overall access into the site needs to be studied. The developer should provide information regarding the ultimate use of this proposed expansion, including the number of new employees that will be located in the expansion. This information will be used to determine how this access should be used during General Plan review. Should the need arise to have a consulting traffic engineer review the plans, the developer will be billed for these services. 4} The grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be expanded to include the ponding site. This plan must also be submitted to the BCWMC for review and approval prior to beginning any work on site. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. . C: Jeannine 'Clancy, Director of Public Works AI Lundstrom, Environmental Technician ~. Architecture I Engineering I Planning . April 6, 1999 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL (612) 337-4119 The Mayor and Planning Commission c/o Mark Grimes City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 Re: James Ford Bell Technical Center Campus HGA Commission Number 520-034-00 Dear Mayor and Planning Commission: We are excited about the opportunity to present the expansion plans for the James Ford Bell Technical Center Campus in Golden Valley to you. , The James Ford Bell Technica1Center was initially developed in 1960 to accommodate the demands of the expanding food research program of General Mills Corporation. The original plan utilizes a north-south central spine housing administrative offices and central use requirements, to which east-west running wings of varying functions could be added or expanded as required. The wings provide for lab, warehouse and pilot plant space. Since 1960 the spine has been extended and several wings have been added. The last expansion occurred in1982 with the addition of lab, office and cafeteria space at the south end of the spine. In 1999 the James Ford Bell Technical Center has over 800 employees in offices, laboratories and pilot plants. The objectives for the current expansion plan are to provide for needed laboratory and conference space as well as more employee support services, including a larger cafeteria and fitness center, and a large assembly space. The expansion plan proposes to provide the James Ford Bell Campus with 50,000 to 70,000 square feet of office and conference space in a new three to four story wing located on the east side of the spine. This new office space allows James Ford Bell to free up existing laboratory space currently being occupied by offices. As a result, the overall population is not expected to change. The expansion plan also proposes to enclose two existing outdoor courtyards, which lie between the spine and the new office wing. These atriums will provide the campus with much needed amenity space. The southern most atrium will accommodate a flexible gathering space for large and small groups while the northern atrium will become the new cafeteria, serving the entire campus from a more central location. The entrance to the new wing will become the visitor's entrance with visitor and vendor conference rooms located at the ground level and 30 visitor parking spaces created along the east side. Additional parking spaces will be provided on the west to help with overall peak parking loads. , Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. 