Loading...
08-19-14 CC Agenda Packet (entire) AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber August 19, 2014 6:30 pm The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7 pm 1. CALL TO ORDER PAGES A. Roll Call B. Pledge of Allegiance C. Proclamation For Hunger Action Month 3 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A. Approval of Minutes: 1. City Council Meeting - July 15, 2014 4-12 2. Special City Council Meeting -August 5, 2014 13 B. Approval of Check Register 1. City Register 14 2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority 15 C. Licenses: 1. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Saint 16-18 Therese Foundation 2. Gambling License Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo - Ladies Auxiliary to 19-21 the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #7051 3. General Business Licenses 22-23 D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Planning Commission - June 23, 2014 24-35 2. Open Space and Recreation Commission - April 28, 2014 36-38 2. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - June 19, 2014 39-47 E. Bids and Quotes: 1. Award Winnetka Streetscape Project 48-70 a. Resolution Authorize Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County 14-67 b. Award Contract for Project F. Letter, Emails and/or Petitions 1. Email from Jason Boudreau-Landis Regarding Resignation from Planning 71 Commission 2. Email from Brian Cook Regarding Resignation from Human Rights Commission 72 G. Approval of Plat - Tennant Companies PUD No. 114 and Authorization to Sign PUD 73-88 Permit and PUD Development Agreement - Tennant Company PUD No. 114 14-68 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 PM A. Public Hearing - Preliminary PUD Plan for Marie's Woods PUD No. 116 - 7200 and 89-120 7218 Harold Avenue - Peter Knaeble, Applicant B. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Paisley Lane Woods - 221 Paisley Lane 121-139 C. Public Hearing - Ordinance #519 - Rezoning from Single Family Residential Zoning 140-156 District (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) - 1001 Lilac Drive North - Max Zelayaran, Applicant D. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Golden Valley Homes - 1001 Lilac Drive N 157-175 E. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Fretham Twenty-Two - 4XXX Harold Ave 176-187 F. Public Hearing - Amendments to the General Land Use Plan Map - 305 and 345 188-204 Pennsylvania Avenue South - Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant 14-69 G. Public Hearing - Ordinance No. 527 - Amendments to the Zoning Map - 305 and 345 205-225 Pennsylvania Avenue South - Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant H. Public Hearing - Preliminary PUD Plan for Laurel Ponds PUD No. 117 - 305 and 345 226-301 Pennsylvania Avenue South - Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Bottineau Update 302 B. Announcements of Meetings C. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PROCLAMATION FOR HUNGER ACTION MONTH WHEREAS, hunger and poverty are issues of grave concern in the United States, the State of Minnesota and the City of Golden Valley; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley is committed to taking steps to raise awareness about the need to combat hunger in every part of our city and to provide additional resources that citizens of Golden Valley need; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley is committed to working with Second Harvest Heartland in educating people about the role and importance of food banks in addressing hunger and raising awareness of the need to devote more resources and attention to hunger issues; and WHEREAS, more than one in 10 individuals in Minnesota rely on food provided by Second Harvest Heartland and Minnesota's Feeding America Food Banks annually; and WHEREAS, Second Harvest Heartland distributed more than 83 million pounds of food in 2013 through its network of food pantries, soup kitchens, shelters and other community organizations; and WHEREAS, food banks across the country, including Second Harvest Heartland will host numerous events throughout the month of September to bring awareness and attention to encourage involvement in efforts to end hunger in their local community; NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Golden Valley recognizes the month of September as Hunger Action Month in the City of Golden Valley IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the great seal of the City of Golden Valley to be affixed this 19th day of August, 2014. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ` UNOFFICIAL MINUTES a v CITY COUNCIL MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA J U LY 15, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. 1A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Harris, Council Members Fonnest, Clausen, Schmidgall and Snope. 1 B. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to approve the agenda of July 15, 2014 as revised: 6C-Authorize Interfund Loan with replacement page for Resolution 14-59 and the motion carried unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to approve the consent agenda of July 15, 2014 as revised to remove items: 3G-Authorize Appointment of the Golden Valley Teen Committee Members and the motion carried unanimously. 3A. Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting July 1, 2014 313. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted. 3C1. Approve the solicitor's license for Bill Sweatt, Realtor. 3C2. Receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice requirement for PRISM. 3D. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows: 1. Human Service Fund - June 9, 2014 2. Joint Water Commission - June 4, 2014 3E Approval of Full Extension for Filing of Plat and Submitting Final PUD Plan Application for PUD #107 - The Towers at West End - Southwest Quadrant of 1-394 and Highway 100 - Duke Realty, Applicant. 3F. Adopt Resolution 14-57 for Approval of Plat - Morrie's Golden Valley PUD No. 115 and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the PUD Permit and Development Agreement for Morrie's Golden Valley PUD No. 115. 36 AuthoFvze the appointment of the Gel.don Valley Teen G itt M w 3H. Approve requests for beer and/or wine at Brookview Park as recommended by staff. 31. Adopt Second Consideration of Ordinance #520, Amendment to the Master Fee Schedule for City Utility Bill Water Fee for Emergency Water Supply. 3J. Adopt Second Consideration of Ordinance #521, Amending, Ratifying and Readopting Section 4.07: Electrical Regulations and Inspections. 3K. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the First Amendment to Agreement No. A101049 with Hennepin County to extend Assessing Services through July 31, 2016. 3L. Adopt Resolution 14-58 for Approval of Plat - Olson Tralee. Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- July 15, 2014 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 3G. Authorize the a3pointment of the Golden Valley Teen Committee Members. Mayor Harris thanked the members of the committee and staff who worked with the teens. MOTION made by Mayor Harris, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to appoint the Golden Valley Teen Committee members as follows and the motion carried unanimously: Jack Knudson Shivani Nookala Sarah Carlson Owen Hoeft Stella Haberman Sam Buttress Melanie Blazer Brittany Blazer Hannah Segelbaum Olivia Behn 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4A. Public Hearing - Ordinance #523 - Amending Section 11.03 Definitions, and Section 11.21, Subd. 6, Buildable Lots, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), to Modify Definition of Lot Width City Planner Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council. Community Development Director Grimes answered questions from the Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. Ms. Tammy Pulver, 105 Meadow Lane N., asked a question regarding the lot size recommendation related to the formula using the perimeter squared divided by the area. She inquired if this formula would be considered tonight. Ms. Angelique Struyk, 235 Sunnyridge Lane, stated she did not feel that the City Code needed to be mutually exclusive, she felt that it made sense to require the front setback to have an eighty foot width, and to also have a mean width throughout the lot, because it will help to remove properties that are severely narrowed in. She felt that the City Planner and Engineer should be able to make the necessary calculations. She asked about other communities that require just a front setback, if other parameters were also used. She added that it seemed as the City moves forward with development that the lot sizes are changing. She disagreed with Staff that an ordinance change would not make it easier to develop future lots. She felt it would because there would be only one requirement instead of two. She felt the City should plan ahead for more aggressive development. Mr. Todd Grant, 3910 Poplar Drive, questioned the purpose for having this setback law. He asked what the City was trying to encourage and what were they trying to prevent. Mr. Paul Schneck, 122 Burntside Drive, stated this issue arose due to a dispute over whether a subdivision should be approved. He rejected the idea that the wording in the City Code had been struck out as a mistake or clerical error. He felt it was intentional because it was not noted in the meeting minutes. He thought it was incorrect to assume that a mistake had been done. He felt the Council should decide what is best for the community. His last question was if the City checks the calculations that developers submit. Mr. Donald Brown, 4135 Leber Lane, felt there was a lot of confusion in respect to who has the power to follow the rules at the City regarding setbacks and what information is to be shared with the community. He felt the item should be tabled until language is developed regarding the measurements. Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- July 15, 2014 4A. Public Hearing - Ordinance #523 - Amending Section 11.03 and 11.21 - continued Mr. Donald Jensen, 3004 Armour Terrace, St. Anthony, stated he is a business representative and he felt the City Code should be very clear to the business community. He added that the code should be easy and clear to read by developers, the business community, and the public. He felt it should not be too complicated for people to divide their lots. He added in the past, lots were rectangular in shape due to the fact the survey equipment was cumbersome to use, but now there is more advanced and accurate equipment. Ms. Mary Jane Pappas, 20 Ardmore Drive, thought that everyone could agree that Golden Valley is a wonderful place to live. She felt that making a change to just the lot setback requirements, without taking a look at the whole picture for areas of Golden Valley where low density is more of an issue was not a good idea. She thought the decision should be postponed at this time. She disagreed with Staff, and stated that changing the rules would be relaxing the law and that when the language was struck, it was intentional. She pointed out that the code change was being proposed right before the subdivision proposal, and that the decision would affect whether the subdivision passes. Mr. Bob Lang, 401 Meadow Lane N, requested the overhead camera show a drawing he drew of an irregular shaped lot, and talked about the dimensions. He asked if his irregular shaped lot would be legal. Mr. Peter Barber, 325 Sunnyridge Lane, stated he agreed with both sides of the story. He thought the City should look at the continuity of the neighborhoods. He discussed other neighborhoods in Golden Valley that were not aesthetic pleasing or many be crowded. Mr. Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, clarified that the ordinance was not changing the definition of a specific lot or subdivision, just the language in the Zoning Code. He stated the code has been interpreted that way for fifty-four years. He went on to add that lot measurements are typically done at the front setback line. He supported the change, and felt the Council should support the recommendation from the Planning Commission. Mr. Bruce Pappas, 20 Ardmore Drive, stated he would like to make a couple of points and that he supports what his wife had said earlier. He reminded the Council that the decision made on this item would affect the next item. He stated that he would like to know where the evidence was to support that the strike outs from the past code were a mistake. He recommended that Council not approve the ordinance at this time and send the item back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Rich Baker, 224 Janalyn Circle, stated he was representing himself, not a body that he is involved with. He felt that what the Council was looking at was not just a cleanup, but a bigger change to the code. He heard earlier in the report that the changes were made to make it easier for Staff, but he felt the current language was not complicated. He felt that development was moving too rapidly and just because neighboring communities were doing it one way, it may not be the best way. Mr. Matt Pavek, 510 Cloverleaf Drive, stated that he is a civil engineer and felt that good ordinances should be easy to understand. He quoted the definition from the League of Minnesota Cities as to what makes a good ordinance. Unofficial City Council Minutes -4- July 15, 2014 4A. Public Hearing - Ordinance #523 - Amending Section 11.03 and 11.21 - continued Mr. Harry Pulver, 105 Meadow Lane N., stated he attended the Planning Commission meetings regarding this issue. He felt a mistake had been made and that the Council was attempting to fix it too quickly. He thought the City should look at other types of perimeter measurements when reviewing this issue. Mr. Ralph Jacobson, 515 Parkview Terrace, stated he felt that the Council is voted into office to uphold the spirit of the law in Golden Valley. He added that he thought that developers who come to the City do not understand the spirit of law only the letter of the law. He added that he would like to see the Council work with the neighbors and their neighborhood vision. Mr. Casey Pavek, 513 Meadow Lane N., stated he purchased a small home in the area and that a new family moved into his neighborhood. He stated that the new neighbors have a big house on a small lot and that he was fine with that. Ms. Eva Jansen, 4010 Roanoke Drive, stated she would like to affirm the value of the neighborhood and said the ecosystem of the large lot should be sustained. She asked the Council to be mindful of that as they make their decision. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Grimes answered questions from the Council and the residents that had appeared at the public hearing. City Attorney Barnard answered questions from the Council. There was much Council discussion regarding the purposed amendment changes to section 11.03 and section 11.21 of the Zoning Code. MOTION made by Mayor Harris to table the proposal until the first meeting in December, seconded by Council Member Clausen upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor thereof: Harris and Clausen and the following voted against: Fonnest, Snope and Schmidgall and the motion failed. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Snope to adopt Ordinance #523, Amending Section 11.03 Definitions, and Section 11.21, Subd. 6, Buildable Lots, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), to Modify Definition of Lot Width, upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor thereof: Schmidgall, Snope and Fonnest and the following voted against: Harris and Clausen and the motion carried. 4B. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Kate's Woods - 221 Sunnyridge Lane City Planner Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council. Community Development Director Grimes answered question from the Council. City Engineer Oliver answered questions from the Council. City Attorney Barnard answered questions from the Council. Mr. David Knaeble, 221 Sunnyridge Lane, applicant, reviewed the plans and answered questions from the Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. Unofficial City Council Minutes -5- July 15, 2014 4B. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - 221 Sunnyridge Lane — continued Ms. Tammy Pulver, 105 Meadow Lane N., stated she would have to view the property every day and she would not want to live on the lot. She also stated that she felt her question was not addressed regarding the memo dated June 23 to the Planning Commission concerning the addition of an "irregular lot test" being added to the Code. She felt the lot was too irregular and that it would have water issues. Ms. Angelique Struyk, 235 Sunnyridge Lane, questioned whether there have been any subdivisions that had not been recommended for approval or approved in the past and on what grounds did it not pass. She also questioned as to whether the City Engineer made a site visit to the lot because she felt he may have seen a different picture than what was presented in the plans. She stated the first revision to the plans were approved by the Planning Commission, but the second set presented were not. She felt the Council should not approve this plan. She added with this plan there was more of a curve to the back of the house and with the short rear setback with the first home it barely met the requirements. She felt the back corner of the garage should be the rear setback line, and was not sure if using that line the plans would met the requirements. She added that she felt if this is taking so much time to decide and if the calculations are too difficult, maybe it should not be allowed. Mr. Bruce Pappas, 20 Ardmore Drive, felt because the plans had been changed after a notice was sent to the neighbors that a new notice should have been sent. He added that the process was difficult because the neighbors were having to make the challenges. He felt it should have been the City Staff's job to challenge the measurements. Mr. Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, stated he was the engineer on record for the project. He added with any plans, a preliminary grading plan is done to establish if a project works. He felt that City Staff was doing their job in regard to the project. Ms. Mary Jane Pappas, 20 Ardmore Drive, stated she felt there was a collaboration of the numbers, and that City Staff relied solely on the developer's numbers. She added that the neighbors had requested the CADD drawings. But were not able to get the drawings, so she did not know if the calculations were correct. Mr. Harry Pulver, 105 Meadow Lane N., stated he did not want to hear that the City did not like the plans, but their hands were tied. He felt this change was more than a housekeeping item, and felt that there would be water problem later. Mr. Matt Pavek, 510 Cloverleaf Drive, stated he would support any subdivision that meets the rules. The odd shape of the proposed lot was forced by the rules. He felt the issue is not the shape of the lot, but the fact that a house is to be built on it. Mr. Tom Hanson, 4116 Lancaster Road formerly of Triton Drive, questioned when the City would be reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, and when the density is enough for an area. He added he did not want to hear that the City's hands were tied, and asked what it would take for the Council to do something. Mr. Casey Pavek, 513 Meadow Lane, stated he is a fan of density, and that change is not always a bad thing so long as it abides by the rules. Ms. Tammy Pulver, 105 Meadow Lane N, felt the Council does not know if this lot meets the requirements, and if they do not know for sure, the item should not be voted on. Unofficial City Council Minutes -6- July 15, 2014 4113. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - 221 Sunnyridge Lane - continued Mr. Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, stated the lot does meet the City Code and in fact exceeds it. He added he made sure it met the requirements, because he did not want to come to the Council to ask for a variance. He added in regard to future water issues that the lot was a dry lot, and the run off would be diverted away from neighboring houses. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. Mr. Peter Knaeble answered questions from the Council. Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Grimes answered questions from the Council. There was much Council discussion regarding the purposed Preliminary Plat for Kate's Woods located at 221 Sunnyridge Lane. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to approve the Preliminary Plat for Kate's Woods, 221 Sunnyridge Lane, subject to the following conditions, upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor thereof: Harris, Schmidgall, Snope and Fonnest and the following voted against: Clausen and the motion carried. 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. A park dedication fee of$2,930 shall be paid before final plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated March 17, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. 4C. Public Hearing - Ordinance #524 - Final Design Plan Approval - Tennant Company PUD #114 - Tennant Company, Applicant City Planner Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council. City Attorney Barnard answered questions from the Council. City Manager Burt answered questions from the Council. Mr. Carlos Fernandez, representing the Applicant, reviewed the plans and answered questions from the Council. Mr. Larry Spears, Tennant Company, answered questions from the Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. There was much Council discussion regarding the final design of the plan being presented and the PUD development agreement. MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to adopt Ordinance #524, Approval of Final Plan of Development, Tennant Company P.U.D. #114, Tennant Company, Applicant and the motion carried unanimously. MOTION made by Mayor Harris, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to direct staff to include in the PUD permit a condition that the applicant evaluate options to access the Luce Line trail and increase usage of mass transit to reduce automobile traffic and the motion carried unanimously . Unofficial City Council Minutes -7- July 15, 2014 6. NEW BUSINESS 6A. First Consideration - Ordinance #525 - Amending City Code Sections 2.30 - 2.36 - City Departments City Manager Burt presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council. City Attorney Barnard answered question form the Council. MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope to table the item, upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor thereof: Snope and Clausen and the following voted against: Harris, Schmidgall, and Fonnest and the motion failed. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Snope to amend the wording in section 2.30 table of organization to read: The City Council n'4ay shall by resolution establish, amend, and from time to time revise the Departments of the City, in consultation with the City Manager, upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor thereof: Fonnest, Snope, Harris and Clausen and the following voted against: Schmidgall, and the motion carried. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to adopt Ordinance 525, 2nd Series, An Ordinance Amending Sections of City Code relating to the Departments of the City on first consideration with the amendment to Section 2.30, upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor thereof: Fonnest, Snope, Harris and Schmidgall and the following voted against: Clausen, and the motion carried. 613. First Consideration - Ordinance #526 - Amending the City Code, Amending Section 9.07, Winter Parking Regulations Street Maintenance Supervisor Ray presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to adopt Ordinance 526, 2nd Series, An Ordinance Amending the City Code, Amending Section 9.07, Winter Parking Regulations on first consideration, upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor thereof: Fonnest, Snope, Harris and Schmidgall and the following voted against: Clausen, and the motion carried. 6C. Resolution 14-59 Authorizing Interfund Loan from the Storm Utility Fund to the Water and Sewer Fund to Help Finance the Emergency Water Supply Finance Director Virnig presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council. MOTION made Council Member Schmidgall and seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Resolution 14-59, Authorizing Interfund Loan from the Storm Utility Fund to the Water and Sewer Fund to help Finance the Emergency Water Supply and the motion carried unanimously. 6D. Bottineau Transitway Update. City Planner Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council. MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to receive and file Bottineau Transitway Update and the motion carried unanimously. Unofficial City Council Minutes -8- July 15, 2014 6E. Announcements of Meetings. An Executive Session of the HRA regarding: Webb Golden Valley vs Global One Golden Valley on July 15, 2014, immediately following the City Council meeting. A Concert in the Park featuring The Castaways will be held on July 21, 2014, at 7 pm at Brookview Park. The League of Women Voters will host a Candidate Forum for the Judicial District Seat on July 23, 2014, from 7 pm to 9 pm at Golden Valley City Hall. A Workshop-on-the-Water will be held on July 23, 2014, from 5 pm to 9 pm at Lake Minnetonka on the Queen of Excelsior. A Penny Carnival will be held on July 25, 2014 from 10:30 am to 12:30 pm at Brookview Park. A Concert in the Park featuring the Mu Daiko will be held on July 27, 2014 at 7 pm at Brookview Park. Coffee with a Cop will be held on July 29, 2014, from 8 am to 10 am at Einstein Bros. Bagels. A Picnic and Music in the Park featuring The Flyers will be held on July 20, 2014, from 11:15 am to noon at Brookview Park. A Golden Valley Police Department Promotion Ceremony honoring Christine Sloat will be held on July 25, 2014, at 4:30 pm in the Council Chambers. A quarterly neighborhood meeting will be held on July 29, 2014, at the Golden Valley VFW Post 7051. A retirement party for Community Development Director Mark Grimes will be held on July 30, 2014, from 3:30 pm to 5:30 pm at Brookview Community Center. A Concert in the Park featuring the Calhoun Brass will be held on August 4, 2014 at 7 pm at Brookview Park. A Special City Council Meeting will be held on August 5, 2014 at 9 am in the Council Conference room. The Minnesota Night to Unite Celebrations will be held on August 5, 2014, at various times and locations. The next City Council Meeting will be held on August 6, 2014, at 6:30 pm. A Special Council/Manager Meeting will be held on August 6, 2014, to discuss economic development for the Winnetka and Medicine Lake area immediately following City Council meeting in the Council Conference room. 6E. Mayor and Council Communications. No action and/or discussion took place. Unofficial City Council Minutes -9- July 15, 2014 Adjournment MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Snope and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 11:18 pm. Shepard Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk s UNOFFICIAL MINUTES va �eSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA AUGUST 5, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 9:00 am. 1A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Harris, Council Members Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Schmidgall and Snope. 