01-10-94 PC Agenda
AGE N D A
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
January 10, 1994
7:00 PM
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 22, 1993
II. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Applicant:
Address:
Request:
Schumacher Wholesale Meats, Inc.
1114 Zane Avenue North, Golden Valley, Minnesota
To allow for the processing and packaging of foods
involving heating, cooking, smoking, soaking or mari-
gating procedures in a Light Industrial District
III. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION
Applicant:
Address:
Request:
Carlson Interspace, Inc. (Philip Carlson)
Southwest Quadrant of Glenwood Avenue and King Hill Road
(Current address is 6031 Glenwood Avenue)
To allow for the division of 1.11 acre parcel into four
single-family lots
III. REPORTS ON MEETINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
CITY COUNCIL AND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
Commissioners interested in attending CO-OP (Communities Organizing
Opportunities for People) -- Think Tank Session -- January 28, 1994
(see attached information)
V . ADJ OURNMENT
. ..,
.
.
.
..
"-
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 1993
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City
Hall, Council Chamber, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The
meeting was called to order Chair McAleese at 7:00 PM.
Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese,
Pentel and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and
Development; Beth Knoblauch, City Planner; and Mary Dold, Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - October 11, 1993
MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Prazak and motion carried unanimously to approve
the October 11, 1993 minutes as submitted.
II. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit
Applicant: Schumacher Wholesale Meats, Inc.
Address: 1114 Zane Avenue No., Golden Valley, Minnesota
Request:
Allow for the processing and packaging of foods involving
heating, cooking, smoking, soaking or marinating procedures
in a Light Industrial District
Beth Knoblauch, City Planner, reviewed her memo to the Planning Commission dated
November 16, 1993 commenting that the ten "Factors for Consideration" would have
little effect on the surrounding area. She talked with Hennepin County
Assessor, Glen Busitsky, who works at City Hall, about the effect of the propo-
salon property values of homes in the area. Mr. Busitsky had commented to Ms.
Knob 1 auch that rarely are property values affected by one factor -- such as
odor. Regarding the odor factor, staff visited the pilot site in Burnsville
which they said one can detect cooking odors inside the building; this building
did not have outside venting. Ms. Knobluach continued to comment that Mr.
Schumacher has consulted with a company to install charcoal filters in the
venting which should take care of a majority of the odor smell. Staff did
discuss limiting the time of cooking at the facility at 1114 Zane Avenue North.
City attorney, Allen Barnard, recommended to staff to have Mr. Schumacher remove
now-lapsed judgment terms from the property title as a condition of approval.
Ms. Knoblauch reviewed the eight staff recommendations for Conditional Use
approval.
Commissioner Groger asked staff how many other conditional uses have been
approved for cooking. Ms. Knoblauch commented that only one other permit has
been issued which has been in operation for five years and staff has not
received any negative comments.
John Schumacher, applicant, explained to the Commission and the public what the
process would be to cook the item in question - "pasties". He is concerned with
his economic needs and adding new items to his business in order to compete in
the market today. Mr. Schumacher stated that he had visited several companies
about installing equipment that would eliminate odor in the air. He has decided
to use a charcoal system and does not anticipate problems with cooking odors.
.
..
~ .
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 22, 1993
Page Two
.
Commissioner Pentel asked about the cooking hours of this product. Mr.
Schumacher answered that he would like to cook between 6 AM and 5 PM, five days
a week and up to four Saturdays a year.
Commissioner Kapsner asked about the cost for filtering the air stacks. Mr.
Schumacher estimated the cost to be approximately $12,000.
Chair McAleese opened the informal public hearing.
It was noted that approximately 70 people were in attendance
those were against this request because of the odor issue.
sons spoke at the informal public hearing; they were against
of the odor issue.
and the majority of
The following per-
the request because
Ann E. Bennion, 1125 Welcome Avenue No.
Dean Knutson, 1109 Welcome Circle
Charles Lazer, 5620 Phoenix Ave. No.
Jay Eisenberg, 1119 Welcome Ave. No.
