Loading...
02-23-98 PC Agenda , . AGENDA . GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, February 23, 1998 7pm Approval of Minutes.. February 9,1998 ; I. , II. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit No. 72 Applicant: Bright Start Children's Centers AddreSj: 1710 Douglas Drive North, Golden Valley MN Purpose: To allow for the operation of a daycare in a portion of the building. . III. Informal Public Hearing - Capital Improvement Plan . . - SHORT RECESS _ VI. ReportS on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals V. Land Use Plan .. Presentation by Subcommittee VI. Adjournment ! : r : . , 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 proponent will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the Commission. 3. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking firstfor 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. . -- . ~. ..-.. . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 9, 1998 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, February 9, 1998. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner Martens, McAleese and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary. SQ.4J.'LV I. Approval of Minutes . ~tn ...... y 3. 1998 MOVED by Prazak and seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 9, 1998 minutes with the following change on Page 3 Paragraph 4 as requested by Chair Pentel relating to a cross-easement agreement between Saturn and Menards. Page Three, Para. 4: Pentel told the... Pentel said that it was her understanding that Lupient was to be taking care of its parking needs through a cross-parking agreement on their own property. Pentel asked staff if this would be a problem with the City or is this something that can be agreed upon by neighboring property owners. Grimes noted '" II. Informal Public Hearina . Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Applicant: City of Golden Valley Address: 9145 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota Request: Amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from Semi-Public Facilities to High Density Residential (12 units or greater per acre) III. Informal Public Hearina - Rezonina Applicant: GV Development, LLC Address: 9145 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota Request: Rezone the property from 1-1 Institutional (churches and schools) to M-1 Multiple Dwelling (limit of three stories in height) Planning Director Grimes asked Chair Pentel how she would like to proceed on these two items. Pentel told Grimes to review them together, but two separate votes would be taken. Grimes showed the Comprehensive Plan Map noting where the proposed property was located. He said the applicant has requested the City to amend its Compo Plan Map from semi-public " Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 9, 1998 Page 2 . facilities to high density residential. He reviewed what types of property are surrounding the area: apartments to the north in New Hope, a town home development now under construction to the east, Medley Park to the south, Pheasant Glen Townhomes to the Southeast and a commercial strip center to the west. Grimes talked about 12+ units and greater as being considered high density for residential development. He said that this development would be at the low end of the high density scale with 14.5 units per acres. Grimes talked about Medicine Lake Road and said that it was a highly traveled road. He said that the proposed ingress/egress from the site would be onto Medicine Lake Road with approximately 300-400 trips per day from the development onto Medicine Lake Road. Grimes briefly commented about this development in relation to Golden Valley's goals as noted in the technical background of the housing plan. He said there are few remaining sites which meet the higher density housing goal. Grimes told the commission that this site would eventually be developed for some high end use like condominiums, but staff has talked with developers who were interested in a commercial use for the site. . Director Grimes continued his review with the rezoning of the property. He noted that the amendment to the Compo Plan Map and the rezoning were similar in nature in that the same issues exist for both requests. The requested rezoning is from 1-1 Institutional to Multiple Dwelling (M-1) which would allow for the construction of a 3-story building. Grimes told the commission that the proposal was for the construction of two buildings with a total of 55 units, which is significantly lower than what code allows for this size lot. Grimes said that there are more requirements involved with developments these days which doesn't permit the maxing out of properties; this development requires ponding on the site. Commissioner McAleese asked about the outlot to the south of this development. City Planner Knoblauch said that the outlot was part of Medley Park. McAleese inquired whether the owner of the property shopped around for another institutional use for the site. Grimes said that staff was unaware of this and no one had approached staff regarding this. Grimes said that he is aware that other congregations are looking for building sites, but this church is very small for the site. He said that the owners of the property wanted to maximize what value they could get for the site, that they first looked at commercial but believed the next best alternative was high density residential. Commissioner Groger asked staff what the best use of the property would be without the proposal in front of them tonight and questioned whether high density residential was the best use. Grimes said that if staff were to achieve some of its housing goals this site would be suitable for 15-20 units per acre. He noted that there is a need in the City for high density residential in order to meet life cycle housing. Commissioner Kapsner asked if there are any cost figures on what the units would cost if it were a less dense project. Grimes said the units would sell for approximately $150,000; to meet livable community standards it would need to be around $120,000. Grimes said that if the property were made less dense the units would probably sell around $180,000. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 9, 1998 Page 3 . Arne Zachman, of GV Development, LLC, talked about the floor plan of the units saying that they all have 4-season rooms attached to them now and if the first floor apartments were constructed without these rooms the price tag could possibly come in around $125,000 for these units. Zachman explained that there could have been one building proposed for the site but was more interested in providing green space on the site, so he went with two buildings. He said the condominiums would be totally secured and that this would be a perfect setting for an owner to walk out of his home without cause to fear of a break-in and that these units would be ideal for those people who might be leaving during the winter months. McAleese asked the applicant if he know if this site was first marketed for use as a church site. Zachman said that when he had talked with the church owners they had gone with a developer in St. Paul and that the site was talked about being used as a retirement! hospital type community with three or four buildings. He said he knew the church wanted to grow but needed to move to the suburbs to achieve this. Pentel questioned the cost of the first floor units of $125,000 and was this dependent on the market. Zachman responded that the first floor units could have patios and this could create a big savings for the developer. He said they would make available to a prospective buyer the opportunity to pay for the 4-season room as an option. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. . Commissioner Prazak said that he lives in the area and was concerned about the use of this property. He finds the proposal an appropriate use with those uses to the east and north and supports the rezoning. Commissioner Johnson agreed with Prazak. She also said she lives in the area and believes this is a good use for the property and would rather see something like this that could help the City meet its housing needs rather than seeing a commercial use on the site. Commissioner Martens said that the proposed use of the property is appropriate, that a high quality commercial use is not possible on the site. He believes restricting the driveway to Medicine Lake Road is good. McAleese said a change to high density residential and the multiple dwelling makes more sense than a commercial use. He said he was troubled with eliminating a semi-public facilities which he deems important because they establish a sense of purpose. He believes there is a lack of guidelines to allow or not allow changes to this type of property but would go along with both changes. MOVED by Prazak, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council the amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from Semi-Public Facilities to High Density Residential for the property located at 9145 Medicine Lake Road. . MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council the rezoning of the property located at 9145 Medicine Lake Road from 1-1 Institutional (churches and schools) to M-1 Multiple Dwelling. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 9, 1998 Page 4 IV. Informal Public Hearino - Preliminary Desion Plan - Medlev Hills Condominiums - Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) No. 77 Applicant: GV Development, LLC Address: 9145 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota Request: Approval of the PUD would allow for the construction of two buildings with 20 units in the north building and 35 units in the south building. The north building is planned to be built in the first phase. Planning Director Mark Grimes reviewed the proposed with the commission. He talked about the number of units in each building, the underground parking and proof of parking on the site. He said the applicant is marketing these units to empty nesters and single professionals. He believes there will be very few children in these units. Grimes said Hennepin County has reviewed the plan and is concerned with the driveway coming off of Medicine Lake Road and would rather see the driveway on the west side of the property. Zachman told staff that he and Hennepin County discussed this matter and have agreed to leave the driveway where shown on the site plan. Grimes reviewed the eligibility of the application and found it to be complete and acceptable. He next reviewed the standards and criteria for PUD's. Grimes said the biggest issue was the number of parking spaces. Code requires 1 enclosed space for every single bedroom dwelling unit and one-half enclosed space for each additional bedroom. Grimes said the required parking should be 83 enclosed spaces and 55 surface spaces; Zachman is proposing 70 enclosed spaces and 27 surface spaces for a total of 97 spaces (1.76 units per acre). Grimes continued by saying that he would like to see parking beefed-up by seeing at least 2 parking spaces per unit on the overall development. Grimes said that he talked with the cities of Minnetonka and Eden Prairie who believe that 2 parking spaces per unit is adequate. Grimes said regarding park dedication, cash would be acceptable in lieu of land. He also told the commission that the easement over the trail, located at the southwest corner is a private easement. Grimes told the commission with regards to the livable community goals the City would meet one of the four goals, that being a positive impact on housing variety and multi-unit density and a negative impact on ownership affordability and owner/renter mix. Grimes noted that the engineering memo was attached. These concerns can be addressed as part of the review process as it gets further into the hearing process. He did comment that the city engineer has a concern about the retaining wall to the south of the pond and would like to see it flipped to the north side. Grimes told the commission that he visited the developer's condominium site in Eden Prairie, which is very similar to this proposal, and found that he brought in very mature trees which are being proposed for this site. He said that Zachman would like to work with the commercial development to the west and has indicated fencing on the west side of the proposed development. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 9, 1998 Page 5 . Grimes said that the development meets most of the zoning code requirements. There are two infringements into setback areas of a few feet along Medicine Lake Road where the proof of parking is located and on the southeast side of the property along the driveway. Grimes said the City would be requesting an additional dedication of 7 feet of r-o-w along Medicine Lake Road and three additional feet for the proposed bike trail along Medicine Lake Road for Hennepin County. Pentel asked if there would be a sidewalk along Medicine Lake Road; Grimes answered yes. Pentel asked if there were any interior sidewalks. Grimes reviewed the site plan, showing walkways and where a sidewalk could possibly connect to the one on Medicine Lake Road. Martens asked if both ponds are required. Grimes said that staff has looked at the possibility of one pond but found that both ponds are required. Martens believes the only way to accommodate for parking on this site would be to take one pond out. He would like to see more proof of parking and landscaping if there were only one pond. Grimes reviewed the proof of parking per the site plan. Prazak asked Grimes to explain what "proof of parking" meant. Grimes said the developer must show all of the parking required now, but may indicate that some of it only be constructed at such future time as a problem with existing parking may be determined to exist. . Pentel noted that without proof of parking the site is down to 86 parking spaces; the required parking is 110 spaces. She asked if there could be parking on the interior streets. Grimes said that he would have to review this with the Inspections Department. Zachman commented that he could accommodate parking on interior streets. Grimes commented this could possibly be done by widening the interior street to 24 feet and then add parallel parking. Pentel noted that in the winter months, the way snow is removed from the site may cause parking to decrease somewhat making available parking even tighter. Brent Roshell of Passe Engineering told the commission that most of the issues that City staff has come up with can be worked out. He said that the ponds were designed to meet city and watershed standards. Because there is a storm sewer running the length of the development on the east side two ponds are required instead of connecting the southern pond with the pond to be constructed shortly on the townhome development site. Roshell said that the ponds would hold water and also provide an aesthetic quality in addition to treating storm water. He said the developer is proposing two retaining walls at the south end, with a split wall on the north side and a shorter one on the south side. Prazak asked Roshell about the rationale for placing the driveway on the east side. Roshell talked about the grade being at its highest on the northeast side and if it was located on the west side a very high retaining wall would be needed. . Kapsner asked if there was a 100 year flood, where would the water run off regarding the upper pond. Roshell said that it was designed not to overflow; that there is piping that lets water out when it reaches a certain level. Prazak asked if there was a connection from the upper pond to the lower pond; Roshell said yes and that it drains to the existing storm water line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 9, 1998 Page 6 . Prazak asked about the path located at the southwest corner of the lot. Roshell said that it is an existing path and will be left in place. Johnson asked about splitting the retaining wall along the southern pond when the engineering staff is recommending a wall along the north end, and can this be worked out. Roshell said that Passe was working with City staff and would like the retaining wall to be trimmed down from 9 feet to 6 feet. Grimes commented that the engineering staff would be working with the developer on this ponding issue. Kapsner asked about parking along the road coming in. Harriss said that would be proof of parking. Pentel asked Harriss if he could change the site plan, regarding the parking, before it goes to the City Council; Harris said this could be done. Grimes commented that if the commission decides there should be 110 parking spaces, then the site plan should reflect 110 spaces. Harriss reviewed the building elevation plan and talked about the exterior construction materials which would be primarily brick and stucco. Pentel asked about the snow removal on the property, noting that there is not much land available. Harriss commented that the property is tight but snow storage could occur along the east side and the association would be responsible to keep the sidewalks cleared. . Martens asked if proof of parking could be added along the driveway into the development. Harriss said the driveway would need to be widened. Martins asked if the building to the south could be moved to the west to accommodate more landscaping on the east side. Harriss said that there is about 25 feet available, so it could be possible to move it another 5 feet. Pentel asked the developer about marketing to empty nesters and what would prohibit children from living in the condominiums. Harriss said children would be allowed. Pentel asked about common space on the development. Harriss referred to the gazebo area and along the north side of the upper pond as common space. Zachman talked about the interior space and the 4-season rooms. He said the building is designed for empty nesters and would probably have a mix of 40% empty nesters that are retired, 40% people in their 50's and 20% young female/male professionals. Pentel asked if these would be secured buildings; Zachman said yes. Martens asked if parking spaces would be allocated. Zachman said it is based on a first come- first served basis as is the underground parking. Martens asked what happens with the space when people go south for the winter. Zachman said that owners rent them out. . Commissioner Groger said that he visited the site in Eden Prairie and said that it looked as though there were 25 existing parking spaces. Zachman said that parking to the north has never been used. Groger commented that he does not believe that 16 parking spaces is adequate for the site and questioned what the best solution is for visitor parking. Zachman said that he would review his plans to see exactly how much parking is actually available that maybe the road could be widened a proof of parking added to the east side. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 9,1998 Page 7 Kapsner asked Zachman if he could come up with the 110 required parking spaces. Zachman said yes, with proof of parking. Kapsner said that if the recommendation was for 110 spaces, it could be provided on the site. Zachman said he would work with the planning and engineering staff to enlarge the proposed parking lot and then have proof of parking elsewhere on the site. Kapsner said that he would rather see the development infringe on the western side rather than the eastern side. Zachman said that there should not be a problem with moving the southern building over to allow for additional landscaping on the eastern side. McAleese asked Zachman if he was combining the internal walkway to Medicine Lake Road. Zachman said that the most western walkway could connect to Medicine Lake Road. Groger asked if there would be berming along Medicine Lake Road. Zachman said yes along with pines. McAleese noted that there was not much that could be done about the entrance of the driveway which is located across from a 6-unit development; Zachman agreed. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Pentel said she was impressed with the size of the trees being proposed for the development which would make the structure look as though it has been there for some years. Prazak said that he was impressed with the openness and size of the units at the Eden Prairie complex; Groger agreed adding that it had a large lobby and high ceilings. Groger believes there is a problem with parking and would like to see 2 spaces per unit. He questioned whether there was a reasonable amount of parking vs. proof of parking and does not want to see that someone down the road will need to deal with providing the proof of parking spaces. He said he liked the idea of the 151 level being constructed without the 4-season porch and would prefer it not being an option, believing it would make the building look choppy. Pentel agreed with Groger's comment about the 4-season porches and that it may provide a choppy look. She would like to see additional parking provided, the proof of parking puts an additional burden and cost on the association. She would like to see the 110 parking spaces provided underground and by enlarging the existing outside parking lot. Pentel said it was a very attractive development. Prazak believes that the developer could be conservative now and provide some proof of parking. Martens questioned whether 16 spaces was enough outside parking and questioned the ability to put in a total of 25 stalls in this area. He believes some additional parking is required per comments from other commissioners. Martens would like to see the southern building shifted 5 to 10 feet to increase the setback on the east side. McAleese agreed with everyone else that it was an attractive development. He said he would recommend 110 parking spaces be required and would like to have as many spaces established before it goes to the City Council. McAleese said that proof of parking could be placed along Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 9, 1998 Page 8 . the interior roadway, but the roadway would need to be the correct width. He talked about the proof of parking being a nice concept but it would be the association who would end up having to turn green space into parking. He would like to see additional parking on the site plan before it goes to the council. Grimes said that staff agrees to what the commission is saying concerning the parking. McAleese said that the proof of parking should not be allowed to go into setback areas, but if needed those spaces should be specified last for development. He talked about the ponding at the southeast corner noting the huge drop-off. He said he knows the engineering staff knows what they are doing regarding the retention walls around the pond and the possibility of collapsing. McAleese said staffs position for this development to be a PUD is reasonable and that the application is reasonable. Johnson said she likes the plan as presented, but agrees with the 110 parking spaces being provided with either existing parking or proof of parking. She would like to see more outdoor parking before the plan goes to the council. She believes it is important for people looking at the site to know where the proof of parking is located, not that it becomes an issue when a parking lot appears outside someone's window; perspective buyers need to know up front where future parking would be located. Johnson agrees with the recommendation of the Open Space and Recreation Commission regarding cash instead of a land dedication. . MOVED by Kapsner to recommend to the City Council approval of the Medley Hills Condominiums, P.U.D. No. 77 based on staff's list of conditions and the commissioners recommendations as follows: 1. All recommendations and requirements set out in the Engineering memo from Jeff Oliver, dated January 26, 1998. 2. The final plat indicate that there is a 7 foot right-of-way dedication for Medicine Lake Road and that a 3-foot bikeway easement be given to Hennepin County. 3. The developer make a park dedication of cash in lieu of land. 4. Parking be increased to 110 spaces, including 70 enclosed spaces shown on the site plan. 5. South building be moved as far as west as possible to increase the landscaping on the east side of the property. 6. Include on the site plan the extension of the west sidewalk out to the Medicine Lake Road sidewalk. The motion was seconded by Marten and the motion carried unanimously. V. Reports on Meetinas of the Housina and Redevelopment Authoritv. City Council and Board of Zonina Appeals . Pentel gave a brief report on a seminar she attended at the HHH Institute on portable housing. ,. , . .. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 9, 1998 Page 9 VI. Other Business A. Planning Commission representative to the APA National Conference in Boston Emilie Johnson will represent the commission at this conference. B. Update by the Subcommittee on the Comprehensive Plan Pentel said the subcommittee would be ready to present at the next regular scheduled Planning Commission meeting. VII. Adiournment Pentel adjourned the meeting at 8:50pm. Emilie Johnson, Secretary . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: . . Feb. 19, 1998 Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Informal Public Hearing -- Request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Operate Child Care Facility in the Business and Professional Office (B & PO) Zoning District -- 1710 Douglas Drive -- Bright Start Children's Centers, Applicant. Bright Start Children's Center has requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that would allow them to operate a day care center in a portion of the Pace Lab building at 1710 Douglas Drive. This building is now being used as a multi-tenant office building and is called the Golden Valley Corporate Center. The owner of the building has entered into an agreement with Bright Start for the lease of approximately 7,000 sq.ft. on the first level at the south end of the building. The Zoning Code was amended within the past ten years to permit child care facilities in the B&PO Zoning District. As I recall, the Planning Commission and the City Council felt that day care facilities in an office setting may be appropriate and desirable to serve the needs of the community and the specific location. This is the first request for a day care facility in the B&PO district. In faFt, all day care facilities in Golden Valley are now located in churches or schools. This would be the City's first for- profit day care facility. I know of two other Bright Start day care centers in the immediate area. This facility will be replacing the space they now occupy in the old Robbinsdale High School building. They have been asked to leave that space by the School District due to District space needs. They hope that they will be able to keep most of those children they serve in Robbinsdale and enroll new children from this area. Bright Start also operates a day care center in St. Louis Park just east of the Olive Garden restaurant. This d~y care center is in the MEPC office park area. In fact, MEPC leases the space to Bright Start. I know that MEPC is very pleased to have Bright Start as a tenant because they provide a child care alternative to the employees of their office complex. . Bright Start has submitted a narrative description of the proposed site usage. The day care center will be licensed for 131 children including 20 infants. This will require 15 to 20 employees. The center will be open from 6:30am to 6pm during the business week (M-F). The Zoning Code requires that there be one parking space for every three employees and one parking. space for every eight children. A total of 24 spaces is required for this size day care center. The existing parking lot is sized for total office. The 55,900 sq.ft. Golden Valley Corporate Center building requires 223 parking spaces. The lot has 223 spaces. The parking requirement for the proposed day care center is less than is required for office space of the same size. If the day care center goes in, there would be seven more spaces than are required by code for the entire building. Staff believes that there will be adequate parking for the day care center. The 24 spaces needed for the center will handle the employee parking and the short term parking needs of parents dropping off and picking up children. The site plan indicates the primary entrance to the day care will be on the east site of the building. There are six spaces directly south of this main entrance that will end up being the primary parking spaces for drop off. Employees can park anywhere on the site. Staff believe that the proposed day care center will not cause a significant increase in traffic on either St. Croix or Douglas Drive. Children are primarily dropped off from 6:30am to 9am, depending on the parents work schedule. This spreads out the traffic over a period of time so that there will not be a significant burden to the surrounding streets during the peak hours. For several years, I took my children to a large day care facility of a similar size and rarely found more than three other families dropping off children at the same time. The building will have significant interior changes to make it suitable for day care. The plans are attached. These plans must be reviewed and approved both by the State and the City in order to determine if they meet standards for a child care facility. Other than a sign for Bright Start, the building should not look any different. There will be one significant change that does not include the building. In order to meet State requirements, there must be an outside play area. Bright Start is proposing a 70 ft. by 100 ft. (approximately 7,000 sq.ft.) playground east of the building as shown on the site plan. This is located on property owned by the office building. As indicated on the site plan, the playground will be placed on the small portion of property that juts out to the east. This property was at one time owned by the homeowner at 6145 St. Croix A venue. Some time ago, that owner decided to sell off the rear of his lot to the adjoining property owners on West Constance Drive. The parcel that is to be the day care playground was not purchased by the property owner directly to the east on West Constance, but by the property owner off Douglas Drive, which is now the old Pace property. This site remains with the old Open Zoning designation (see attached zoning map). Within the Open Zoning District, property can be used for permanent or temporary open space when maintained in a natural environment setting. The plan by Bright Start is to maintain the existing vegetation on this site . . 2 . with some tree trimming and removal of smaller trees below 1-1/2 inches in diameter. The City Forester is recommending that the large cottonwood tree be removed from the site if the property is used as a play area. This type of tree is easily damaged during wind storms. Two play structures would be built on the property along with a six foot high wood fence and chain link fence (see site plan). Landscaping would be added to buffer the playground from the surrounding single family homes. A concrete walkway would be built to the playground area. A crossing area would be designated across the parking lot to the playground area. Staff believes that this playground/ open space use meets the intent of the Open Zoning District for open space. . Factors for Consideration There are ten factors that must be considered in any application for Conditional Use Permit. Staff findings with regard to each factor in this case are as follows: 1. Demonstrated Need. The proposed use meets the standard rule of thumb for demonstrating need, which is that the applicants have identified a market for their services. In this case, the staff believes that there is a need for additional day care choice in Golden Valley. In particular, Bright Start will be offering 20 infant slots which is in short supply. 2. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. The Plan Map identifies the proposed site (including the playground/open space area) as a Business and Professional Office area. Providing day care within office areas is consistent with the policies of the plan. 3, Effect on Property Values in the Area. The proposed day care use is only a small portion of the existing 55,000 sq.ft. building. The location of the playground/open space area, adjacent to the single family homes to the east, is the most significant change to the site. With the proposed fencing and limited hours of the day care center, the impact on the adjacent properties should be minimal. 4. Impact of Traffic Generation. With the potential for 131 children, there will be traffic generated by both employees, parents dropping off and picking up their children, and vendors delivering materials. My rough estimate is that the day care will generate about 420 trips per day (360 trips to pick up and drop off kids, 40-50 employee trips and some vendor trips). The primary concern is during the peak hours. During the morning peak hour 7-8 AM, there will be about 120 trips to the center to drop-off children (60 trips in and 60 trips out). This means about two more trips per minute during the peak hour that will be going out to either Douglas Drive or St. Croix A venue, with the majority gOing to Douglas. If this 7,000 sq.ft. were all office, that space would generate about 35-50 trips during the AM peak hour because office workers come to work and stay for the day. Despite the increase in traffic over the existing, approved office use, the street system can handle the additional AM and PM peak hour traffic generated from the day care center. . 3 . 5. Impact of Population or Densitv Increases. There will be no increase in population from this proposal since it is not a residential development. The density of development will remain the same because the building is not being expanded. The daytime population of the area will be greater than if it were an office use because up to 131 children may be enrolled. The office population for the 7,000 sq.ft. of area would in the 20-35 range. 6. Increase in Noise Levels. There will be an increase in noise from the site due to the outside playground/open space area and the increased number of car trips to the site due to drop-off and pick-up of children. The children will be outside in groups of 20-30 with teacher supervision. Children will cause noise. The staff does not believe that the increased vehicular traffic will cause a significant noise increase. The homes to the east are at least 150 feet from the parking lot. Noise from the playground/open space will be mitigated by the wood fence and landscaping. 7. Odors. Dust. Smoke. Gas. or Vibration. There will be no increase of these pollutants due to the day care operation with the exception of the pollution caused by more vehicles. 8. Flies. Rats. Other Animals or Vermin. The staff does not expect that the day care operation will attract such undesirable animals. 9. Visual Appearance. The building will retain the same outside appearance with the exception of a new sign. The sign will have to meet the requirements of the sign code. There will be a playground/open space area developed along the east parking lot. This will be screened with a six foot high wood fence and landscaping. The day care center will retain most of the trees in the open space area. 10. Other Impacts. The above lists covers the impacts that the day care operation will impact. . . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a CUP to operate a 131 child day care center in a portion of the Golden Valley Corporate Center at 1710 Douglas Drive. This includes an open space/playground area to the east of the building. Day care uses are needed in the City and this will provide another alternative near a number of larger employers. The provision of infant day care in this center is a plus for people who live and work in the City. The following conditions are recommended for inclusion in the permit: 1. The site and building plans submitted by Bright Start, prepared by Gary Bressler Architect, and dated 2/5/98 shall become a part of this permit. 2. A landscape plan for the open space/playground area shall be submitted as part of the General Plan of Development. This plan should include detail about the types of new material to be planted and identification of which existing materials will be kept. The City Forester shall review the landscape plan. 4 . 3. No more than 30 children shall be in the playground/open space area at one time. 4. The hours of operation shall be 6am to 6pm, Monday through Friday. 5. The day care center shall be limited to 131 children. 6. The State of Minnesota shall approve all plans for the day care center. 7. The City Inspection Department shall approve all plans for construction. 8. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met. 9. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP. Attachments: Location Map Zoning Map Narrative City Forester's "Tree Hazard Evaluation Form" Site Plans . . 5 -60 I~ . 's ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ . ... :;: ~ ~~ ~ <~. 'l)'I" ~.,~. O~ \. : "\\ -, "~ .H;': ~ SS..,oIO'Ob"E ~'.-=' . ,,-"S~q _ ~; :';;' J !i:' ?'. ~""" ~ ~;:? ~~ ;; ~..,~/ ..... ~ .. ~ /' <rJ' " ~ . I~ I' . '0 I ..~ " CJl " (j' ~<f. ,.~.....< ." '\J ~\' (~'?6 \.\ -;:9'.1- A J) ~g,~ ''',:), "',1 - oi .."' !.j;~ :" .';!J?co ..JJ ~; ',il ~ ~!, ;:;' ~ >'~ 85' 8~ 8t~ 88 . 89" '0 ' ., ~ 9l ~,'-'4 I ~S-, % ...,,, ~ I~. I -, :.... I ~ "',' '4," ~;'@ e ~.e I .~.. I ~.! a~! ..e; , ':. I.. ,I Is.,. "..' . f '..' J ' 50 --'1 ,} i . :i' '~'-:~ l~' ;:! oa- I =i, ~ ~; :: ~ ~. ~., ~ \O~ \01110' \~S \o4110~, 1~2 ,101 j 100 ,~~ ~8-, ~:.,., -- _. ~l .. I;; e I e:'-' . ~I . ~ ft::- .. ~ 'I~ ~' I ' ~'.. ..':::. "I'r:. ." ,.,)~!'r !:)I.,,-;-' :,..... 5"~ 2:S:,,5'5<> . -.JO WINSDALE .0, 6':CO. 6.3"6. ..5.1'5 630Qo: ~ ~ (;401 6JJI o3/) 63('7 . "'. ~ '.;'~J)'.,. :;'" I I.. - 01 .. : s,~ .,., ~.,'._.)~J s~ :Z),od'~ ;0 , 1,_ -"''''''' ~~: _ I,N'~ . 'r-- . .. .. . ... "''0 ~~ A'I. ~": 300 DULUTH STREET 2f.J.O 200.., e -~ '" ., .'1 ~ '04.1 ~.._J__.., d ~J '" 0..... --{-- ... " . . " --.-- --- ..;. ~ ' 3 ~ 16000 It)' . ~WOLFBERRY ..:~~ t2 6020. 