1 B. Congressman Keith Ellison Update Congressman Ellison and Mr. Jamie Long, District Director, attended the special meeting. Congressman Ellison thanked the Council for their service and updated them on some of the issues that he is currently working on in Washington. The meeting was adjourned at 9:58 am. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Cit c�f go 1 d e nl vt* MEMORANDUM 11 vaiiey Finance Department 763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting August 19, 2014 Agenda Item 3. B. 1. Approval of City Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley. Attachments • Document sent via email Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. city Q golden MEMORANDUM valley Finance Department 763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting August 19, 2014 Agenda Item 3. B. 2. Approval of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Attachments • Document sent via email Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. city O IV gotaen MEMORANDUM valley City Administration/Council 763-593-3991 /763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting August 19, 2014 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement- Saint Therese Foundation Prepared By Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant Summary As per State Statute organizations that conduct gambling within the City limits have to submit an application for a lawful gambling permit to the State after the permit has been approved or denied by the City. Depending upon the timing of the permit the applicants may request the City to waive the 30-day waiting period. Attachments • Application for Exempt Permit (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice requirement for Saint Therese Foundation. MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING 5/14 Page 1 of 2 LG220 Application for Exempt Permit An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit organization that: Application fee (non refundable) - conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days,and - awards less than $50,000 in prizes during a calendar year. If total prize value for the year will be$1,500 or less,contact the licensing If application postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event$50; otherwise $100. specialist assigned to your county. ORGANIZATION INFORMATION Organization name Previous gambling permit number Saint Therese Foundation X-04347-13-004 Minnesota tax ID number, if any Federal employer ID number(FEIN), if any 8703567 41-1704381 Type of nonprofit organization. Check one. Fraternal Religious Veterans X Other nonprofit organization Mailing address City State Zip code County 8000 Bass Lake Road New Hope MN 55428 Hennepin Name of chief executive officer [CEO] Daytime phone number E-mail address Barbara Rode 952-283-2203 barbr@sttheresemn.org NONPROFIT STATUS Attach a copy of ONE of the following for proof of nonprofit status. Nonprofit Articles of Incorporation OR a current Certificate of Good Standing. Don't have a copy? This certificate must be obtained each year from: Secretary of State, Business Services Div., 60 Empire Drive, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55103 Phone: 651-296-2803 X IRS income tax exemption [501(c)] letter in your organization's name. Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer contact the IRS at 877-829-5500. IRS -Affiliate of national,statewide,or international parent nonprofit organization [charter] If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of both of the following: a. IRS letter showing your parent organization is a nonprofit 501(c) organization with a group ruling, and b. the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate. GAMBLING PREMISES INFORMATION Name of premises where the gambling event will be conducted. For raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place. Golden Valley Golf and Country Club Address [do not use PO box] City or township Zip code County 7001 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley 55427 Hennepin Date[s] of activity. For raffles, indicate the date of the drawing. Wednesday, October 1, 2014 Check each type of gambling activity that your organization will conduct. _Bingo* X Raffle [total value of raffle prizes awarded for yap*1, 600.] _Paddlewheels* _Pull-tabs* _Tipboards* *Gambling equipment for bingo paper, paddlewheels, pull-tabs, and tipboards must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. EXCEPTION: Bingo hard cards and bingo number selection devices may be borrowed from another organization authorized to conduct bingo. To find a licensed distributor, go to www.gcb.state.mn.us and click on Distributors under the WHO'S WHO?LIST OF LICENSEES, or call 651-539-1900. LG220 Application for Exempt Permit 5/14 Page 2 of 2 LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT CITY APPROVAL COUNTY APPROVAL for a gambling premises for a gambling premises located within city limits located in a township The application is acknowledged with no waiting period. The application is acknowledged with no waiting period. _The application is acknowledged with a 30 day waiting The application is acknowledged with a 30 day waiting period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 [60 days for a 1st class city]. days. _The application is denied. //, f f The application is denied. Print city name �( u Ii cl b l Print county name Signature of city personnel Signature of county personnel Title 6 Date 7 1 Title Date TOWNSHIP. If required by the county. On behalf of the township, I acknowledge that the organization is applying for exempted gambling activity within the township limits. [A township has no statutory authority to approve or deny an application, per Minnesota Statutes 349.166.] Print township name Signature of township officer Title Date CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S SIGNATURE The information provided in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that the financial report will be completed and returned to the Board within 30 days of the event date. Chief executive officer's signature Date Print name REQUIREMENTS Complete a separate application for: Financial report and recordkeeping required • all non-consecutive days,or A financial report form and instructions will be included with • all gambling conducted on one day (at multiple locations). your permit, or use the online fill-in form available at www.gcb.state.mn.us. Within 30 days of the event date, complete and return Send application with: the financial report form to the Gambling Control Board. _a copy of your proof of nonprofit status, and _application fee(non refundable). Make check payable to Questions? "State of Minnesota." Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at 651-539-1900. To: Gambling Control Board This form will be made available in alternative format(i.e.large print,Braille) 1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South upon request. Roseville, MN 55113 Data privacy notice: The information requested on this All other information provided will be pri- General;Commissioners of Administration, form(and any attachments)will be used by the Gambling vate data about your organization until the Minnesota Management&Budget,and Control Board(Board)to determine your organization's Board issues the permit. When the Board Revenue; Legislative Auditor, national and qualifications to be involved in lawful gambling activities in issues the permit,all information provided international gambling regulatory agencies; Minnesota. Your organization has the right to refuse to will become public. If the Board does not anyone pursuant to court order; other indi- supply the information; however,if your organization issue a permit,all information provided viduals and agencies specifically authorized refuses to supply this information,the Board may not be remains private,with the exception of your by state or federal law to have access to able to determine your organization's qualifications and, organization's name and address which will the information; individuals and agencies as a consequence,may refuse to issue a permit. If your remain public. Private data about your for which law or legal order authorizes a organization supplies the information requested,the Board organization are available to: Board mem- new use or sharing of information after this will be able to process the application. Your organization's bers,Board staff whose work requires notice was given;and anyone with your name and address will be public information when received access to the information; Minnesota's written consent. by the Board. Department of Public Safety;Attorney city o goldM MEMORANDUM valle Y City Administration Council 763-593-3991 /763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting August 19, 2014 Agenda Item 3. C. 2. Gambling License Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo - Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post#7051 Prepared By Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant Summary As per State Statute organizations that conduct gambling within the City limits have to submit an application for a lawful gambling permit to the State after the permit has been approved or denied by the City. Depending upon the timing of the permit the applicants may request the City to waive the 30-day waiting period. Attachments • Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to receive, file and approve the gambling license application to conduct excluded bingo for the Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post#7051. MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING 6/13 Page 1 of 2 LG240B Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo No Fee ORGANIZATION INFORMATION Or niza ion na e 1.. C S flux i i `� y o G�c C+n Previous gambling permit number a - r-s a s-F -IPS-1 D S"6 Minnesota tax ID number, if any Federal mployer ID number(FEIN), if any -! -DLA 76 5 Type of nonprofit organization. Check one. Fraternal Religious Veterans Other nonprofit organization Mailing address City State Zip code County '9 -715 e le ad& 6-Ja7 &#nq;v, Name of chiefIxecuti a officer[CEO] Daytime phone num er E-mail address exl -'1`l AQQ1 We 54 1 14L cz Pi ea sere NONPROFIT STATUS JV Attach a copy of ONE of the following for proof of nonprofit status. Nonprofit Articles of Incorporation OR a current Certificate of Good Standing. Don't have a copy? This certificate must be obtained each year from: Secretary of State, Business Services Div., 60 Empire Drive, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55103 Phone: 651-296-2803 IRS income tax exemption [501(c)] letter in your organization's name. Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer contact the IRS at 877-829-5500. IRS-Affiliate of national,statewide,or international parent nonprofit organization [charter] If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of both of the following: a. IRS letter showing your parent organization is a nonprofit 501(c) organization with a group ruling, and b. the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate. EXCLUDED BINGO ACTIVITY 1. No Yes Has your organization held a bingo event in the current calendar year? If yes, list the dates when bingo was conducted. 2. The proposed bingo event will be: one of four or fewer bingo events held this year. Dates -4, V y OR conducted on up to 12 consecutive days in connection with a: county fair. Dates civic celebration. Dates _Minnesota state fair. DatesI 2 3. Person in charge of bingo event r>_/` f -�t u / Daytime phone 74 —Y4/ 4. Name of premises where bingo will be conductedi'VF )W 1FA 7V St 5. Premises street address -7-7-1!;- ��f t t r.