1201 Harmon Place' Minneapolis, Minnesota USA 55403-1985 Telephone 612.337.4100 Facsimile 612.332.9013 Visit our Website: www.hga.com . . . . The Mayor and Planning Commission April 6, 1999 Page 2 We respectfully request consideration for the April 12, 1999, Planning Commission meeting and look forward to answering any questions prior to that date. Sincerely, HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC. .jtl4~ ~ (cr) Todd Messerli, AIA Associate Vice President s: \ 0000\520\ 034 \as \ tam34s.docct -, . r . - PAVEMENT AREA LDCATJDN SQ. FI. LOCATJDN SQ. FT. NORTH PARl<ING LOT 119,722 . It'EST PARKING LOT 94,ll1ll ~mib~ -- ASSIGNED LOT 18,200 ~VEL 8 0 BOILER HOUSE 16,810 VISITOR LOT 8,220 MAIN BUILDING 549,350 llLDG.23 RAMP 1,607 BOILER HOUSE 4,800 10'00 12/14 3,526 SERVICE GARAGE 3,400 It'ING 16 1,237 ICE HOUSE 10,510 It'ING 17 18,258 BUILDING 23 18,300 It'ING 15 1,599 ELEC. Slt'ITCHGEAR 860 GENERAL MILLS INC. It'ING 11 2,033 ELEC. HOUSE (N. LOT) 100 PERIMETER ROAD 1,409.152 SAMPLE HOUSE 100 JFB TECHNICAL ENTRANCE ROAD 46,318 CENTER TOTAL SQ. IT. 1,740,692 mH: _R~ 587.480 232,480 . . a I L . UJ LOCA TlON MAP ~. LEGAL DISCRIpnON All thot part of tho Northoost Quarter (NE1/4) of tho Northwest Quarter (NWl/4) of SoctIon Thlrty-ono (31). Township Ono Hundred EIghteen (118). Rong. T.....ty- an. (21). lying North of tho northerly IIno of tho rIght of woy of th. Electric Short Uno RoOwoy Company (now Mlnnesoto Western RoOwoy Company) 00 oold raUway right of way IB now located, accordlng to the U.5. Gowmment Survey thereof; subject. however. to an easement for road purposes conveyed to the V11log. of Golden VoIl.y 0_ part of th. prern.... by deed tiled os Document No. 789857 In til. office of th. Register of Doodo of oold Hennopln County. Th. Southoost Quarter (SE1/4) of tho Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) of SootJon Thirty (3D). TownshIp Ono Hundred EIghteen (118). Rongo Twenty-ono (21). occordlng to th. U.s. Gowmment 5o....y thereof. Commenclng .t tho Northwest comer of tho South EIghteen (18) ocroo of tilo Northoost Quarter (NE1/4) of the Soutilwest Quortor (SW1/4) of oold Soctlon Thirty (3D). TownshIp Ono Hundred EIghteen (118). Rango Twenty-one (21). occordIng to the U.S. ~ment 5o....y thereof; thence South to 0 point Four Hundred Elghtoon (418) fest North from tho Southwest comer thereof; thence Eoot Four Hundred Elghtoon (418) foot: then.o South Two Hundred Nino (209) foot: thoneo west Two Hundred NIn. (2D9) foot: thence South Two Hundred NIn. (209) foot to the South Ilno of tho North...t Quarter (NE1/4) of tho Southwest Quarter (SW1/4); thon.e Eost to th. Southoost comer thereof; thence North to th. Northoost comer of th. Soutil EIghteen (18) ocroo of tho Northeost Quorter (NEl/4) of tho Southwoot Quarter (SW1/4); thence West to beginnIng. loos two porcola deeded to City of Golden Vonoy In 1975 and 1008 lend token for roadwayo. Th. two porcole doodod to tho City of Golden Volley (1.981 ocres ond 0.772 _ ___y) ore southerly of Plymouth Road. AND Th. Northeost Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE1/4 of SW1/4) of SectIon ~~~::g).