Jeffery Carlson, 1105 Welcome Circle
Gerald Savage, 1132 Welcome Circle
Chair McAleese closed the informal public hearing.
Chair McAleese read a letter to the public from Lloyd Becker, Director of .
Inspections, with regard to requirements to be met by Mr. Schumacher.
Commissioner Lewis commented that in her job she has leased spaces for cooking.
She doesn't see an odor issue because technology has come a long way in the past
twenty years with filtering systems. Commissioner Lewis does not see a problem
with the request.
Commissioner Prazak asked staff if the sanitarian and a filtering expert would
be available for comments at the City Council hearing.
Commissioner Kapsner commented he feels the neighbors concerns are not to have
another Feinberg situation (Feinberg was the previous owner of the building.
Feinberg used various cooking processes that did cause some odor problems.) Mr.
Kapsner also feels Mr. Schumacher is making a large investment in his business
to compete with others and that his request of cooking/baking will not produce
smells but cannot guarantee that this won't happen.
Commissioner Prazak asked if the permit could have a time limit of review to
review the odors in the air during the winter months vs. the summer months.
Staff said they would talk with the City Attorney about time limit reviews.
Commissioner Prazak asked Mr. Schumacher how many pasties would be produced each
day; Mr. Schumacher said he was limited to making about 4,000 per day which
would be approximately 2 hours of cooking and 3 to 3-1/2 hours of baking.
Commi ss i oner Johnson commented that her feel i ngs were that Mr. Schumacher was .
doing everything possible not to turn this process into another Feinberg issue.
. ..
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 22, 1993
Page Three
Commissioner Groger questioned the recourse of neighbors if odors were present
and what options the neighbors and staff would have to eliminate the problem.
City Planner, Beth Knoblauch, answered that the applicant is now taking steps
by installing filtering systems to prevent odors and also a filtering consultant
will be at the City Council hearing to take questions on this issue.
Ms. Knoblauch asked how one decides that there is an odor and commented saying
it would have to be subjective -- using a sniff test by an independent panel who
would follow standards of sniff smelling.
Chair McAleese said he was uncomfortable with the odor control issue and would
like to hear from consultants on this issue. He feels there must be a way to
review the odor issue and if one is present to stop the operation causing it.
Commissioner Pentel asked if mediation between the neighbors and Mr. Schumacher
would work if an odor problem arose. She does feel that the technology is out
there which would scrub the air of such odors.
Chai r McAleese commented that there is a need for some kind of mechani sm in
controll ing odor and staff should contact other cities who have had similar
problems.
Chair McAleese requested the Commissioners to vote to hold over this request to
the next Planning Commission meeting because there are no concrete answers to
the odor issue. He feels there is an enforcement issue with regards to the odor
question and also feels that the Planning Commission should work out any
problems before the City Council hears the request.
MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Johnson and motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1
in favor of tabling this item to the next Planning Commission meeting of the
13th of December.
III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council and Bo~rd of Zoning Appeals
Mark Grimes updated the Commission on City Council action regarding the request
by St. Margaret Mary for the use of thei r rectory to be used as an outpatient
chemical dependency treatment center.
IV. Other Business
No new business reported.
V. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by Chair McAleese at 9:15 PM.
Jean Lewis, Secretary
.
SECOND ADDENDUM TO SCHUMACHER C.U.P. APPLICATION REPORT
ODOR CONTROL RESEARCH
The Planning Commission has asked staff to provide additional information on
odor control with regard to the Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) application of
Schumacher Meats. Ouri ng the fi rst porti on of the i nforma 1 pub 1 i c heari ng on
this matter, four potential strategies were raised by staff, the neighbors of
Mr. Schumacher, or the commissioners themselves. These four, some of which
could be used in combination with others, are:
1. limit the times during which cooking can take place
2. specify the use of odor control equipment, and a maintenance program,
designed by professionals to meet reasonable industry standards
3. require 100% odor-free operation regardless of how much additional odor
control equipment must be added over time in order to satisfy the
requirement
4. include a "sunset clause" to automatically terminate the permit after a
specified period of time, requiring the applicant to go through the
C.U.P. process again in order to continue operation.