�h P Lee f 6. Ci If township,township name - County l / Bingo hard cards and bingo number selection devices may be borrowed from another organization authorized to conduct bingo. Otherwise,bingo hard cards, bingo paper, and bingo number selection devices must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. To find a licensed distributor,go to www.gcb.state.mn.us and click on Distributors under the WHOIS WHO?LIST OF LICENSEES,or call 651-539-1900. Be sure to complete page 2 LG240B Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo 6/13 Page 2 of 2 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S SIGNATURE The information provided in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Chief executive officer'sIll, i signatureA &1'6'a4 Date Print name Ce f es' / I V LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT CITY APPROVAL COUNTY APPROVAL for a gambling premises for a gambling premises located within city limits located in a township On behalf of the city, I approve this application for excluded On behalf of the county,I approve this application for excluded bingo activity at the premises located within the city's bingo activity at the premises located within the county's jurisdiction. , Pjurisdiction. Print city name W ld ep /l ,'7ii Va f Print county name Signa ef city p onnel Signature of county personnel Title Date 5N Title Date TOWNSHIP-If required by the approving county. On behalf of the township,I acknowledge that the organization is applying for excluded bingo activity within the township limits. [A township has no statutory authority to approve or deny an application, per Minnesota Statutes 349.166, Subd 2.] Print township name Signature of township officer Title Date MAIL APPLICATION AND ATTACHMENT Fax the application and a copy of your proof of You will receive a document from the Gambling Control Board nonprofit status to(651)639-4032 or mail to: with your excluded permit number for the bingo activity. Gambling Control Board Your organization must keep its bingo records for 3-1/2 years. 1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South Roseville, MN 55113 Questions? Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at 651-539-1900. This form will be made available in alternative format(i.e.large print,Braille) upon request. Data privacy notice: The information requested on this All other information provided will be pri- General;Commissioners of Administration, form(and any attachments)will be used by the Gambling vate data about your organization until the Minnesota Management&Budget,and Control Board(Board)to determine your organization's Board issues the permit. When the Board Revenue; Legislative Auditor,national and qualifications to be involved in lawful gambling activities in issues the permit,all information provided international gambling regulatory agencies; Minnesota. Your organization has the right to refuse to will become public. If the Board does not anyone pursuant to court order;other indi- supply the information; however,if your organization issue a permit,all information provided viduals and agencies specifically authorized refuses to supply this information,the Board may not be remains private,with the exception of your by state or federal law to have access to able to determine your organization's qualifications and, organization's name and address which will the information;individuals and agencies as a consequence,may refuse to issue a permit. If your remain public. Private data about your for which law or legal order authorizes a organization supplies the information requested,the Board organization are available to: Board mem- new use or sharing of information after this will be able to process the application. Your organization's bers,Board staff whose work requires notice was given;and anyone with your .. .... ... . . .. '_" . __:. ------4,. _ —At+u �nncnnh C"l y Cif golden MEMORANDUM valley inspections Department 763-593-8090/763-593-3997(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting August 19, 2014 Agenda Item 3. C. 3. General Business Licenses Prepared By Shannon Dietrich, Administrative Assistant Summary As per City Code, some businesses are required to be licensed by the City. Listed below are the License Number, Applicant, License Type and Fee of those who have submitted an application for approval. #7434 Borton Volvo, Inc. New/Used Vehicle Dealer $400.00 905 Hampshire Ave S #7441 Jaguar/Landrover Minneapolis New/Used Vehicle Dealer $400.00 8905 Wayzata Boulevard #7442 Morrie's European Car Sales Inc. New/Used Vehicle Dealer $400.00 7400 Wayzata Blvd #7443 Jim Lupient Oldsmobile New/Used Vehicle Dealer $400.00 7200 Wayzata Blvd #7444 US Fleet Lease, LLC New/Used Vehicle Dealer $400.00 2420 Nevada Avenue N #7436 Rudy Luther Toyota New/Used Vehicle Dealer $400.00 8805 Wayzata Boulevard #7439 Poquet Auto Sales Inc. New/Used Vehicle Dealer $400.00 800 Lilac Drive N #7438 Golden Valley TCAA, LLC New/Used Vehicle Dealer $400.00 9393 Wayzata Boulevard #7437 Golden Valley TCAP, LLC New/Used Vehicle Dealer $400.00 9191 Wayzata Boulevard #7435 Jim Lupient Company New/Used Vehicle Dealer $400.00 7100 Wayzata Boulevard Recommended Action Motion to authorize the issuance of licenses as recommended by staff. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 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, June 23, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Boudreau-Landis, Cera, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Community Development Director Mark Grimes, City Planner Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes May 28, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Cera, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 28, 2014, minutes as submitted. 2. Continued Item -Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 221 Sunnyridge Lane — Kate's Woods — SU08-11 Applicant: David Knaeble Addresses: 221 Sunnyridge Lane Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. Zimmerman reminded the Commissioners that this item was tabled at the March 24 Planning Commission meeting because it was discovered that the language regarding lot width in the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code did not match. Since then, the applicant has revised his plans to meet the requirements of both codes. He explained that the applicant is proposing to divide his property into two separate lots. The existing home would remain and a new home would be built on the proposed lot to the north. Both lots will have 80 feet of width at the front yard setback line per the Zoning Code requirements and 80 feet of mean lot width per the Subdivision Code requirements. Lot 1 would be 10,467 square feet in size with a mean width of 109.8 feet and Lot 2 would be 11,038 square feet in size with a mean lot width of 84.2 feet. He stated that he was contacted about some concerns regarding water run-off and stated that those types of issues will be addressed when there are specific building and grading plans submitted for review. He added that he met with some of the neighbors in the area and they expressed concern about tree preservation and the orientation of the proposed new house. He stated that because the proposed subdivision meets the requirements outlined in the City Code, staff is recommending approval. Kluchka asked if there are private covenants on this property. Zimmerman said no. Segelbaum referred to Section 12.50 of the Subdivision Code regarding conditions for approval or denial and asked if this request meets these conditions. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 2 Zimmerman stated that all of the requirements have been met. However, there is some concern by the neighbors that the second point in that section regarding the lot being buildable due to excessive wetness is not being met. Cera asked if there can be conditions placed on the Commission's recommendation. Zimmerman stated that conditions can be attached on non-residential property; however, it is less clear if conditions can be placed on residential property. Kluchka stated that many of the issues are addressed during the building permit process. Kluchka asked if there is anything leading staff to believe that there is a problem with water on this property. Zimmerman stated this proposal might help make the water situation better than the existing conditions. Baker asked Zimmerman if he did the width calculations. Zimmerman said he understands conceptually how the calculations were done, but suggested that the applicant could more clearly address the specifics. Baker referred to Section 12.50, Subdivision 3(G) which states that subdivisions may be denied if they adversely affect adjacent land uses. Zimmerman explained that that language only applies to nonresidential property. Boudreau-Landis asked if the current property owner subdivided the property to create the current 207 Sunnyridge Lane property. Zimmerman said no. David Knaeble, Applicant, stated that the Minor Subdivision he is proposing meets all of the City's requirements and that the Planning and Engineering staff is recommending approval. He stated that the median lot size on this street is 10,200 square feet and that approximately 70% of the lots are less than 11,000 square feet in size, so what he is proposing will fit in nicely with this part of the neighborhood. He stated that they will be removing 24% of the trees on the property which is fewer trees than the 40% allowed by City ordinance. He stated that they will be reducing the water run-off to the adjoining property to the north and making the existing situation better. He stated that he did not do the original subdivision of this property, but he bought his house knowing he could split it in the future. He said he preferred the original plans he submitted, but that this proposed layout will also work and he is open to suggestions. He added that he grew up in this area and has lived here most of his life and wants his kids to grow up here too. Baker asked Knaeble if he currently occupies the existing house. Knaeble said yes. Segelbaum asked Knaeble to explain the handouts he gave to the Commissioners. Knaeble explained that one of the maps illustrates several other subdivisions done in the area in the past and that what he is proposing doesn't break from what has been done in the past and won't drastically impact the neighborhood. He referred to the other maps he handed out and discussed the distances between the houses. Between his existing home and the home to the south there is 28 feet, between his existing home and the proposed new house to the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 3 north there will be 33 feet and between the proposed new home to the existing home to the north there will be 66 feet. Cera asked about the dimension of the narrowest point of proposed new lot. Knaeble said it is 65 feet at that point. Baker referred to the lot width calculations and asked Knaeble to help him understand those calculations. Knaeble stated that width can be a length weighted average or an area weighted average. He said he felt an area weighted average is a better way to review the property because it is closer to the true width. Waldhauser asked Knaeble if he would prefer not to have so much frontage and the severe angles that are necessary to make the lot meet the width requirements. Knaeble said he doesn't have a preference. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Angelique Struyk, 235 Sunnyridge Lane, said there is a vision of low density for this area and she proposes that by making these smaller and smaller lots we're getting away from that vision. She said David Knaeble mentioned that the lots in this area range between 10,000 and 11,000 square feet, but he is only looking at one street when the actual block has lots that are at least twice that size and there is one lot that is three times that size that she fears will be subdivided in the future. She said she is not happy that the width of the lot where the actual house is being proposed to be built is only 62 or 63 feet wide. She said there has been a lot of fine tuning and manipulation to try to make this an 80-foot wide lot and she doesn't think the Code was designed for this and there needs to be a way for the Planning Commission to say this is ridiculous. She said the Code that we have allows for reasonable development and that this proposal may meet the requirements as it stands, but it is not responsible. She referred to the discussion about this proposal making their drainage better and said her sump pump runs all the time because they have the lowest property on the block and they have run-off from three or more adjoining properties. Putting a new house and a driveway will add more impermeable surface, and water runs downhill to her property. She said she has not had any water in her basement in the 10 or 11 years she has lived in her house and she wants some assurance from the City Engineer, in a concrete form, that she will not be adversely impacted by the building on this property, because she can guarantee they will have more run off and that does not make her happy. She said this property is a very heavily forested piece of land with a lot of tamarack trees and mature trees and the plans she reviewed said they will be removing approximately 40 trees just where the driveway and house would go. She referred to the tree preservation requirements and asked where any required new trees would even fit on this lot. She discussed the erosion potential when the existing trees with their root systems are taken away and added that there is a severe slope on the property, contrary to what staff has said. She said she doesn't know where kids are going to play on this proposed new lot so the vision the applicant has of raising a family in this new house isn't going to work. She said the applicant is probably not going to live in the proposed new house in the future, and there is going to be erosion issues and foundation damage and she is going to be left to look at it from her Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 4 back yard. She added that the proposed new house will also be perched above her, and overlooking her house. Joanie Clausen, 2516 Lee Avenue North, said she is coming before the Planning Commission with great concern as a citizen of Golden Valley. She asked if the City is just going allow houses to be put wherever they can find a spot. She said this proposal may, on paper, look like it will fit fine, but you have to look at the terrain. She said Mr. Knaeble lives up on a hill and the water is not going to run up to his house, it is going to affect the neighbor down below and she feels the City needs to protect that neighbor that already takes the water run- off from two other neighbors. She said she is concerned about the person that buys the new house in this wet area, and about creating problems for existing home owners in the area as well because they have had drainage problems. She said when the trees and roots are taken off of the huge hill there will be problems. She said it might meet the lot requirements, but we owe it to the current property owners and the neighborhood, because the whole look of the neighborhood is changing. She asked the Planning Commission to seriously consider not approving this proposal. Tammy Pulver, 105 Meadow Lane North, said nobody likes change. She asked why there is an 80-foot lot width requirement, how narrow is too narrow and what shape of lot can be built on. She said it might be premature to talk about this proposal before the upcoming lot width and depth discussion. She said this proposed lot is too narrow and the City should make a commitment to put in any needed drainage. John Wetzel, 120 Meadow Lane North, said it is his understanding that the applicant is going to build a new house and sell the existing house. He said he is concerned about 24% of the trees being removed. He said he pays a lot of taxes and questioned if the taxes will be divided between the two new property owners. He asked what percentage of the properties are land and what percentage is structure because many of them bought their properties because of the lot size, the convenience and the schools and they are going to lose a lot because of this proposal. Mark Dietz, 207 Sunnyridge Lane, said the house behind his had a lot of water in their back yard, so they got a pump and started to drain all of the water toward Angelique and Damon Struyk's house and flooded their shed so they had to stop. He said when he purchased his property he re-designed his house three times in order to maintain the trees, and he is concerned about the integrity of the neighborhood. He said there are beautiful 50-60 year old trees and the City really needs to consider what they are doing to their neighborhood. Jim Kuzzy, 4125 Poplar Drive, said he questions the calculations regarding the lot size. He said it seems that maybe the tail is wagging the dog because the developer is coming up with the numbers, and the City is struggling to figure out how the developer came up with his calculations. He said he doubts that an hourglass shaped lot is what the Code writers had in mind when they put the Code together. He asked that the numbers be re-calculated by the City, not the developer. He said his lot is large in size and he pays a lot in taxes and is disappointed to see the gradual deterioration of the neighborhood, and this is not the quality of neighborhood he bought into 23 years ago. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 5 Eva Jensen, 4010 Roanoke Circle, said she bought in Tyrol because she values the environment which is reinforced and sustained by the lot size. She said she is very concerned about this proposed development because they are a buffer of the park and their neighborhood creates a dark zone, and dark skies. She said the proposal might work to the letter of the law, but she is concerned about the manipulation of the numbers regarding lot sizes in Tyrol. She stated that the average lot size is 17,000 square feet when the smaller lots in North Tyrol are included. She said she is also concerned that the developer is in the position of dictating the numbers. Bob Lang, 401 Meadow Lane North, said he is concerned about the one size fits all subdivisions he's been seeing especially since the Meadow Lane and Glenwood site was broken up into four lots. He said it has only been recently that he's seen it taken to this degree and he doesn't think one does fit all. He said the City needs to take a step back and not just say yes to subdivisions just because the property can be subdivided. Pam Lott, 220 Sunnyridge Lane, said her issues aren't personal and the proposal won't affect her home per se. She said loves Golden Valley and wants to keep it pastoral. She asked the Planning Commissioners if they have ever seen a lot shape designed the way this one is on purpose, or if there is any reason for the proposed lot to be shaped this way other than to manipulate the City. She said when Sunnyridge Circle was developed the City assured everybody there would be no problem with water drainage and they were wrong because everybody has more water problems than they did before. She asked the Planning Commission to consider if they want Golden Valley to be like Brooklyn Center or Edina and if they want large lots with impressive homes or a neighborhood full of"ticky-tack." Gary Rowland, 4541 Westwood Lane, said Tyrol is really an extension of Wirth Park by design and no two houses were built at the same elevation. He said they have a neighborhood association that is excited to work with the Planning Commission to make sure the Wirth/Tyrol area is protected. He said that South Tyrol has not protected its area and the houses are right on top of each other. He added that he is also concerned about the "magic math" being applied. John Wetzel, 120 Meadow Lane North, asked the Planning Commission to share the requirements listed in the Subdivision Code regarding conditions for approval or denial so he can determine how relevant or not they may be. Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, said he has heard several people talk about the deterioration of the neighborhood which he takes umbrage to and thinks is a little over- exaggerated. He said this is a unique neighborhood, and adding a single lot, after a number of past developments, is not going to deteriorate the entire neighborhood, the area will remain unique. He stated that there was no manipulation of the lot measurements and added that the applicant is required, as part of the application process, to do the calculations for the City's review. Henry Pulver, 105 Meadow Lane North, said there has been an explosion of development in their area. He said a standard lot size might work great for the majority of Golden Valley, but Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 6 if North Tyrol is carved into pieces there are going to be some crazy looking lots, and a lot of unhappy neighbors. He told the Commissioners to drive by the Meadow Lane and Glenwood site and see what they think about that development. He said it looked good on paper and fit the requirements of the Code, but he thinks it looks odd and doesn't fit in with, or improve, the neighborhood. He said he knows staff is trying to expedite the developers concerns, but asked that the Planning Commission take into consideration the neighbor's concerns, and what these changes will do to North Tyrol. Mark Dietz, 207 Sunnyridge Lane, referred to the developers looking back in time as to how things were subdivided, but it is nothing like how they are being subdivided in the neighborhood right now. He questioned if it is not the responsibility of the City to protect Damon and Angelique Struyk, and their view, and their million dollar house and asked if there is any responsibility to protect the people that pay taxes. Todd Ereth, 240 Meadow Lane North, said he was the last to subdivide a one acre lot into two lots, not little pieces of land. He said when he first moved into to his house the drainage issue was so bad he had to call mosquito control. He said the run-off exists, and there are health and safety issues, and they are losing so much of what makes Golden Valley a wonderful place to live. Matt Pavek, 510 Cloverleaf Drive, said when people come forth with a subdivision request that meets all of the Code requirements it should be approved. Those are the laws and rules, and everyone lives under the same rules. He said one person getting a group of neighbors together to bash on the person who is trying to subdivide their property is not in the spirit of the ordinances either. He referred to the comments about trees being removed and said that no one, including developers, wants to cut trees down, and he can guarantee that every other home in the area had to remove tress in order to build their houses too. He said that it is not accurate to say that the character of the neighborhood will be ruined by cutting down a couple of trees in order to build one new home. He referred to the slope and drainage of the subject property, and said the City Engineer is an expert who can be trusted more than an amateur who doesn't really understand how things drain. He said he heard David Knaeble state that the drainage will be better after the subdivision because it will be engineered to divert water away from the low spot. He said he can't say the problems will be solved, but he won't be allowed to make it worse. He referred to the shape of the proposed new lot and noted that it looks weird in part, because of the new lot width definition it is required to meet, and the fact that the existing house is there. He said he doesn't think the shape of the lot is relevant or will affect the way people live on their property. He referred to the question that was asked about being like Edina or being like Brooklyn Center, and said he would rather be like Golden Valley. Edina has more has more lot splits and reconstruction right now than any other City in the state, and Brooklyn Center is not getting million dollar homes built. He said the overarching theme is that Tyrol is being ruined by subdivisions which he would agree with if all of the lots could be split. The reality is that there are only a few lots left that can be subdivided under the current rules, so if the concern is that the neighborhood is going to be ruined over a few new lots, in a neighborhood of hundreds of lots, it just doesn't make sense. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 7 Tammy Pulver, 105 Meadow Lane North, said she taken aback by the disrespect, labeling and stereotyping of her neighbors. She said she is not here to bash anybody, and the issue is not just this one lot, it is about what will happen to all the subsequent lots if we don't have standards that the City is making sure developers are following. She said she hopes all developers will want to leave a legacy that protects the heart and soul of Golden Valley. Bob Lang, 401 Meadow Lane North, said that the comment that there are just a couple of lots left in Tyrol that are able to be subdivided is wrong, there are about 35 lots that meet the criteria to shoe-horn in a 10,000 square foot lot. Angelique Struyk, 235 Sunnyridge Lane, referred to the back corner of the proposed new garage and asked the Planning Commission to look closely at the dimensions of that garage and whether or not it meets the rear yard setback requirements. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka asked if there are any guarantees or accountability if the drainage does get worse. Zimmerman referred to the City Engineer's memo and explained that it is difficult to give guarantees at this point because the applicant hasn't submitted a grading plan, and won't until the building permit process. Grimes reiterated that the applicant will be required to submit a grading and erosion control plan, and the City will not allow drainage to negatively impact the neighboring property. He added that the City' systems are also not designed to the recent levels of rain we've received. Kluchka asked what guarantees, or recourse the neighbors have if the drainage doesn't work. Grimes explained that the plans are done by licensed, registered, professional engineers and surveyors, and that the City Engineer will require modifications if necessary. Kluchka said it is not the Planning Commission's purview to evaluate drainage plans. Baker asked if this is just the way it has always been done, or is this the right way to it. He stated that there is no public opportunity to comment at the decision making point. Kluchka noted that not every property owner needs to come before the Planning Commission and Council with their proposal, but everyone does have to do a drainage plan. Baker said maybe those neighbors aren't as savvy as these neighbors, and said the larger question is if the Planning Commission should look for ways to slow down development. Kluchka said that would be a Council decision. Waldhauser agreed that it would be more appropriate to discuss that at a different meeting. Cera added that the Planning Commission has in the past recommended rain gardens and things to help mitigate drainage issues. Grimes stated that many subdivisions are almost administrative as long as they meet the requirements in City Code. He added that everyone is protected by the same codes. Kluchka referred to the comments about tree removal and stated that a tree preservation plan will be required. Baker stated that he heard a lot about tamarack trees on the property but he didn't see any tamarack trees on the plans, so he is wondering about the legitimacy of the plans submitted. Zimmerman said a tree preservation plan will be required during the building permit process. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 8 Kluchka referred to the question about why lots are required to be 80 feet in width. Grimes said the 80-foot width requirement takes into account the building area, and the setback areas. Kluchka referred to the question regarding if the applicant will build, and sell the proposed new home, or if he will live in it and said that is not the Planning Commission purview. Kluchka stated that regarding property taxes, they are based on an overall value determined by Hennepin County. Grimes added that there is a land value and home value. Kluchka asked who provides the lot dimensions. Zimmerman stated that the applicant is required to provide the calculations, and based on his estimates and reviews what the applicant submitted makes sense. Baker asked if it is really correct that the applicant is required to provide the numbers, or if the City just delegates that the applicant because it's convenient. Grimes stated that applicants are required to show the City that they meet the Code requirements. Waldhauser referred to the rear yard setback requirements and asked if 20% of the lot depth is required across the entire lot. She also asked if the garage on the proposed new home meets the rear yard setback requirement. Zimmerman explained that the applicant's initial application showed the 20% measurement taken at every depth, however the Zoning Code says it should be a consistent number across the lot and this revised plan does show it that way. Baker said an important question to answer is if just because a lot can be subdivided if the City should say yes. Segelbaum stated that the Planning Commission is the finder of fact and to determine if those facts meet what the law requires as dictated by the City's ordinances, as interpreted by the courts, and the City Attorney. Baker asked if there is a question of reasonableness involved. Segelbaum said if the ordinance language says "within reason" then there are judgment calls. Baker said he doesn't like the proposal, but he doesn't find that he has any license to deny it. Cera said this proposal is sort of a gerrymandered lot whereas most other subdivisions have a more reasonable shape. Waldhauser said the doesn't personally like the shape of the proposed new lot, but agreed that part of the reason it is oddly shaped is because the discovery was made of the inconsistencies between the Zoning Code and the Subdivision Code. She said the applicant would like to move forward, and he has come up with a proposal that meets the law in spite of their reservations about it. She said that issues needs to be considered neighborhood-wide or city-wide, not lot by lot, but the City is constrained by what can be approved, and the Planning Commission can't change the code at this meeting. Baker said this one lot stands out as being uniquely weird, and he proposes that this is the last one they approve. Waldhauser stated that the applicant isn't asking to do anything that isn't allowed. Segelbaum agreed, and added that the neighbors can create their own covenants around subdivisions or get organized and suggest an overlay district of some sort. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 9 MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried 4 to 2 to approve the minor subdivision subject to the following findings and conditions. Commissioners Baker and Cera voted no. Findings: 1. Both lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. 2. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. 3. The addition of the new lots will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. 4. The drainage and utility easements shown on the preliminary plat are acceptable. Conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. A park dedication fee of$2,930 shall be paid before final plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated March 17, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. Cera said he voted against this proposal because he doesn't know if this subdivision will adversely impact the neighbors, because of a precedent issue and that this is not a reasonable design for a lot. He said it will encourage more gerrymandering to be done in the future. He added that he has no problem at all with subdividing property in areas when the house fits, but he doesn't want to squeeze houses in just because they can. 3. Continued Discussion Regarding Lot Width and Lot Depth Zimmerman reminded the Commission that they discussed this item at their May 28, 2014, meeting. He said there are two main issues, the first is the differences in definitions of lot width and lot depth between the Zoning Code and the Subdivision Code and the second is the concern regarding "irregular" lots. Zimmerman explained that the Zoning Code defines lot depth as the mean depth between the front and rear lot lines, and the lot width as the mean width measured at right angles to the mean depth. Also, the Zoning Code, in all of the residential zoning districts except for the Single Family R-1 zoning district, measures the lot width at the front setback line. Zimmerman explained that the Subdivision Code defines lot depth as the shortest distance between front and rear lot lines measured at right angles to the street right-of- way, and the lot width as the minimum distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth at the minimum building setback line. Zimmerman stated that when he reviewed the history of the definitions in the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code he realized that as far back as 1960, the definitions in both codes included language stating that the width of the lot is measured at the minimum Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 10 front yard setback. He discovered that in 2004, the phrase "at the minimum front yard setback" was inadvertently struck from the Zoning Code when an unrelated ordinance was approved. Zimmerman said that based on past precedent, ease of interpretation and administration, conformity with neighboring communities, and review of homes built under the current application of lot width as defined by the Subdivision Code, Staff suggests a revision of the definition of lot width within the Zoning Code in order to continue to review subdivision requests in a consistent manner. The specific changes in the Zoning Code would be as follows: The definition of width would be "The minimum required horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth at the minimum front yard setback line." The language regarding buildable lots would be amended to read as follows: "...In the R-1 zoning district a platted lot of a minimum area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet and a minimum width of eighty (80) feet at the front setback line shall be required for one (1) single family dwelling," and the definition of lot depth would be clarified to read as follows: "The mean horizontal distance between the front (street) line and the rear lot line measured at a ninety (900) degree angle from the street right-of-way. Zimmerman discussed several other possible requirements that could be considered in order to regulate the width and/or shape of proposed lots in subdivisions including: requiring the lot width to be maintained for a certain percentage of the lot depth, portions of lot width less than the minimum required width would not count towards the total required lot area, finding the depth by measuring from the front midpoint to the rear midpoint. At the midpoint of the depth a minimum lot width must be met, or requiring an irregular lot test where the formula p2/A = X is used to determine if a lot is "too irregular." Segelbaum said he would like the City to be able to have some certainty when reviewing subdivision requests, and questioned if new software is needed. Waldhauser said she is comfortable with developers providing the information and calculations. Baker said he would like to know how many subdivision requests the City receives per year, and the costs involved, including staff time. Segelbaum referred to the "irregular lot" test and said he is concerned that the focus will just be about not allowing irregularly shaped lots. Cera said the "irregular lot" test could just be one more consideration in the process. Zimmerman showed the Commissioners a map of lots in the Tyrol area that could possibly be subdivided. Cera noted that all of the lots have homes on them. Segelbaum asked if the lots shown on the map would meet the mean width test. Zimmerman said it would depend on how lot lines were drawn. Kluchka questioned how many of the lots shown on the map would not be able to subdivide even if small changes are made. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 11 Cera said he thinks a combination of the requirements that Zimmerman suggested might work to eliminate irregular lot shapes. Waldhauser questioned if irregular lot shapes is an issue. Cera said that requiring an average lot width negatively impacted the lot they discussed earlier, and that he is hearing a consensus among the Planning Commission to make the lot width definition in the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code match, but to also research ways to address the problem with irregular lots. Boudreau-Landis asked if a formula of some sort would supersede the existing conditions for approval or denial in the Subdivision Code. Segelbaum said he thinks a formula would be in the Zoning Code, not the Subdivision Code. Cera questioned if any of the requirements are state statutes. Waldhauser said she would be in favor of keeping the language in both codes requiring lots to be 80 feet in width at the front setback, and requiring that that width be kept for 50% of the depth of the lot. MOVED by Cera, and seconded by Waldhauser to recommend approval to amend the Zoning Code to state that a minimum width of eighty (80) feet at the front setback line shall be required. Also, staff will research additional opportunities to address irregularly shaped lots. Segelbaum asked if the motion should also include staff's recommendation regarding lot depth. Cera agreed to add language to the motion stating that the average depth should be measured perpendicular to the street right-of-way line. Segelbaum said he would like to see examples of Golden Valley properties. Kluchka said he would like to see some historical examples. Baker said he would like to see further research regarding lot depth. Kluchka clarified that the motion is to recommend approval to amend the Zoning Code to state that a minimum width of eighty (80) feet be required at the front setback line, and to have staff bring back language defining average lot depth, and to do additional research on lot width and irregularly shaped lots. The vote was unanimous. --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Kluchka reported on the tour of community centers that the Community Center Task Force took at their last meeting. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 12 5. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10 pm. Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant GOLDEN VALLEY OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting at Brookview Community Center Minutes April 28, 2014 1. Call to Order Mattison called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. 2. Roll Call Present: Roger Bergman, John Cornelius, Kelly Kuebelbeck, Bob Mattison, Gillian Rosenquist, Jerry Sandler, Dawn Speltz, Dan Steinberg, Joanie Clausen, Council Member; Rick Birno, Director of Parks and Recreation, and Sheila Van Sloun, Administrative Assistant. Absent: Anne Saffert. 