(S)~oonOn(I~":= ~= ~~~~I;or;.\~:J.21). excopt The South HoIf (51/2) of th. Southoost Querter (SE1/4) of th. Northwest Quarter (NWl/4) of Soctlon Thirty (3D). Township Ono Hundred Elghtoon (118). Range T.....ty-on. (21). HennepIn County. o_g to tho mop and plot thOl'OOf on tIIo and of rsoord ln tho Dfflce of tho Regloter of Doods ln and for HennepIn County, oxoopt tho North 3 oaroo of tho Eost 53-1/3 rode thOl'OOf. AND Tho north two hundred nlno (N209) fest of tho oouth four hundred and olghteen (418) fest of tho west four hundred and slghteen (418) foot of tho oouth eighteen (18) ocroo of tho northeost quarter (NEl/4) of tho oouthwest 'l"arter (SW1/4) of SootJon Thirty (3D). Township One Hundred ond EIghteen (118) North. Rango Twenty-ono (21)1 Woot; and tho oouth two hundred nlno (209) fest of tho west two hundred and nino (W209) foot of tho oouth olghtoon (18) ocroo of tho northeost quarter (NE1/4) of th. oouthwest qu.rter (SW1/4) of SootJon Thlrtf (30). Township Ono Hundred ond EIghteen (118) North. Ran90 T.....ty-on. (21) West, contolnlng throe (3) ....... 0_9 to tho Govommont Sur'IOy thereof. loos public roodwoyo. SHEET INDEX SITE LOCATION AND INFORMATION SITE PLAN SITE SURVEY PLAN SITE DEMOLITION PLAN SITE' LAYOUT PLAN PROOF OF PARKING PLAN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PARKING PLAN SITE SECTIONS SITE GRADING AND SURFACING PLAN SITE UTILITY PLAN PLANTING PLAN COCO C001 C100 C200 C300 C301 C302 C303 C400 C500 L100 7\ IWIISIOH It. ArUnna.n1 .......rl.. I ~.. .._....,................... U.l...... nac...lMI.,cII..lI........ UIA .......... T.,..... .ll..tII...... 'auI"lIl lu.ul.nu SITE LOCATION AND INFORMATION PLAN _HO.~ ...... NO SCALE .... APRIL 7. 1998 ..... R.WAIT P.U.D. SUBMITTAL COOO III COPI'RIllHT -. 0llEEH _ AIllWlAllSllH,I -.J f-~--~~~-'--------'--"-~-----'-"'''''-'._-'----'----, ! i i ! i I I I I I i i i I I I I I ! ! I i I i j I I I I I I ! I i i I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I ! I I ! I i I I ! i i I I I I I i I i i i I I i i I i I I I I I I i I i I i i I i i I I I I I I I I I I I I i I i I i i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I L_"_'_'___~___~'_4__"~~""____'___~_"___________""_~_~ /~:~ I .~ cj ~g~ ..Jz~ -J: :EO ~~~ Wm ZlL W., CJ . l ~ IJ.c 81 u~ i I i e i I I I i I i i :I. i: H!~ ! u: (IX! IU I ::t:" . .. : :u~ L... su= . . ~ J · : I t :! I ~ __~_JlL______ .