.
Staff has taken another look at each of these potential strategies, calling for
additional input from the city attorney, city building inspectors, Mr.
Schumacher, and the experts who have proposed the odor control equipment for Mr.
Schumacher's facility. Two questions have come up time and time again during
staff's investigation of this matter: what constitutes a fair odor control
standard, and who decides whether that standard is being adequately met.
Staff's research on those two questions overlapped with research into the four
potential strategies, but will be summarized here in separate discussions.
Establishing an Odor Standard
In giving cities the authority to regulate certain land uses on a conditional
basis, State law specifies that the regulating codes must include standards and
criteria for such uses in general and for particular types of uses to the extent
possible. Golden Valley's ten factors for consideration fail to provide clear
standards. Since State law also says that approval of conditional uses is based
on an applicant's demonstration of ability to meet the established standards,
this lack of clarity can cause difficulty for both the applicant and the City.
.
For some of the ten factors, consideration is limited to a "yes" or "no" answer,
and thus the standard is easily inferred. For example, if a proposed condi-
tional use is in conflict with some element of the Comprehensive Plan, then it
pretty cl early fail s to meet the City's standard with regard to that factor.
The matter of odor, however, is not nearly so clear-cut. City code only
provides that odors will be considered. There is no standard delineating accep-
table from unacceptable odors in nature or in degree.
.
.
.
Schumacher Addendum No. 2
Page Two
Golden Valley's current C.U.P. process has been in use since 1981. Over the
years, the City has evolved a practice of dealing with the nonspecific factors
for consi derati on by "borrowi ng" commonly accepted standards from a vari ety of
sources. Existing precedent often forms a standard: something that has worked
before will probably work again. Outside regulations such as State law can set
a standard. The basic mandate of zoning -- to protect the general public
health, safety, and welfare -- sets a standard of protection against hazards.
Finally, the generally accepted industry standards of the type of business being
proposed have often been adopted as standards in Golden Valley.
With regard to odor control in thi s case, there appears to be nothi ng in the
City's normal procedures to indicate that the neighbors' goal of zero tolerance
for odor would be a reasonable standard, or that the type of cooking odor
invol ved requi res any extraordinary control measures. Even going back to the
legislative intent of putting this type of use under conditional regulation
doesn't provide any clear guidance. The Planning Director's memo does refer to
the possibility that some cooking processes may not smell at all, but the memo
also indicates that there may be some odors that would not generally be con-
sidered offensive. It apparently was not the intent of the proposed regulation
that all industrial cooking odors would have to be completely suppressed.
Gol den valley does not have an exi st i ng precedent for requi ri ng full odor
suppressi on by i ndustri a 1 or commerci a 1 cook i ng uses that are conditi onally
regul ated. Staff has found no evi dence that the currently proposed use woul d
cause odors in violation of any standards used by outside regulatory bodies.
The potential odor from the proposed use does not appear likely to be hazardous
to the general public health, safety, or welfare. There do appear to be some
commonly accepted industry standards for the voluntary regulation of industrial/
commercial cooking odors, and Mr. Schumacher has taken the initiative in pre-
pari ng to meet those standards. Staff I s research i ndi cates that it woul d be
difficult to impose conditions on the proposed use beyond the level of those
industry standards.
Establishing Compliance With an Odor Standard
If the City does find grounds to establish a zero odor standard, or even a zero
objectionable odor standard, it must confront the related problem of determining
whether the applicant's daily operations meet the standard. Granting the neigh-
bors sole discretion in this matter would likely constitute an improper delega-
tion of zoning authority. Because even the most scientific methods of measuring
odor still rely on subjective decisions at some point, it would probably be
inappropriate to place full responsibility on a single City official such as
building inspector or police officer (the police currently are responsible for
administering the noise provisions of city code).