3. Approval of Minutes — March 24, 2014 MOTION: Moved by Bergman and seconded by Sandler to approve the March 24, 2014 meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Bottineau Planning Advisory Committee Update — Scheduled Meetings Steinberg gave an update on the April 10 meeting. He also said the 800 page DEIS documents is now available to view online. Steinberg announced that there will be a public open house hosted by Three Rivers Park District on May 7 at 6:00 PM at City Hall to discuss the project. He also said there will be a joint commission hearing with the Open Space and Recreation, Planning and Environmental Commissions on the Bottineau Light Rail on May 15 at 7:00 PM at City Hall. 5. Brookview and Wildwood Play Structure Ribbon Cutting Events Birno announced ribbon cutting ceremonies for the new playground equipment at Brookview and Wildwood Parks. Brookview ribbon cutting ceremony with be hosted by Meadowbrook Girl Scouts and held on May 20 at 5:45 PM. Wildowood ribbon cutting will be held on May 21 at 11:00 AM. 6. Soccer Association Donation — Field Plans Birno met with the Park Valley United FC Soccer Association and discussed plans for use of Sandburg fields. He said the city plans to apply for a grant this fall to redesign and reconfigure the fields at Sandburg for better utilization of the space. Minutes of the Open Space and Recreation Commission April 24, 2014 Page 2 7. Brookview Community Center Task Force Consultant Birno announced that HGA Architecture, Engineering and Planning Firm has been hired as the consultant for the Brookview Community Center Task Force. HGA will be assisting the task force in putting together a conceptual design for a new community center. The first task force meeting is scheduled for May 20 at 5:30 PM at Brookview Community Center. There are 6 monthly meetings scheduled from May thru October. 8. Sochacki, Mary Hills, Rice Lake Area Visioning Meeting Rosenquist gave an update on the April 16 visioning meeting. The goal is to use the data from these meetings to come up with concepts to present for public input. 9. Updates Mattison said he presented the OSRC Annual Report to City Council earlier this month. He said it went very well. Clausen agreed. Mattison also said the Mayor and Council would like to explore the Nice Ride Minnesota Bike Program. Birno added that he would get in touch with Hennepin County and see if it's a good opportunity for Golden Valley and if so, what steps need to be taken to move forward. Mattison said with all the residential development in the Golden Hills area, the city should think about putting a park in the area. He would like the commission to begin thinking about the idea. Cornelius would like tennis court discussion on the agendas going forward. Cornelius saw a coyote near Wesley Park. He asked what to do in those situations. Birno said he would look in to getting public information published. Birno will be meeting with the Membership Director of the Jewish Community Center this Thursday to discuss a proposal for membership for Golden Valley residents. Birno said the Commission Dinner is Thursday, June 12 at 6:30 PM at Brookview Community Center. Birno said the Step To It Challenge Kick-off with the Mayor is Sunday, May 4 at 1:00 PM at Brookview Park. Minutes of the Open Space and Recreation Commission April 24, 2014 Page 3 10. Adjournment MOTION: MOVED by Sandler and seconded by Steinberg to adjourn at 8:40 PM. Motion carried unanimously. Bob Mattison, Chair ATTEST: Sheila Van Sloun, Administrative Assistant c Itern 4A BCWMC 7-17-14 Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting June 19,2014 Golden Valley City Hall, 830 a.m. Commissioners and Staff Present: Crystal Commissioner Guy Mueller, Vice Robbinsdale Not represented Chair Golden Valley Commissioner Stacy Hoschka, St. Louis Park Commissioner Jim de Lambert, Chair Treasurer Medicine Commissioner Clint Carlson Lake Administrator Laura Jester, Keystone Waters LLC Minneapolis Commissioner Michael Welch Attorney Charlie LeFevere, Kennedy &Graven Minnetonka Commissioner Jacob Millner, Engineer Karen Chandler, Barr Engineering Co. Secretary New Hope Alternate Commissioner Pat Recorder Amy Herbert Crough Plymouth Alternate Commissioner David Tobelmann Technical Advisory Committee(TAC)Members/Other Attendees Present: Derek Asche, TAC, City of Plymouth Jane McDonald Black, Alternate Commissioner, City of Golden Valley Erick Francis, TAC, City of St. Louis Park Jeff Oliver, TAC, City of Golden Valley Christopher Gise, Golden Valley Resident John O'Toole, Alternate Commissioner, City of Medicine Lake Chantell Knauss, City of Golden Valley Bob Paschke, TAC, City of New Hope Chris Long, TAC, City of New Hope Jim Prom, Plymouth City Council Shawn Markham, City of New Hope Liz Stout, TAC, City of Minnetonka Liz Thornton, Plymouth Resident Peter Tiede, St. Paul Peter Willenbring, WSB &Assoc. Tom Mathisen, TAC, City of Crystal Richard McCoy, TAC, City of Robbinsdale 1 BCWMC June 19, 2014, Meeting Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL On Thursday, June 19, 2014, at 8:35 a.m. in the Council Conference room at Golden Valley City Hall, Chair de Lambert called to order the meeting of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) and asked for roll call to be taken. The Cities of Minnetonka and Robbinsdale were absent from the roll call. 2. CITIZEN FORUM ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No items were brought forward. 3.AGENDA Commissioner Tobelmann moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Welch seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 7-0 [Cities of Minnetonka and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. [Commissioner Millner arrives.] 4. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Welch offered praise to Ms. Herbert for the press release on Wirth Lake delisting and noted the importance of the lake being removed from the Impaired Waters List. He then moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Mueller seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 8-0 [City of Robbinsdale absent from vote]. [The following items were approved as part of the Consent Agenda: the May 15, 2014, Commission Meeting minutes, the monthly financial report,the payment of the invoices,approval to submit press release on Wirth Lake delisting to media outlets; and, approval of proposed 2015 operating budget and order submittal to cities for review and comment.] The general and construction account balances reported in the Financial Report prepared for the June 19, 2014, meeting are as follows: Checking Account Balance $687,369.60 TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE $687,369.60 TOTAL CASH & INVESTMENTS ON- $2,610,132.45 HAND (5/7/14) CIP Projects Levied—Budget Remaining ($2,872,218.23) Closed Projects Remaining Balance ($262,085.78) 2013 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $9,662.09 2014 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $895,000.00 2 BCWMC June 19, 2014, Meeting Minutes Anticipated Closed Project Balance $642,576.31 5.PUBLIC HEARING A. Consider Comments from Public on Major Plan Amendment: The Amendment proposes to add to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)a project for 2015 (CR2015)to restore approximately 1.8 miles of the Main Stem of Bassett Creek from 10`h Avenue to Duluth Street in the City of Golden Valley. Chair de Lambert opened the public hearing. Ms. Chandler provided a brief overview of the project and the feasibility study. Chair de Lambert called for comments. Upon hearing no comments, Chair de Lambert closed the public hearing. 6. BUSINESS A. Consider Approval of Final Feasibility Study for 2015 Main Stem Restoration Project, Golden Valley (CR2015) Engineer Chandler reported that all of the Commission Engineer's comment and concerns had been addressed by the City of Golden Valley and its contractor for the project, WSB and Associates, so there are no suggested changes to the feasibility study. There was discussion about how WSB and Associates reached the estimate that the project would remove 30 pounds of phosphorous per year over the life of the project. Mr. Willenbring explained that the project would remove an estimated 60 to 100 pounds at implementation and an estimated 0 pounds per year at year 30. He said that given this information, WSB estimated that over the life of the project the annual phosphorous removal would be 30 pounds. Mr. Willenbring provided further details on the cost-benefit analysis process for erosion projects and for this specific project. He responded to questions about what would cause the degradation of the project. He addressed the degradation of soft armoring techniques such as planted vegetation due to the development over time of the canopy, which eventually shades out some of the project's vegetation. Commissioner Mueller said that he would like more study done on the vegetation used in the soft armoring. Chair de Lambert remarked that the project will go through a design process in which the Commission will have opportunity to provide input. Mr. Oliver gave an explanation of the City's process for reaching out to the property owners and summarized the feedback received to-date by some of the property owners affected by this proposed project. He said that almost exclusively the property owners are supportive of the project and are open to the techniques proposed by the project. Mr. Willenbring stated that the feasibility study could be revised to indicate a range of phosphorous removal instead of the estimated 30 pounds per year. Commissioner Welch agreed that there will be opportunity to provide comments during the design phase, but he believes that the earlier that comments and direction are provided,the better. He raised his concern that his previous request that that the feasibility study prioritize the sites in terms of most severe erosion to less severe 3 BCWMC June 19, 2014, Meeting Minutes was not addressed in the study. Commissioner Welch said that he also was looking for the feasibility study to include numerical data that showed the erosive forces at work at each of the proposed sites so that there would be data upon which to base the recommendation for the restoration techniques for each site. He also brought up the point that there needs to be a process for the Commission,through the City of Golden Valley,to communicate to the property owners the best methodology for stabilizing the bank for each particular site. Commissioner Welch raised the issue that the feasibility study offers two options: hard armoring and soft armoring. He said the study presents the options as if one direction or the other needs to be taken, and if the soft armoring direction is taken then a lot of trees need to be removed. Commissioner Welch added that it seems like there is a hybrid option, but it is not discussed in the feasibility study. Mr. Oliver responded that the City goes out and looks at each individual property and the solution for each site falls somewhere between the two options of hard armoring and soft armoring. There was a lengthy discussion. Mr. Asche said that the cities need to provide the message that the project needs to work within specific parameters. Mr. Willenbring noted he understood the Commission would like the stream to be as natural as possible and most homeowners want the same. Mr. Oliver noted that when they talk with homeowners onsite,they start with a recommendation for stabilization techniques and go from there. There was additional discussion. Commissioner Welch again raised the fact that the feasibility study doesn't include a summary of the erosive forces exerted at each of the sites nor a prioritization of the sites based on that data. Mr. Willenbring listed factors in addition to erosive forces that play a part in determining the methodologies for the sites. He mentioned access to the slope and considerations of how easy it would be to maintain the site post-build, how close any existing structures are to the site,the light exposure, and the direction the slope faced. He described the considerations of changes to the creek's flood stage and said that the project cannot raise the cross section and increase the flood stage. The Commission continued its discussion. Commissioner Welch moved to approve the feasibility study on the condition that the 50% design includes a prioritization of the sites and also includes the draft ideal design for each site and at the best level of detail possible. Commissioner Mueller seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 7-0 [Cities of Medicine Lake and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. B. Discuss Timeline and Status of 2016 Projects in Golden Valley,New Hope,and Minneapolis Administrator Jester reported that the City of Minneapolis has communicated to the Commission that the Bryn Mawr water quality improvement project in Minneapolis slated for 2016 probably cannot move forward at this time for various reasons. She said that the City of Minneapolis would like to defer the project to a later year because of the upcoming Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board master planning process for the park. Administrator Jester said that the City of Minneapolis hopes to bring a new project to the TAC for its consideration for the Commission's 2017-2021 CIP. Administrator Jester updated the Commission on the proposed Honeywell Pond Expansion project. She said that the project was intended to coincide with reconstruction of Douglas Drive in the area, which is a county/federal project. She indicated the water quality project needs to be designed by June 2015. Administrator Jester explained that this timeline is well ahead of the Commission's normal CIP process for 2016 projects and the City of Golden Valley is requesting that the Commission allow an accelerated CIP process. She described the proposed accelerated timeline, which includes starting the Major Plan Amendment process this September. 