~--.,. """ ._-------~,-~ ~ . . J -.....01 Oll 0 Olt . tic' I ~ " J1VlJSNIf. . DOISliW\ 111111111111111 e ) 1IIIlIIIIJlltlIIllllllllltlHtlItI11 I "lIlll1llllllllltllllllHIUllll 111111I1H111111111lJ1Illtltfllfllll 111111111111111111111111111111111111 1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIflIIIIIIIIII 1llltllll.llHtllllllllfllllUlfllll 1IIIlllllltllfttltll111111tll1111111 1111111111111I111111111111110111111 I III I II II II II lflll II II IIItl IHtI It II l.33lI1S tun1Illm UllUS -"'"111 ~ UllUS ~ i ! ! j I I i i I i I i I I I I I I i I J I I I i ! i I I j I i i i i I I I I i i I I i i I i I i .......--......-..............--..-------..--..-._._.__....__.........._......__......___..__.._1 >t' ~ " ~ . . r I SURYEY FORI GENERAL MillS. INC. . ~ . PRCPERlY ADDRESS: 8000 PI)I'l'l1lUth A..we Nar1tI. Golden Valley. WJnnaota. l.EOAI. DESCRIP1llll: Part of th. Sautheat On:rter of the SotItfrnIt GIcIrter of SectIon 30. and the Nort:h-.t Quarbr 01 the Narthwat Quarter at Seotton 31. T_ ".. .... 21. "_ """'ly, __ CER1tFICA nlll: I hereby crtffy that tht. map WCI prepared by me or under my cDrecl IUpentsIan and that I am 0 cIlIJ, R.ptetU L.lmd SurwJar undlr the Ian of the Stote of Mfnnaoto. Doled this 2nd day 01 _arch. ,919. .~ - .- utnnaoto Ucena No. 2D28l GENERAL MILLS INC. JFB TECHNICAL CENTER NCllElll 1. No bGundary wor1c WCIlJ performed far the preporotJon of this at.lnIllYo 2. ~~~ ~:~ r=--:.ted':81tht..t~ quClChnt of PI)mOUth 3. Pipe a:Jna and Ioouttcm ..,.. obtGJned frcm drowinp cbtaInecl from Genera:I M1Ila ond how not been YOrlfJocl In the field. 0J. & ." (,? 1- . LEGEND o ....... () llINKU MOT FtELD UlCAlED . CATCH lWIIN . CATaI IWlN NOT Fll!LD LOl:A1!D .. ll'llllWlT GAlE YALW: - POST llUJCAtat VAL. ElIO. ... . LIOIIT_ ........- .. ......... lB- . - ......POST , OASllEttR FElICE [E)Jj - . POST w/ClUll.lJB w .."......... II! fI'RlIIillIQ.ER YM.'C Ball --- ...-- -1- G.Ilm8C LIE -.- WAD LICI ____ CllXUC P'ACIUTY PPE _ CIXILIIG P'AaUlY PIP! - saw .... -.-!WlITM"I'SEU __ _UI! A_ It. "'''1UUft I 1'llaMPII, I PI"".. .....1, .,... ," ..rlh..... In. 1.....,...,._..I....'ttl...tr.H....aa"......".. T.~. na.'''...IH '.alaU. 11I.IU...n NORTH TREE LEGEND Go-"- Go-""""" .-..- 0-......,..-. Go -,..- Go-,""", 0--"'- Gl--"'- e-_rPUlll SITE SURVEY SCALE 2141-1.1 ".. . i' .-,]'. EGAN FlELD &: NOWAK INC. SURVEYORS 74t5WA1"lATAIDULIYIlRD -... .....,. mz, (012) !M8-fllD7 ...... ~D520-034-00 !DLE 1--30' .... APRIL 7, 1999 -- . e- I I L C100 OCClPl'RlllHTIWlIIE\.CREEN_-. ~ '1 I . . II I [l J. i l LEGEND / / / IV' /rig: !LL,==.. ! r \ '. l\f!.. I ,. \ \ \ \ !./~ '\ o MANHOlE ------ FENCE ':.. MANHOlE NOT FIf1D LOCATED . CATCH BASIN . CATCH BASIN NOT FIf1D LOCATED -6- HlllRANT . CATE VAlVE . STOPBOX ~ POST INDICATOR VAlVE III We. BOX * UGHT POlE iii METAl COVER CABLE BOX f.>' ~Td CONCRETE " POST W!OUllETS '" AUTO SI'RJNI(l.ER Il!! SPRINKLER VAlVE BOX I1l!1E CONCRETE WAlL = WOOD WAlL -E- ELEC1RIC UNE -w- WAlER UN[ -CH1lS- COOUNO FACIUTY PIPt: -coo- COOUNG FAClUTY PlPE IGr........ Gr" Gr Gr ,/ (.<<, Gi1- Gi1- ---- ~ Gi1- Gr ~ / Gi1- Gil-~ I &.-/ - -- r =-- ~ TREE LEGEND & DENOTES 4- BASSWOOD e- DENOTES S" CHERRY . DENOTES 8" PlNE Go DENOTES 10" APPLE 0- DENOTES 12" ASH @. DENOTES 14" OAK 8- DENOTES lS" HACKBERRY @U DENOTES 18" 1REE @oDENOTES8"PWlI . DENOTES 10" 5PIllJCE ~ . ~ GENERAL MILLS INC. JFB TECHNICAL CENTER 1. J!