The evaluation method that appears to be best able to withstand legal challenge
is some versi on of an odor panel. The more care that is taken to ensure that
the panel i sts are unbi ased by any personal stake in the outcome, and that the
panel IS methodology of operation is as scientifically designed as possible, the
more legitimate the result will be. Unfortunately, this will also result in
increased response time and increased cost. Related issues of fairness to the
neighbors and to Mr. Schumacher also come up. Staff estimates that it could
take months of input and discussion from a variety of interested or potentially
affected parties to establish the groundrules for a viable odor panel. The
following paragraphs summarize some of the questions and issues raised by staff
to date.
.
.
.
Schumacher Addendum No. 2
Page Three
Should the odor panel be convened on a complaint basis, or should the City rely
on random evaluation dates? If a complaint system is used, should a panel be
convened for every complaint, or should the system involve something more
complex such as a minimum number of complaints, minimum area from which
complaints are being received, and/or minimum amount of time covered by the
complaints? It would take at least several hours, and realistically could take
several days, to get an odor panel out to the site after a complaint is
received; if the panel then found no violation, who is to say whether the
violating activity has ceased or whether there was no violation in the first
place? If random evaluations are used, how often is adequate? Does wind direc-
tion, wind speed, or some other weather factor need to be considered?
Who should bear the cost of convening the odor panel? The C.U.P. could specify
that Mr. Schumacher would bear all reasonable costs, but how can the City pro-
tect him against unreasonable costs such as consistent false alarms? Many com-
munities penalize individuals who turn in false fire alarms; would this be a
reasonable way of discouraging harassment of Mr. Schumacher? How many false
alarms, and over what interval of time, would constitute an unreasonable number?
The odor panel would need to convene during normal working hours. Even with
some sort of stipend offered for attendance, could an adequate supply of
qualified panelists be maintained over time? Using City staff members would
reduce some of the problems associated with panelists needing to take time off
from work, but will the neighbors and Mr. Schumacher be willing to accept the
neutrality of staff? Will the staff be able to stay neutral if there is a lot
of pressure on the odor panel? Retired citizens form another potential pool of
odor panelists, but what about the medical evidence that sensitivity to smells
decrease with age?
If the odor panel concept is adopted for this particular case, what sort of pre-
cedent does it set for future applications? Since zoning law generally requires
that similar uses be treated in a similar manner, the impact could easily extend
to restaurant cooking, institutional or office cafeterias, or supermarkets with
on-site bakeries/delis. At this time, most of those uses don't even require
conditional use permits, yet their capacity to generate odors appears quite
similar to Mr. Schumacher's proposed operation. Woodbury is the only community
known to staff where a permanent odor panel is in place to deal with a con-
ditional use. In that case (where, by the way, the sniffing is done by staff),
the use is large-scale and relatively unique: a regional composting operation.
That limits the risk of having to expand the concept to many related uses.
Potential Strategies
1. Time limits. This was staff's first recommendation, and remains its
strongest. There is ample precedent in Golden Valley for specifying the
hours of conditional uses as a way of minimizing annoyance to neighbors.
As indicated in the earlier staff report, such a limitation attempts to
stri ke a balance between the ri ghts of Mr. Schumacher and the ri ghts of
his residential neighbors to the east. At the same time, it avoids the
pitfalls of trying to establish, and prove compliance with, a specific
odor standard.
.
Schumacher Addendum No. 2
Page Four
2. Specified equipment and maintenance. As already indicated, there are
generally accepted industry standards for odor control equipment used in
the cooking process similar to what Mr. Schumacher proposes. The charcoal
filter device that was discussed at the informal public hearing has been
used successfully in many commercial kitchens. Without getting into
another slippery discussion of what IIzero odorll means, staff is comfort-
able in saying that an adequately designed charcoal filter system can
greatly reduce whatever cooking odors might otherwise make their way into
the air. A representative from the company that sells the proposed system
-- and also offers maintenance contracts -- will be present to discuss the
system at the next Planning Commission meeting. One of the City's build-
ing inspectors is currently investigating some of the technical aspects of
how the fil ter works withi n the vent system, i ncl udi ng whether the vent
will have enough power to push all of the cooking vapor into and through
the filter, and whether the filter includes the correct amount of charcoal
to accommodate the volume of air flowing through. His report is forth-
coming.