10 C' ~ - . /13 ... IJ.D'4- 6025 "1 6005 YARf' 4 LLE 6020 . !~... 1717., ...ifl.} I 'r3-" JJ. !OJ ,-, I lo~ ~-i ~ ~ .-J OL YMPIA o "" ~. s ~ ...g' r-, ---- - r- "'::._ l:. '...4::;: 1 11:>- ;J ,,, _ ;;J.... , r-j C ~.:;I ... -\ 63/2 -<:'0 . 6305 .R: 8':! 1<r r-. C ~ . , - I c 4'0 J4~5 . i . " 28 ~ 1 Au . NING MAP I.~?' ;il;~~~:1 _ ~:!~!!'~B';;~;:':'; FI~c ~~ i . 1'. i .. . <on ," cmucw__ r ~;:;t';'~;;':;:;;:::Y F.~~' 1\ I u ,J/F1 '~~~J:~ :::\.:":... .:. ..:. ..:.:.:....................... .:' .:..:: .:.:." .: UU U U I N II. . '" .." "". .' :: .~:.. ....... ...... ! ~. ~r~<" :.;...:::::t:.: ..~:~:.::::. \:.:::: ;:;..:~;.t)~:..;.: :::: :::: :::~:'..: .::::: :::: ~ - ,.... .....::~::I)bH~~~~~\!+JIUI::::::!J.r..::. .:.:..;.:. :~:. .::'. :/.'+:' t: ;. . ~~r~:,.,~.::' :.:...~.:.~.. :::::,,:... .::".:':: ::::.~f~y.~........~..."F.~.: }:J ::~~.:r}::?:!L:~~1f:{~~:}~ .': '.J;" ::::..:. :~L ~;;:.\ -::;:::':: I ::i::::. ':::;"s,c\~tl:::::" 4i Jili :::::.~~t?~~ .\::::.:.::::t:::. ~:', ::tt.. .~;.~; '.~. "r '~~~~>~ii/~~SF .:~r.:; '~.' . :>:::~....:..:/:t::. :>:: :::::~~:,:;;: :;:L;~ I ~n .ii~i; ~<f.D ::;::f{ f;:. ~J:~~!;?}!? ':~.:.:.:.:::.:.:.:.::::~ ~.::::: \f '''''" !i" . .1:-,\..~('....'l'C.~~':~,~ "'Tl" "'I~'" .' ;:1\!....'.. r :ff~\J' .., 't.~ ..b 'T' ",,",-" .. ..."....... ..::r.::1:.~ '''. ~ ;~ . !t}~ WJ~;10:~:J}f;;/:',:' ~,;~ 8";;'1 ;':: \\\;,;\; H!!~: ,~'~,?:'f.j;;;'~1;,4i#; ;'2.. . ,~ .~ ~~~'!. '., ~;~.;'"'.."1:..-;~.,.'./;;;- ;;;:8 ':~mf~~::l:: .:. 't~r0~ :./.:' ..,. .::l~: ...::, ~~,%'"'' ............ v .... ., .., ~ ;.;.;.;. h.;;., .- .,. '.,' ,..,~.".,.~ i ~ililfR~;,:',~~Atif ~ j ~ i~;i'\~if:'~t!~t :':e!!:* i Il~ W"'""" Y . ""'111 ~~~<" .:'"'~;;;;, ~ '" ..k)'i e; ~>::::\" J::;;:::;: i?,WI; JI~j;:i' I \i,<:;,2~? ,;"'(i'!$"k';' .'. .... .:..... ~::::~~.' ~":i ....;.:; '. .,'d: ~ ,~~...;..:-,..,....._". /1/1 \~.... .... !i0).... .......... 'l:.y'~ ,;"" ::-~..:} 15.:.. '.:.":;::::::::;:.~:.:. ." ...... ' ~"" ...'....:...:,~.i::'/'I \'\#;," ..~:. ....:.:.:.:.: .::-::...:,:.:..:.....:. .......:...-/,.... ':':''':':.': ......:. ;:;; ;";;:;;":':;;:::,:,.. . .tel\' .tY!' I~' J;:",::,;~?~"::::X\ ':::::,:::"~::..l~~f...:::::~:,,:-~~. ~9 \t. ~~,~.1f;;~f:~::.~,~. '. ::::::::':: ,,~i~~. .', ~I ,.1 .~~.:...\'\' . '.':. 1-::::::::::/1~,' ~ :..... ':':'.. r~ f{ {10;~:;;:' Jtt/i" ....::.... f:~/...::::.:,..:..:..:::... ":ifjj/ r:ill:~;: . ^~ \ \ ".' ..::::::." :".:.:.:::. ~?~:;).:~. ~~: :::~:: ~:t'j~ :. 7f B' ~~~~~j~~~" -';L.j:iJ:..,~-=t. ~ ~J:~.:" "~..j;..,..: .:..:... 'F////",,~ ';;c :J'.: "':' ~ J r '/ ::;..: :.:-: .:.a:: ...,,!~~.).l' V c.::~~ ~::~~. ~.: ::::kii 'Ffffj '. V ';"';'; ::<'.. ,:r.',;;;:; ",:,:.:.,:.,.,.",,'.,.,..,, .. ,-....-'1."':i<i... ':'..<"; ',',"0;:' ......" .:;; :~ .:;> . , ,'..:::ti~~?,:..?'.,,,-,.?;, ~ I;~::c ~ ~:;.u .......~: (' :':;.~:t;(i~: . ..::.".:...... ::.'?~':l.,~:~..,';;, ..:i::::...... .. ....:....:.:.:.... .,'..;-. :::'::; , . . ,',:,:,:,:,:.:..::.",., "l;\.':JJ:' .."'-:.:......... ..:,'?.~::.. ~':'''''': ...:.:.. . ~g @;: ~ ~i; ~"'X,;",f,m,,;#;~:::;:;:!5' Wi:: \':~'i?;It~ 2~ J:&11il' l'\i@afg;;:'t5!@iP'i\;I;/-;, ~lli,1 :i;;:; :;;:;;. i~i'~~. ;,,~~j~y2,,;:;;:,r4;1-~..i.!11 ~""}If~;r. ;;:~~;/~, ::~m.... Rf.:: ..:... "':'.l.':l.'..::.....II:;.J\..,'.~il:i;.".... :i~:::~ .:,"":"''':.,': ~~ '.' .:..,'...,-:co.....:.:. ..:.:.:::...:. "11 :,.':;..:: ~::..:... ....... .." .s....~ i;':' i~~=1! / jill.,;.(.i".'.... ;'-:&...;.~...(;;...,.Tr. . ~,.:.:.:.:.:;:~ ?j@:..,..... .. Ht~" . t~S#jEMD I .:~~T:.: :::::':':'. ::::::::.~ ~~ (.l~: ,,;,--~ 11t' ~r:,.:::~E;C~W~;JX:~G0~~~\~I:.:. \ ~~Ji !11m ~I{i. Sf :I~/'/ l.,~~f}t-l'A:;;.. ......... /.f-:'(';;~":;;'rh;Y""',";-"'IC'("'" ,:B ~~R x. ...:..:1.7.\.....:::.~ I~~.. ,:,:,.;.", .;,;(....Jf )I;I.l ~.!.,..", ,.;:", ~.~: f~.~1~li{il~t~~~;>~:~:~f;j~~:~.::: &J~~.;. ~; ~ ....L:~:::...::::.(f.(}.. '::.:.::::::;:::.1 '~"~::~.:=: /bl, /~:;::x::~::~'~~~!&;;.;f;~~?; .:1':':' ;....~.~r.~;....,..;. <:.....>-.f'(':.....r.'~.p If,...,'!.;;!::; . '., ::::::::::: :. ...... ::: :.~ .......,'. ........:..;.;;.:-: .J.'. . \.... .. tC'J"'''.',;;r,:';'r"-" ........ 'n,t .', ,....0;,.._<',. "r"""~~,:,,J;.::;.. .:. .. . ......:.... ~d ..~:::: "".:.1./:-::.: H.I '. ..:. :;.;.:.11,....~..,.r. f. '1" '..,.:.: ...:~..~>:.~:"..:..~,:. ~'~:::'::r .' ~ ".".....;;~~;,: .~~.......... ~::B S~H: ;:::~ \, ,1,;':;::':...\ :t~fJ(!~~1.~~&.~ ~. :r:~;i;~~~~~~;q:fJ?t~;~I:,:.f:~i.~P}~F1}f,[;;~:~ I.~;.~O"; 'IlIfS".' : :.:.:..... ~.~...t:<;^.~~'I.:.....:~~. .". ..r..' '.:"'~ 1ift: !";;~.:,."P':~. ....d..... ';"r~:r~...;:>.~~?-~~;.;.f!.;'-~ 1,1 .U A2.-H::::i!iii:::: J~1'\1~~~t~,."~~~. ,,~r,.::;.,:,~:;.:~' <'r ..... .:r:::~:(.~~:~:;~~:~;:-~i:c':',?;~:~~}; 1/: !fgii~iiiii: ~\;{'f.: t~"'l~i(:.:\1 ~ ii :,,~J!t,'i';'{:<<\f~t*;;~;?,:;;: . ~:..::::.: := .~ fJ. ~:~l{{~~1\\\\~' ;~~:~::.:m~1~! ~ ~ . .....'((...i'....~.<..,~ ,,,- ',.' ;...,'t~,..(...,.,.!:..r, ~ m ~ ..::.:::......:J1.~~ ~ ~~ui~~. . t mm:'...~~;i::\':~::. ~~l~ .....ll":\ill: ""'\41' .. .,,'~ ~~~.". .::.::.~If:.::.." , '=? ......,...~. .,'.}.S.:. ~ '. '.. ":~...' ~ ~":.~ ~:/r:~~.:::~.~:~:.:.~.:::: .\~:~>.:.~:.t:~~~~(v:;;~: ~ s;,:~:~:::::::~:m::::~~3\ \i ::;,',;..,:' r:i8$ :~\~{\' >>:~;~{,-,,;;}~~ .... . @~ 8$::q'. B~:r.:.::l:.:.:.:~'\?4~. ::'. q::1t\::;:;.. .:'';'. . ~':!*t!@~k:::::t:::"~1 if.. ~~< ?:. . I' c':&~" i ~:;;g f~~;' :,,~;~ ~~;;:. '~'~;::,~ ,,~~"':+~,,;';;4; ;;i'd i;;;;;%fIi11i"',": ,,;; ::;:J~:t~'i, !\1/1 ;;~':~ 1t ~~ o. ~ :~{ lit, ~~""'''':''''-'''~'''''=m..''~~~",m I~iil'~." "."" ~~ ~:',iW~~~;~' ~~!~~;'~;~I ;..l'i:&'1:tlllll:~1~; 'i.,::iii ~~.,~~ _ ',$Iit I:'" : .,. ", ~ t~\.,,~.,,: U%it &f;~"'",,:;;; !fir li!!i!, "'--'!!i!/i.. j'fHf0>~ ''\ tt!!W -ikh: '} }'Z;.~~~.; !mj~:~;;~!J~I!~,~~~. ~,t;~~~,'."~'~;';fi' .,~ ~ '.~!