-=~'''J.;WR-=V.3''''--=-J~.u&. CIW'IIIl aID. 2. lIE __ IS _ fIR lIA_lIE..-_ or.... U1Il1ES"'_ BY OllNlIIRUlIIIllFEUl_H_IS_...'___ UlIU1Y__ F_. 2. ~ 1IW1'Ill1IUU. ACCEIIS ll1E.- 1'1._ -. 1lNlDS_ s-=ur mIS1IiI PAWIENT AT REllDVAL LII'IS. 4. ............___1IEESIIIIPlI1I1HIl_NIIPAlOED....... 9W.L IE alFLEl!LY REIIKNED. .. PRa'IECT ALL WllATA,. BE"IaND oaNS1RUC'IIIt LIlI1a. II. PRIME 1IWFIC IIIN'IRa. Ii ItOIItCI:IMCE lItH H .......,." IUNIN. ON ..-aw ilQ 'DE FIElD IWI.l.AL RII 'IiIIPGRMY 1IWRa a:If1RCI. ACIM1Y IISIU'I& 1IUERC CII PUIIJC ~'tB. ^- ~. ""'"'''''"'I 1I,s.uri., ''''''1'' .........................."'" 1Ita...... .hn-InUu,.u.. ....-.. GU.IMII.'"' T~......."..."..~..l.In...1t SITE DEMOLITION PLAN -CIOliM.-~OS2D-034-OO ..... 1"-20' .... APRIL 7. 1_ ..... R.WAIT C200 CDCOP'W'RDHf HMOm. GREEN-AND --aw~c. ~ rr LEGEND G . o lIANIlOl.E ,-, MANHOLE NOT fIELD LOCATED . CATCH BASIN .. CATCH BASIN NOT fIELD LOCATED <> HYORANT . GAlE VALVE . STOPBOX ; POST INDICATOR VAl.VE III ELEe. BOX oUGHT POlE !II METAL COVER rEI CABLE BOX - FENCE f.>, 'T.;.I CONCRETE . POST W/OU1l.ElS '" AU10 SPRINI<lER I!Il SPRINI<lER VALVE BOX _ CONCRETE WALL = WOOO WALL -<- ELECTRIC UNE -w- WATER UNE -CIi1lS- COOUNO FAClUTY PIPE -CIfOR- COOUNO FACtUTY PIPE .' r/';p" & && 8- 8- ~. I I & G ~ (3. G ~ G G-~~' G- G G .@' ~ ~ 8- G- G G- 8<=? e 8$0 [;] eG- G G . ~G II ~i 1-~rIF I · ,L ~ 8. G G 8- G- {jB- G (3. . Gtr.>-r..o.. . G ~ ~ . t D TREE LEGEND 8- DENOTES 4' BASSWOOO 8- DENOTES 6" OIERRY .. DENOTES 6" PINE & OENOTES 10" APPLE 0a DENOlES 12- ASH 8- DENOTES 14' OAK e- DENOTES 16" HACKBERRY & DENOTES lr mE e- DENOTES r PUJIl .. DENOTES 10" SPRUCE & . TAIIKS I. I J II -=- (3- es. G Gt G G G-G- (3. G- G&G?Gt . . o Go & & & -, . UJ GENERAL MILLS INC. JFB TECHNICAL CENTER ~ III o ~ " o 0(] 000 ~ CJ CJ CJ PAVDIEN1' llPE 1 PA\IEMENT TYPE 2 PAYEMEN'f nPt: 3 *'" ...... CASllNO ""'" ...... CAS1INO 1IAIlH<ll.E tnlIRANT VAL"" UGH1' PCI.E W/ SlNCLE FIXTURE UGHT P01.f: W/ SNGLE F1XTURE umrr POLE W/ DOUBlE AX1URE ElCJS11llG IIUlUINO UMlER<lRlIUND ll1RIJC1IJRES ........... STRUCTURES ""'" .. !J1T1ER NllSE .... ""'" (Imc) RiTAlNINO/SCRImN WAIL Pll<FERTY UNE CONTRACT LAIITll IILIlO ElCIT/ENlRANOE SECTION 2/C303 ARE'IISl,", It. ~1...'".lIlIlfluel.. ....... ... I" un...... 1M. 1111...... naa.Irl......n.. lilt......", .......H. T..,.... ..a.m,,,,, faIlalll lIa.an..... SITE LAYOUT PLAN ~0520-034-0D SlfLI: 1-.20' .... APRIL 7. 1989 ..... R.WAIT C300 <DCCP'YRDfT lWIMEL GREEN MD ~ --.J --~-------- t--~--~---------- i I DC YMPIA . 1 i i I ! I I I . . . 'w'INSDALE '" " m ." r, ~ ~ ,; To ~ ~ ~ _11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I 1111\\11111111111111111111111_ 11111111111111 IIHIHIIIIIl I! II HIHHllH III illll 1111111111111 I I II YoIJrW II 1111 rnTT'1I11 1111111111111 IIHiillllllllllllllllHllHlllilH I II H II i II Hill YaIJrW!l1 1111111 I I l! I 1111lUlllllldfl'~1l1l1llllllllllll ll!llllll 1llllllllHl HIIIHlll!lll l 11111111111111111 11I1:M!JAlsIIIIIII 11I17fITt 11111111 11111111111111111 FENCE 1111111111111 1111111111111 lllll! 