.
There is still some uncertainty as to whether the charcoal filter system
alone will be sufficient, or whether the earlier proposed 1I0dor
neutralizerll system should also be installed. The neutralizer, similar to
many household air fresheners, injects its own scent into the air it pro-
cesses. If the charcoal filter does a really good job, the neutralizer
could end up generating more of a smell than would be coming from the vent
without it. Staff's recommendation is that the vent system shoul d be
designed to accommodate both odor control mechanisms, but that Mr.
Schumacher should not be required to install the odor neutralizer unless
directed to do so by the City after initial operation is evaluated with
just the charcoal filter. Staff would not recommend that such evaluation
be based on zero odor tolerance, but could see using an informal odor
panel to determine whether any existing odor might be considered objec-
tionable.
3. 100% Odor-Free Operation. This is the alternative favored by Mr.
Schumacher's neighbors. It is not a supportable standard based on the
City's regulation of conditional uses over the past 12 years. The City's
abi 1 ity to enforce such a standard is as uncertai n as its abi 1 ity to
require it in the first place. The City has a responsibility to provide
fair treatment to all land users under city code. This alternative fails
to strike a balance between industrial and residential land use interests.
4. "Sunset C1 auseJl. Staff asked the city attorney whether such a c1 ause
could be included as a condition in Mr. Schumacher's permit. Relating
back to the standards required by State law, the city attorney has advised
that such a provision would have to be spelled out in city code before it
could be imposed on Mr. Schumacher. Since Golden Valley has no such code
provision, it is not an option at this time.
Revised Staff Recommendation
.
Staff recommends that any permit approval for Mr. Schumacher' s proposed con-
ditional use incorporate conditions based on the first two strategies discussed
above. A complete list of revised proposed conditions, including a clarifica-
tion of the IIno on-site sa1esll provision, is recommended as follows:
.
Schumacher Addendum No. 2
Page Five
1. There shall be no food processing at this site that involves smoking,
soaking, or marinating.
2. Heating and/or cooking of food shall only take place between the hours of
10 AM and 3 PM. There shall be no heating and/or cooking of food on
Saturdays or Sundays.
3. There shall be no direct retail sales to customers at the site.
4. The vent system shall be designed to accommodate both an activated
charcoa 1 fi lter and an odor neutral i zer per speci fi cat ions submitted by
the applicant and approved by the city inspections department. Charcoal
filters shall be installed before cooking operations begin. Odor neutral-
izers are not required to be installed unless and until evaluation of
the effectiveness of the charcoal filters by the City indicates that addi-
tional odor control is desirable.
5. Regular maintenance of the charcoal filters and odor neutralizers must be
undertaken by the vendors of the equipment or by another qualified pro-
fessional firm. The City shall be supplied with proof of all maintenance
agreements. Such proof may consist of copies of the actual agreements or
letters from the contracted firms specifying how long the agreement will
run. Eventual replacement of any odor control device, should it become
necessary, must be approved by the city inspections department.
. 6. The building plan supplied by the applicant and dated 3/14/89 shall be
made a part of this permit.
7. All other applicable city, state and federal requirements must be met.
8. Failure to observe any of the conditions of this permit may be grounds for
its revocation.
EAK:mkd
.
.. - e
e
-
TRACTS A,a,C R,L.S. 907- CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
..
, "
~
o
,
100
-r~a.';s
g~. 8
o
., _-----.! 1~, ~
6161
.
.
... A
...,
.... ,_ C~,;"':" .\
~. c
IQ 1 . ....
. " " ,"
... -(i.--
\ \, '" ...- ..... ... 'lJ'S.\ ?, 0 ~
n ~
~'" i'i,
...0
\ ~ :<
. "
:0.- .'
.- (J ~
. Ir.- .
-
~
100.4
-
'"
0
0 J1
--,
;;
0
-
~-
7"
'77-
<> ...'