~!r~;; ,t . . . NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE DETAILS OF SITE USAGE Bright Start believes in the importance of providing children with an environment that nurtures their positive self image & encourages their natural interests and talents. We offer an education ~ program that prepares each child for school to the best of their capabilities and needs. This education is offered in small groups and often on an individual basis. Our field trips are always looked forward to by the older children and are more than just entertainment. Our teachers are educated in the field of Early Childhood or a related field. They are required to attend 40 hours of Early Childhood training per year. The building plans submitted are construction drawings, but one can see the facility layout from receptionist to infants, toddlers, preschool and schoolage classrooms. The N.S.F. commercial duty kitchen offers breakfasts, lunches and snacks to each child. We have 15 to 20 employees serving children from 80-90 families enrolled at our typical center. At the south and east comer of the site is a 7,000 sq. ft. fenced in play area equipped with play structures specifically designed for each age group. Each class enjoys outdoor playtime once or twice each day depending upon the weather. Group sizes are usually 20 to 30 children and are monitored by 2 to 4 teachers depending on age of the children. The enclosure will be a vertical slatted wood fence on the sides visible to the houses and chain link on the west side and 40' returns on north & south. We understand that some concern is held by the neighbors, but feel confident that these can be addressed to their satisfaction. We do not anticipate any removal of existing trees and shrubs in this area. Our hours of operation are 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday with most of the families arriving and departing during 3 hour periods in the mornings and evenings. The 2 primary parking approaches will minimize any congestion. We look forward to both answering all questions about our day to day operation and becoming a part of the Golden Valley community, providing services to the families in the area, needing quality child care. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas 891 TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM _dress: "1' 0 OOQhl-AS Ave- acation: cAST 510~ c.t= lSO\L.OtNb\ .sc\"'~ eND OF VOt..L>/ 13~ c.o.J \2-'\ Owner: public private 'x . Date: 2. is" /q B InspeclOr: ---A--L Date of last inspection: _-::;AlYl E unlmown other h0 N 0ST\l.0(V\ ()..f.., HAZARD RAnIS: --L. 3 + ~ Failute + Si2e + !U1Iet = Potential of pan Rating Immediate action needed .A Needs further inspection _ Dead tree = 7 Hazard Rating TREE CHARACTERIS'DCS Tree ,. Spet.ies: C-D\t'"D N"'\.NO 0 a DBH: SO't # oftl1lnks: Lf Height '70 Spread: f..[) Form: L3{generally symmetric 0 minor asymmetry 0 majOr asymmeny 0 stump sprout 0 stag-headed Crown class: "Ci dominant 0 co-dominant 0 intennediate 0 suppressed law crown ratio: q b % Age class: 0 young ~ mature Oover-mature Pruning history: 0 crown CIeaneG 0 excessively thiMecI 0 topped n crown r.Used 0 pollarded 0 crown reduced lta'none SpeQal value: 0 specimen 0 heritage/historic 0 wildlife 0 unusual 0 street tree M screen lash_ 0 indigenous 0 other TREE HEALTH Foliage color. 0 normal 0 chlorotic 0 necrotic Epiconnics? Y N foliage deASity: 0 normal 0 sparse Leal size: 0 normal 0 small . SIIOot growIh: 0 exr.eJIent b(iveraoe 0 poor Twig Diebactc? Y N Callus dnelepJneJd: 0 excellent ~average 0 poor 0 none Vigarclass: Oexcellent Oaverage Ofair o poor UM~\NtI Major pestsldn:___ No f ;:>, J.e;.clV r UNV-MOv-ll'l UJ'4~oWH SITE CONOmONS Site Character: k residence JSleommetCial 0 industrial 0 park 0 open space 0 natural 0 landscape type: 0 patkway 0 raised bed 0 container 0 open i)( ~ ern, ~ WCO ';:;6n brIIatioa: 0 none 0 adequate 0 inadequate 0 excessive 0 rrunk wetted UM ~NO w,.., % drlpliDe paved: €:p 10-25% 25-500/0 50-750/0 75-100% Lifted? V N %driplinew/fillsoiJ: 0% ~ 25-50% 50.7504 75-100% :5'~~D ~ % dripJiu grade lowered: ~ 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: 0 dlainage 0 shallow 0 compacred 0 droughty 0 saline 0 all<aline 0 ac:icIic 0 small voJume (J disease center 0 history of tall OIIsIrucIions: 0 lights 0 signage 0 Jine--of-sight 0 view )l overhead lines 0 undervround utilities 0 traffic ....adjacent veg. 0 W"md <<tree pDSilion): 0 single ttee 0 below canopy )a'above canopy 0 recently exposed 0 windward. canopy edge 0 area prone to windthrow TARGET Use UAder Tree: 0 bUilding 0 patking f) ltaffic ~ pedestrian S recreation ~landscape 0 hardsoape 0 small features _rget be moved? (p N ~ Ooccasionaluse Omedium,intermittentuse OfteqUentuse UN~Owt.r The International Society of ArboricuJture assumes no responsibility for conctusions or recommendations derived from use of this fotm. . TREE DEFECTS. . Rate defect sewerity: S severe defect. high polef1tiaI for failure . defect of moderate severity . L defect of low severity I.EA/I: / 0 deQ. from \lenical Ii' natural 0 unnatural Soillleaving: Y N Decay in pJaae of lean: Y N RooIs exposed: Y N Soil cradlint: Y N V~ "-MowN CDIDpOIIIIdiog fal:lors: Lean severity: S M L ROOT DEFECTS: Sllspcctrualrol: Y N MIIshroDlII/COlllquesent y N ID: U NV-Na\"'N &,used roots: S M l UncIerminn: S U L UN It-Nt.l...l.JH Root pranal: ft from trunk ROIl area alfected: % BuIIless Wounded: Y N WIlen: Restrid8d root a"* S M L Potential lor IUOI failure: S M L CROWN DEFECTS: omcr ROOT CROWN 1II1ItI stAFfOlJ)S 8RANaB Poor laDer Codominantslforks V MuJripleatt3Cl1l'118nts \/ Included bartc Excessive end weiGbf CrackslSDliIs HaRQers ~ _ d' ,,^, I'-\'~ Q ..GirdtIM 'Mmnds Oecav ~ I Cavitv ConlcsIMushrooms Bleedino l.ooseIcracked bark NestinCl holelbee hNt: Deadwood/stubs -- - ~,-" /I u=nA-t~ - Borersttermiteslants Cankers/oalls Previous failure HAZARD RAT" . Partmostliblylo~ (~rwl iE:Jl-1>icO A-&u, .s""-Jn Fl+Llrl-b ~i"CJYnltt...- 70T LoT Failure POtenlial:(j) a: 3 Size of PaIt: 1 2 @] Target 1 2 Cb Harard R~q: 1 2 3 4 5 6 (f:> 8 9 HAZARD ABAlBIENT Pra8e: )stremove ~_ 0 Ieduc:e end weight O'(CtOWll dean 0 thin 0 raise canopy 0 crown reduce 0 res1rUC:tuIe 0 shipe CableJBrace: ~;l ~ .....ect fartller: 0 roor crown 0 decay Oaelial .w monitor RelltDlelree: Y N 1IItdace? Y N Move 1arget V N OIlIer: ERea on ad_nt trees:: DIIOne~evaIuate COMMENTS ~ ~ ~n.o,..,~ Vb. a~\t B(lc.f\.~. ~t:r"L ~T \O"'t" l...Cn \3~w i'1+~""l1.C:E. ~ ~;;tY . ,.A.EA AIlE /'kYTPon.:.7'/n1k- HA-"LAa.os A-T""""'~ "lU"\E. . MEMORANDUM Date: February 19, 1998 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary, Planning and Development Subject: Review of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) will be on the agenda for the meeting of February 23, 1998. A three-ring binder is attached. Don Taylor, Finance Director and Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works will be available to answer questions. This is an informal public hearing item and will be cable-cast. The Commission will need to make a recommendation to the City Council the night of the meeting. mkd . .