1l11!!!!!!lllll Ii IIHIIlI!l!! l Illlll!llIIlIlHliHllill!llllllllll IIHllllllll!ill!llilll!IIlHIIIIIII !lllllllllll H IIIlllll!!II!!! II i III I 11l11l1l1!11!I!lII1H11IllIIlIIIIH I III 1l1!!llflli III -=1- - ----- ----- - - - - - ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ----- a I ::_3lId ---=..... ~ _T~~ o l> '" 15 ~ C1 ... '" ~ 0; -1- :: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .' - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 STAllS Pnlposed m l.LJ =w....'--=-fl---::-L=._=.. ----- ------ -... --- - - - ----- ----- ----- ----- """.---- _......"""--- "'-.- ..- - "- I;:.~=- .D: --..,="';":;,,,, ------ ....,..."". ~ - - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -..... """" - - ----- ----- ----- ----- -~.:=c:: "::"'=::- ----- """ - - - "'- ....... - - - - ----- - - --..... --. ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----...... .,.,. -- --...... - .",.. """'" ><<<0 _ _ o -., o n o t::J lIlI 0'10'1 ~E: o,~ ~ ' o.cres ,- \.." i ". d ~ "'tJ ~ "'tJ m S II ...... ...... o \0 U1 OJ n ii ~ o 60 120 g: 'w'INSDALE z w > <t W ~ t:Q 60 '" 10'115 ~ ITiii:f I I ....'" __..__.___...__._._...__..__....._.....__..._._.___________..____._._...__________._._.._~._..___._____...___...___....l~..__. ..._.~...__..___.._._. .._....._... . ~ I ~ ! I I GENERAL MILLS INC. i JFB TECHNICAL CENTER I !Parking I Fxisting Spaces= 1762 I rroposed Spaces= A90 ~otal= 11252 I I I I !ARlVISIllN I It. i AnlflMUfl I ..11........ I ........ i .._............AII.........I... tUtl ._ '1_ -lItuuml., ,,,....... IlIA ....,..... I 1-.1.,.... """'.41" ,........ ua..,.."u I ! I I l PlAN I ! , ...... -NO; 0520-034-00 SCAUt 1..80' .... APRIL 7, 1999 --- 001 CD COP"l'RIGH1' HAMMEL GREEN AND AElWiWSON)NC ~ ~ i --, I!iJI . UJ . 11111 II! Ii! ! ! I ! 70 STAllS ~ o J> -l>. \0 tii ~ @J GENERAL MILLS INC. I JFB TECHNICAL CENTER ! IParking ~sting Spaces= ~62 .~' roposed Spaces= 120 lotal= rS2 , MI .__. 36 ~ =r~ '" = YINSDALE 5 STAllS Proposed ~ IiJj r=::::::::::::=-...=::::;;:::::::::.:::::-_-::_=.::t::..-.::, . o '1 I I ......... ! ! i ! I II ! I ! ! ! ! ! I ~. o t:::I 40 o 40 80 .....1Udltn I hlt'NfI" I ",..II, ....&1. .,... ... .u"....... .... I'......,... ,.......-~II. .,....... Ita ......,... ,...,.... .u...""." hafatlti '".1'1."11 i I i ~ROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PARKING PLAN o n ~ . II II Qcr I C302 " "----"--""--"- 41""""""'" HAlOIEl. OREEN.....__ -. "';0520-034-00 SCM.E 1--40' .... APRIL 7, 1999 1lliliiil ---1 I . . UJ GENERAL MILLS INC. JFB TECHNICAL CENTER _LOr .- """" IDCBJINGClffl:lra,:nr . CD ~"~SECT10N------------------- _.- ------, I _._....._.._.~._._._..._-_...._...._-_..__........__.._._.__.._--- ~ .." ...... ; EXISTING OFFICE FAClLTIY PROPOSED OFFICE FAClL TIY ENTRY PLAZA ELECTRICAl.. FOUR SWITCHGEAR EXISTING PARKING STALLS MAINTENANCE GARAGE 17\ REVISlClN SEAT WALL I PARKING BEVOND , ~. I '".....tart 1.......,...1 fl.uJ.. ....... 1m. Ie' ..,........ .... lutl ..,.., Pi.... ......,.u.. IU-.tI ilIA ........... ,"...... tU.W.41" ....I.ttt .n......1I i I I i I I I .1 I . I ! L-_M_M__._.