:0 \~\
~O,
4
City of Golden Valley
e
January 5, 1994
Dear Beth,
I received a request from the Planning Department to review plans
from Foehringer Engineering, Inc. concerning the design of an
exhaust system for Schumacher Wholesale Meats at 1114 Zane Avenue
North in Golden Valley.
The system consists of (2) exhaust hoods and a make-up air unit.
It has been designed and signed by Greg Foehringer, a Minnesota
Registered Mechanical Engineer.
The design criteria:
e
Hood (1) - Type I hood, low temperature 50 CFM per sq. ft.
over a 30 gallon kettle and 40 gallon tilt skillet (no gas).
Hood (2) - Type I hood, low temperature 50 CFM per sq. ft.
over a gas rack oven.
This system was designed with (2) charcoal filter cells for each
hood. All hoods, ducts and the make-up air unit would be built to
the requirements of the 1991 Uniform Fire Code, 1988 Uniform
Mechanical Code and the 1988 Uniform Building Code.
After review of the plans and discussion with the engineer, I feel
that the system as designed does meet the Ashrae Standard 62-1989
Natural and Mechnical Ventilation Requirements. It should be
noted though, and it was mentioned by the engineer that this is a
complete package. A deodorizer as proposed could be added in the
future without redesign of the system. Any additional filters
would require redesign of the system by a Registered Engineer.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
s~~~,"relY, _0
//.;;;? /!--'7 F ,lrh~
L/ " ",""-
Gary Johnson ".-r'
Building Inspector
. GJ:jm
Government Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427
(612) 593-8000 Fax (612) 593-8109
e
~
~
~
~
\\
)Y
-
I
J
/
/
II,
I.
'I'
'I
I
II:
2S:~ ,I:
:!
1111 ~~:'='.
3) Compo Sink
:1 X W/2'2x28 Bowls
l!^
!f
.
I
Finishin
TabJe
~"I .
:.' I'
II "
',. ii' · ·
,.. ,__ '; ,I IIIII
Tablos
Staging Area
Posta I Machine
! ;
. -. ".
". .- ..~.. ....-".. -,_..
]
, . dill
L
. .
Cooking Area
15' - 0" Hood
future
equipment
space
1-......
I "
\ \
I \
I' " ~ Oven H,g.gd\ - ~
II , I \ ,
;1 ( 2) Rock ---
I:: Oven
;1
I:!
;:1
Iii
;j
.......
( )
-
.. .... - ...-..- _... ---
Schumacher Wholesale Meats
5 "I II
cole: 1/4. = 1 -0
.., i i 1'/1:,
II il
-=:,,:-,c':=;-;-=:-:O=:=.:.-,';.;1il I I:
"".'.'--""-, Ii
I '
I ,
'I'!, I,
il: !
'I " "
, .'
'i'
Illi,li'
; I ii I!
j: I
d" I
!/II
, ' '-mll
30 lj,al. eral,S, !, I"
]I 1,.,1.
-----, -, 1'/'1:
"d""'.!.!):'
c
In9
J
.
>. rt)
..c . (1)
~ I
i u..: 2
o >- ,
'-ON
C a:: _
e
e
t
I~
~
I
I
I
I
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j- ------
1- -- ----
I
I
I
-- : I
I !
I i
I '
I I
1
I !
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I..
I '
I
I
I
, I
- .J
:""
: '"
I
I
I
I
/
/
/
/
.....J
! I
Ljl!
LJLf~
I ~
I I
I
i
I~ -~
Wit
'> -~
..
C>>
iZ 0
!O tA
Ir-:
g
W
.....J
lW
rt
i '
/."
- -e- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ :_ _ ._
---
I I
-___.I ,_
. '.