__________...____.__M._____M......MM.....__._________..........._........___..__......____.__.........._____..._______.............--.....---.....-......--------------....................----...-..........--..---...---........."........,...............-----....----........................---.-........-.--..------..----....---,-~ CD ENLARGED SITE SECTION 1"..20' I I i bITE SECTIONS I I I ...... ....OS20-m4-00 """" IS NOTED IlA1E APRIL 7. 1999 -- C303 0-'" HAIIlIEl. GREEN AND ~ -1 I . . B , J ~. ! l ~ LEGEND '\ ~-- \ ~ Go '" ~(Go ), Go 1(1\ Go e. G0> // ~L..----- / es. ~ FENCE \\\ / .,e- n ~ -& 0'&" ! 8- e- \ 8- 8- ~8- e- l,j ~ ~ (ee e- Go e- e. o MANHOlE " MANHOlE NOT FIELD LOCATED CD CAtcH BASN CD CAtcH BASN NOT AELD LOCATED <> HYDRANT . GATE VALVE . STOPBOX . POST INDICATOR VAl.VE III me. BOX * UGHT POU: ~ llETAI. COVER CABL.E BOX HANDHOLE f~..j~' ,:.,,1 CONCRETE . POST W/OUrU:TS "" AUTO SPRINl<l.ER lIB SPRINKLERVAl.VEBOX I!mI CONCRE1E WAl.l mIi2l WOOD WAI.l -E - ElEClRIC LINE -w- WATER UNE -CHWS- COOUNG FAClU1Y PIPE -CHWR- COOUNG FACIU1Y PIPE 8-e. e- 8-/ r--- ) ./--& ./ G? _ '.. Go 8- --- "- ..r.J,. ./ y-- ------- ~f! - --..-- --'-...... " (r~--~~ e. ,II -,..-- .~ Go Go eB-A' ;PI II{ ~ - [;]) f " "e8- ( I \ Go /)11 \ \ " I ) {I J \ I ~.( ~. J \ ~~i ~ / - I, \.Im' 'f-,{~ · I I '-=- ~L _ Ii , / LO"'/ / / / / / / TREE LEGEND @t CENOTES 4W BASSWOOD 8- DENOTES 8" CHERRV ~ DENOTES 8" PINE e- DENOTES 10' APPlE 0> DEN01ES 12' ASH e- DENOTES 14' OAK e- DENOTES lB' HACXBERRY 0- DEN01ES 111" 1REE & DENOTES 8' P!.UM .. DEN01ES 10' SPRUCE / / 0- GRADING NOTES: 1. CI:III1lUaRlR IHML fEU) \IRFY U1IJTt LaCA1ICIIlI ,.. 'I'D EmAYIt'IIIIL I. tEE ...,. ClOD arm SRWE'I' FIR IENCIIWDCS. &=JIt=~~ ElCIllIll_ AND 'AWIID 4. _IHAlI.EII1IIPPED_-.. PI.EIlAT~__rtlHE __1I1IlaCPIl!D 1IPSllL SHALL IE UIIED C111lIRFEIl M&\!I <IF -. .... 1lIRFEIl M&\!I ~!>>'LA= TGPSlIL_ a. FlU. 1IA1!IIAL SHALL IE _ _AUIOA__rtlHE __LAIlllRA1aIY. a.__PA_~SHALL IEPRDrIFRlLLED__rt lHE__ _lIllY, PIlat TO F- - - -- --- IIIIllUM 7. SI?OT B - llU11EIl. ......... a IP01' DIYA'IIRI fill PA'tDIENT MIl MJC ME CIMIlI AT FN9IED 1lURP'ACE. II. FlU. PlACED .. !lLlI'Ell 8IEIiPIIR lIEN lis' EIIALL . 8ENIIED. 1. EROSION CONTROL NOTES: 2.____ E<lF1'-r__ 1r _ /Ill IINlIDl. 2~ lmlII ="d:"~ IlL 1IIMIlED rt CXINS1RlIOl1lIN 'lEIIIUIl .. PIBlO _~ SHALL IE a.DNED DM.Y FRCII PA" SLIFACES. ~ FIll ALL MDS,1I"HlI ,. CAI.IIlaM DAW fII OIIIUIIID RDIDI lIUIINO CIPIRA~ AIL DPCISED ... ARIAS SHAU. IE _ (lIoDCII' nPE &) AT A HAlE IF 2111CSPER -. FlIlIlS1llRllEllIlVS InH SUlPE8 GREAtER tHAN GI EIIIAL 1U :101 _ SHALL IE PlACED __ 7 ~ DAllI IF lllIIIA.EIIOI ...... 4 0I:IIIRMI'nIf: SHALL PREPARE MD __ AN. lEE ........ I . ~ GENERAL MILLS INC, JFB TECHNICAL CENTER CJ CJ CJ PA\'EMENT T1PE 1 PA'tUIENT mE 2 9 INlET CASlING IlIIIII CURB INlET ...