- - - -.-
- - - - - - - - -. -- -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ..-I
,----------------------------------------
I
~~~~---------------------------~~~r----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- i
,
+T-
- (suppfyf - - -L-_-=-~:rJ
"
I,
I I
I I
I I
I ,
I I
I ,
I I
I ,
" r- .------
--,
I I /=-- =-= ~~.~ cof - - - - - --j
H-)'- - -- /
I I ::: = ::. =. - - - -f- - I / """'"-- : -'" ,
_ _ -, ~ - ,---.==.---.= ,- -=::-:+.:::::. --"
- .... I "
I I (Exhaust 1 '-E +: ,- - - - - - - -;=- ~H 2 )-.9horcooI CO~IS
I I' . ! ----
I I I" I
,_ - __ - - - -' I I I '
_II I) Charcoal Cell -------<--.--:---i---:------ I
r) I r ~ " _ .J _ J-r I , - - I
~ LP- ' -j-t-+-
. L I -, I
. I
ROOF
PLAN
Scale: 1/4" = I' - 0"
(Exhaust 2)-
Supply
Description: ___._.._.. _
Heater Unit: 28 - 500MBTU'S,IY2HP,~ CFT\I d I" NAT Gas.
__ .4_ _,~ __. .._ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~__ '_ _ _ _ _
Up Blast Fan:
---.-... -.---. -.-____..__.___ ___0__
~ven _Cano-py: -' HP~_ a 1900 ~FM._
15" Box Conopy:2Y2 HP, B 3000 CFM.
Exhaust
( 1 )
(2 )
.
.
.
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
January 5, 1994
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "QUEENS RANSOM" CARLSON INTERSPACE, INC.
(PHILIP CARLSON), APPLICANT
Philip Carlson of Carlson Interspace, Inc. have requested a preliminary plat of
a four lot subdivision at the southwest corner of Glenwood Avenue and King Hill f-
Road. The property is currently owned by Otto and Evelyn Turner who live in
the house at the south end of the property. Thei r address is 6031 Gl enwood
Avenue. They have signed a purchase agreement to sell their property to
Carlson Interpsace.
The proposed subdivision consists of four lots on 1.1 acres of property. The
property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map for low density residen-
tial housing and on the Zoning Map as Residential. The proposal is to use each
of the four lots for a new single-family home.
Each of the four lots exceed the minimum zoning code requirement for both area
and depth. The minimum lot size in the residential district is 10,000 sq.ft.
with a minimum of 80 feet of width at the front setback line. Corner lots must
have at least 100 feet of width and be at least 10,000 sq. ft. in area. Pro-
posed lots 2 - 4 (non-corner lots) shown on the preliminary plat are 10,875 sq.
ft. in area with 86.75 feet of width. Lot 1 (the corner lot of King Hill Road
and Glenwood Avenue) is 12,500 sq.ft. in area with the minimum 100 feet at the
front setback line. All four of the lots are sufficient in size to provide for
a good sized house with garage and meet all setback requirements established in
the zoning code.
Hennepi n County requi res that as a part of all new pl ats on a County Road
(Glenwood Avenue is Co. Rd. No. 40) the City acquire additional right-of-way
for future widening. In the case of Glenwood Avenue, the County has asked the
City to acquire an addition seven feet of width. This amount is indicated on
the preliminary plat. It also includes additional r-o-w for the radius with
King Hill Road. At this time, Hennepin County has no plans to widen Glenwood
Avenue.
I have reviewed this plan with the Asst. City Engineer. There are both sewer
and water lines in King Hill Road that would serve these four lots. (In fact,
there were three sewer and water line services put in King Hill Road when King
Hill was constructed several years ago. An additional sewer and water service
will have to be stubbed into the street to serve the fourth lot.) Also, there
appears that the existing drainage system in King Hill Road and Glenwood Avenue
will handl e the runoff from the developed lots. The developer will have to
meet with the Engineering Department to go over final plans for utilities and
drainage systems.
.
.
.
Memo on Carlson Subdivision
January 5, 1994
Page Two
Because the majority of the 1.1 acre site to be platted is now unplatted prop-
erty and will be creating three new housing units, it is the City's custom to
require a park dedication fee. It has been the Council's policy that this fee
for single family lots be $500 per lot created. Therefore, the park dedication
fee for this subdivision will be $2000. This amount should be paid to the City
prior to final plat approval.