- 0 IIANlICllE J>o H'IDRANT " v...... 0 UGHT PG.E W/ SHCLE FIXNRE e>C UGHTPCUW/SINGl.EFIXl\lRE O<>C UGHT POLE W/ DOUBLE FDmJR[ ~ DlIS1lllG _G \IIlIlEROROUIlDlllRUC1\JRES --- ll\ol!RIiEAIlS1R\JC1UREll I I CURB .. llUT1!R ~ -- NOliE llCl-.I CURB (NOC) RET_/SCREE>I WAU. PRa'l!RlY UNl! """"'-"'TLI>ll1lI '*' B1.DQ DClT/ENTRANCE SIl.TAlICtt FENCE +W1" SPOT ElEYATIG\l --@>- CllNTGUR (t' IN1ERVALl -@ - CllNTGUR (FIW:tiONALj + ElRNNIdlE ARROW ElRNNIdlE m_ PAWMB(T 1YPE 3 f5. ........ ti. ~11It11Qrlq1~ ........,......u".......1at. ........ P1....lnItnf.n... ........lI'U Q4U.m. T~ '".m."" JcalalM ........"11 SITE GRADING PLAN Cijjjjj;Njj; CIll2lI-03+-lXI SCALE ,..2.fI .... APRIl. 7. 1_ ..... R.WAIT C400 CD COP't'RIl:H1' HMDIEL CRiEN -AND AlIWWlSON.lNC. -....I r LEGEND . o MANHOU: o llANHOLE NOT FIELO LOCATED . CATCH BASIN . CATCH SASIN NOT FIEUl LOCA1El .0. H'tDRANT . GATE VALVE 8- e. ~8- 80 e. 8o:'~ 8- 80 - FENCE f.:..!' ',..ct! CONalETE . POST W/OUllETS '" AUTO SPRINKLER liB SPRINKLER VN..VE SOX _ CONalETE WN..L =: WOOD WALL -, - ELEClRlC UN[ -w - WATER UN[ -CIiJOS- COOUNG FAatJTY PIPE -CH1IIl- COOUNG FAauTY PIPE 8- 8-8- e. . STOPSOX POST INOICATCR VALVE III ELEe. SOX .. UGHT POLE III lIETAL COVER III CASl.E SOX 1Bl. HANOHOLE o e e 8oe. 8G~ ~~ ~ @: e. 80 80 e.G-e ~ Q 80 e e. 80 . I ! L . TREE LEGEND e. DENOlES 4- BASSWOOD 8- DENOTES 8" CHERRY ill- DENOTES 8" PINE Gr DENOTES 10' APPlE @o DENOTES 12" ASH {3. DENOTES 14' OAK <3- DENOTES 18' HACKSERJIY & DENOlES lS' 1REE 8- DENOlES 8" PLUM .. DENOlES 10' SPRUCE TANKS .. rua 8- -, e. e'l 808- I 80 8- /pl2? ' e.8G- \3= 80 . UJ .' ~~... 80 80 ~ es. 8ote. I GENERAL MILLS INC, JFB TECHNICAL CENTER 8-8- 8- CJ CJ CJ PA\9IENT T'l'PE 3 PA\lEMEHT TYPE 1 e. 80 PAVEMENT nPE 2 8-. (30 t (30 (30 lZl INlET CASllNO II CURS INLET CASTING 0 IIANHllI.I: ~ HlIlRANT .. VALVE 0 UQff POlE W/ SNlI.E FIX1URE 00 UlIfT POl!: W/ SINGU: fIX1URl: QoO LmHT POLE WI lXXSBLE FlXlURE ~ EXISTING BUILDING '."'''''.'''''ND S1RlIC1URES ........... STRUCIURES ..... .. GUTlElI '""'" DOWN CURB (NllC) RETAIHlNll/SCREEN WALL PR<lPER1Y LIHE CON1RACT lJllIlll '*" BlDG ""'/ENTRANCE WAtER _ S10RIl ""'" SANlTART ""'" CAS .... ELEClRlC LIHE _) CllIMJNlCA..... UNE (UlIIlEIlllRNll.) <<----= 8- '" RMIION ~, ~ I h.hnffa.I.....lq ....... ._ ... an....... IN. lU. "',... ,bcI41naUt,.1la. "'_hI ... l14li01'" "eJethH nL"',un.~ .....n...1I SITE UTILITY PLAN 0>> I 1 I G? ~ ,~. - -CGMlI. NO.052O-034-OO -.: ,'-20' .... APRIL 7. ,_ ...... R.WAIT P.U.D. SUBMITTAL C500 8- CD COPYRDtr HMOIEl. CREEN--Niif ABRAKWSON.JNC, ~ r-- . . 40 Go . _......._ IIi-SIlD Il!l) _ _ ffi IB> _ AIIIl 'il!!l7 -1lIlI'M._ 1m> -:::1'II'E2 ~ 2D o 2D PLANT MATERIALS SCHEDULE BIll 1_1_ r'1/rIld.IBB ISFECIIDl;TAG r.. III IIA1IHD: TIG . " - " - " - 24-... EEl III ~...... - ...... - ...... PI.ANT CNE PlAIlTjSOJARE FOOT fUllTlIlI.................., " . / / / I / e../ / ! /e.. ._._....._ 1 0- ..____.__t.._._ ----.-.-- ---- -.------- I GENERAl MILLS INC. JFB TECHNICAL CENTER 1 J I r } b\_ I Ij. I AnlStenatt I hll"'''I, I 'l...tq ....... ..... ... ..,........ IN. ,1J....,..."................IU.M....U..........uu I '*Jetkal IU""..II. '.nlau, .u.n....., I ! I FLANllNG PLAN I """:1iil:0520-Q34-00 sc.u: 1--ZO' IlOl1! APRIL 7, 1999 - L100 CD__am:N'AIill_ -.J