The other lots in the general area south of Glenwood Avenue along King Hill
Road and King Creek Road are similar in size or slightly larger than the pro-
posed lots in "Queen Ransom". The value of the homes to be built on these four
lots will probably be similar in value.
Recommendation
The staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of "Queens Ransom". The
four-lot subdivision meets or exceeds all requirements of the subdivision and
zoning codes. Each of the lots will be adequately served by existing City uti-
1 ity servi ces.
Staff recommends the following conditions for approval:
Additional right-of-way for Glenwood Avenue be dedicated as shown on
the preliminary plat.
2. The developer meet with the Engineering Department to finalize utility
and storm sewer services to the lots. All engineering plans shall be
approved by the Director of Public Works.
1.
3. A park dedication fee of $500 per lot be paid to the City prior to
final plat approval. (Total Due = $2,000)
4. The existing house on proposed Lot 3 may remain. However, no additions
or outbuil di ngs may be constructed on Lot 3 that woul d requi re a
variance. (It is my understanding that the Turner's may choose to stay
on the property for up to one year.)
5. The garage on Lot 4 shall be removed prior to final plat approval. If
the developer would like it to remain for up to one year, the developer
sha 11 submit $2,000 in cash to the City to guarantee that it wi 11 be
removed. If it is not removed within one year of final platting, the
City shall use the $2,000 to destroy the garage and have it removed.
MWG:mkd
attachments: Location Map
Preliminary Plat
, ~... . ~-
N,e e l . ". " ...
e -.I ... O' ,
'" . U1 -~~.."...,~
(TO ~.
Sf; ~S . tt \~,
/00 ~Oi?
00\ SS' ~ . bO.Of"t' '
001 .... "~/ I -
I UO
';--..." ;-
'"
... 0.9; /:4 .
'",
~: 11' .I -
001
N
0:; .
-' .
-
"
Z 7S, 0 0 161 UoI
" ' , 001 55/
"
.....
~.... c-
':' !'"
tJ, I
"('001
.
-0 ~
~
-0 '~'co,
~
G
if>
~
(l"I
N
.
0J ~..
" U~"
/I~~
- ..~
~ r.s. _ !,>I:.
".. 9.1 ~ Ci
--
.
.
-'
II' CS" ... .t>.
~ ""
. ~ . .\
I
I ,
.'
Otl
If f"
Ol10~ :;/1
~30Nl13W
94 Ii
... .
f,. ""
o~l
-"<Mj' 'S j :"1 'I-f
LIt'
~';"'~"'"
.. - '
O~
::...
c.. '
~\9"
.--
.~ '"
to
,,\~~~~'~':tO ,Lt!
~ .... Sf'
I
"
4
~c::-
~
, ,
: . .
~>.rz:~::;_/
'~/3/ ~~).:
"JO
0"
).:
d
,z,
oo-s-~ --
. U:\.J - - 3~\':\ - ___- .----~ :
~:-------~ ~.
J
" ~ I~
" ... -'
... I I'!
91 ~~'
::::' ;
~ ~ ~;: ~ l'
. ti ~ ...: ~ _
~- , ~
, ....-
,
U't~-
o:~
-!-
f f()9
'0
~
~~'o"., " ~o.o,'w ~
(:"700;'- ~......-.~;.~-
~:. ~:f
Q~ ~~
~ ;i..~
.....: ~
. ..
..
. ~f'
", ,{l
'\."' + " (0
~. tll,~11\
. c." ,'Cl
~ ...." ....
....... ,
.t~' tn
.
~1,j)~
b. "0'0""
'..
~!~
...,.,,~
,...
"'...
""0
--':.... :::
:;'" IDQ
",: ofIo
",4-'"''
1>
<
---ar- --
1;" ::J
---r----
CD
,
~
..
.
"
)
~
...
'"
...
t-'
Nld3"
~I
, j
~+~'-f-
',~ .
". *., 1
>" i
I fO"
L7C
'-i
...,
...:
"'I
,
3~0'1
I
.;,~
.
N
CD
.
)>\
.
o
..
Z"il7
-1.'.5
~Ol
'Z
o
.
U>
..
...""
"'-