4 BCWMC June 19, 2014, Meeting Minutes There was discussion of what the project will include and if there would be any problems arising from accelerating the project. Administrator Jester reported that the City of New Hope indicated it can match the timeline for completion of the feasibility study for their 2016 project so that only one Major Plan Amendment would be needed. Commissioner Mueller moved to proceed in the manner described by Administrator Jester to accelerate the CIP process. Commissioner Millner seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 7-0 [Cities of Medicine Lake and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. C. Consider Agreement with City of Golden Valley for Development of Feasibility Study for Honeywell Pond Expansion Project Administrator Jester presented the agreement. Commissioner Hoschka moved to approve the agreement with the City of Golden Valley. Commissioner Millner seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 7-0 [City of Robbinsdale absent from vote. City of Minneapolis abstained from the vote.] D. Update on Meeting with Medicine Lake City Council and Joint Powers Agreement Signatories Administrator Jester reported that seven member cities have signed the Joint Powers Agreement(JPA) amendment. Commissioner Welch noted that he met with a member of the Minneapolis City Council to recommend that the City sign the 10-year JPA amendment, and the council member has directed its staff to write a recommendation to the same effect for the consideration of the Minneapolis City Council. Administrator Jester provided an overview of the meeting with the Medicine Lake City Council. She reported that the City of Medicine Lake has agreed to sign a five-year JPA, and she read aloud the email to the Commission from Medicine Lake Mayor Gary Holter asking that the Commission request that the other eight cities agree to a 5-year JPA. Plymouth City Council Member Jim Prom provided comments and said that he and the mayors of Golden Valley and New Hope are hoping to meet with members of the Medicine Lake City Council in the next few weeks to further discuss the matter of the JPA. Attorney LeFevere recommended that the Commission decide how it will respond to the City of Medicine Lake's request. He provided a variety of options for the Commission to consider. There was lengthy discussion. Commissioner Carlson moved that the other eight BCWMC commissioners present to their city councils the option of a five-year JPA. Commissioner Tobelmann seconded the motion, but upon his further understanding of the motion, he withdrew his second. The motion failed to get a second. In response to the issues being discussed, Attorney LeFevere raised the option of the Commission writing two letters to the City of Medicine Lake. He said one letter could address the public policy issue of a five-year JPA versus a ten-year JPA, and the other letter could address the water level of Medicine Lake. After further discussion,the Commission's final direction to staff was for Attorney LeFevere to prepare a letter in response to Medicine Lake's proposed 5-year JPA and to bring the letter back to the Commission for review and approval at the July BCWMC meeting. Commissioner Welch volunteered to assist staff in the preparation of the letter. The Commission directed Administrator Jester to communicate to the City of Medicine Lake that the Commission is taking the City of Medicine Lake's comments under consideration and the Commission's legal counsel is drafting a response for Commission review at its monthly meeting in July. E. Discuss Steps Needed to Prepare for Possible Commission Dissolution Mr. LeFevere explained that the JPA expires on December 31, 2014, and said this doesn't mean that an 5 BCWMC June 19, 2014, Meeting Minutes agreement can't be reached after that date; however, doing so would be more complicated than reaching an agreement prior to the JPA expiration. He asked if the Commission wished to continue business as usual (including watershed management plan development). He said that the Commission also should address if it wants to direct staff,the Administrative Services Committee, or appoint another committee to begin planning for dissolution. Mr. LeFevere addressed the idea that there may be some activities that the cities would want continued, at least until a watershed district is formed, such as monitoring and cooperative education efforts. He described the process for this(i.e.,would require a new and separate JPA amongst the willing cities)and raised issues for the Commission's consideration in such a process. There was discussion. [Commissioner Millner departs the meeting.] Commissioner Welch said that the Commission needs to take action in July and so the Commission needs action items and specific steps ready for consideration at the July meeting. Commissioner Welch said that next month the Commission needs to notify the member cities regarding the cities' legal responsibilities the Commission provides assistance with and that such assistance may not be available after December 31". He continued by saying the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR)and Hennepin County should be informed as well. He recommended that the Commission direct its Engineer,Administrator, and Legal Counsel to prepare such notifications for consideration at the Commission's July meeting. Administrator Jester said that staff would like direction on whether to continue business as usual. Commissioner Welch recommended that the Commission continue business as usual. There was discussion. Commissioner Hoschka moved to approve the Commission continuing business as usual. Commissioner Welch seconded the motion with the friendly amendment that Administrator Jester handles some more minor details such as number of watershed maps to print, etc. Commissioner Hoschka approved the friendly amendment. Upon a vote, the motion carried 7-0 [City of Minnetonka and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. Attorney LeFevere asked if the Commission wants staff and the Administrative Services Committee, or whichever group the Commission directs,to put together a letter, a game plan, a list of factors, recommendations, and guidelines to start the process. Chair de Lambert directed staff to prepare the information described by Attorney LeFevere. Chair de Lambert stated that if there is time, the Administrative Services Committee could meet with Attorney LeFevere and Administrator Jester prior to the July meeting to discuss the information. F. Consider TAC Recommendations i. Buffer Policies for Next Generation Watershed Management Plan Mr. Asche summarized that the TAC supports buffers and including buffers in the Next Generation Plan. He described the need for flexibility in applying buffers and explained that some additional details are needed. Administrator Jester added that the TAC's recommendation went to the Plan Steering Committee and is not in front of the Commission as an action item. Mr. Asche provided more details on the buffer rules the TAC discussed. There was discussion. Administrator Jester said that this topic will be part of the Commission's next workshop on the plan. ii. CIP Process Improvement Mr. Asche explained that the TAC suggests that project managers provide periodic updates to the Commission with regard to the Commission's CIP projects. He said that the content still needs to be 6 BCWMC June 19, 2014, Meeting Minutes worked out. Mr. Asche said that the TAC also recommends a final report process for CIP projects. He said the TAC envisions a one-to two-page report with bullet points and maybe a few photos. He said the intent is to use the final report as a learning tool. Mr. Asche stated that every time there are steps added to the process its takes time and resources away from the project itself, whether that involves city staff or Commission staff. Mr. Asche added that it is important for the Commission to get the information it needs when it needs it, and it's important to keep the process succinct and continue moving forward. [Commissioner Hoschka departs the meeting. Alternate Commissioner Jane McDonald Black assumes voting role for City of Golden Valley] Commissioner Tobelmann asked if the TAC envisions a standard template for the final report. Mr. Asche responded yes. Commissioner Welch said that he takes umbrage at the idea that reporting on the projects takes away from the projects. He stated that the Commission is a public body that levies $1,000,000 per year from the taxpayers. He said that the Commission has a giant responsibility to be accountable for those funds. There was discussion. Mr. Asche and Mr. Oliver both made remarks regarding how the reporting process can be designed so that the cities take on the communication piece without putting the burden on the Commission staff. Commissioner Welch said that he can't think of a more important function for the Commission Engineer than to be involved in the Commission's capital projects. Mr. Oliver commented that if the process is designed to spend money on the engineering twice,then that process needs to be revisited. Commissioner Tobelmann recommended that the Commission head down the path that the TAC is recommending for a year and then evaluate whether there are gaps and if there are,the Commission will address them at that time. There was further discussion. Ms. Stout noted that the TAC's discussion didn't raise the idea of lessening the role of the Commission Engineer but focused on the construction phase of CIP projects and how the Commission's knowledge of the construction phase could be increased. She said that the cities have day-to-day knowledge of the construction phase, which is why the TAC believes it is a much more efficient structure for the member cities to report on the construction rather than the Commission Engineer spending additional time to be brought up to speed on the day-to-day status of the construction. Vice Chair Mueller reminded the group that the Commission Engineer could be asked for input on a particular project at any point in the process. Chair de Lambert noted that these were steps in the right direction. iii. Use of Channel Maintenance Funds by City of Golden Valley Administrator Jester provided a summary of the City of Golden Valleys request for use of BCWMC Channel Maintenance Funds. Commissioner McDonald Black moved to approve the TAC's recommendations as listed in the June 9, 2014, TAC memo, including the two recommendations for the CIP process improvement— reporting progress and outcomes to the Commission—and the recommendation that the Commission approve Channel Maintenance Funds of up to $90,000 for the City of Golden Valley for streambank stabilization work on the Bassett Creek Main Stem. Alternate Commissioner Crough seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 7-0 [City of Minnetonka and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. 7 BCWMC June 19, 2014, Meeting Minutes G. Update on Next Generation Watershed Management Plan Development Administrator Jester reported on the recent and future meetings with the Plan Steering Committee as the committee continued to work on developing policies. Administrator Jester said that a Commission workshop hopefully will take place in August, and she believes that the plan will go out for comments in October as scheduled. H. NEMO Workshop on the Water Administrator Jester made an announcement about the July NEMO event on Lake Minnetonka and said that she would email the event details to the Commission. I. Debrief on Watershed Tour Administrator Jester summarized the May watershed tour. She reported that the Metropolitan Council has reported that the trend analysis on the WOMP station data indicates that over the last 14 years the level of phosphorus and sediment in the creek is decreasing. However, chlorides are on the rise and pose a significant water quality issue for the creek. J. Update on Watershed Map Administrator Jester showed a thumbnail example of the map and asked for comments. She said that she and Chair de Lambert will review the Commission's contract with Hedberg maps regarding printing and will discuss and decide on the number of maps that the Commission will order to be printed. 7. COMMUNICATION'S A. Administrator: i. Administrator Jester noted that she's getting updates from member city staff on the status of the Commission's CIP projects and she will include updates in the Administrator's Reports. B. Chair: No Chair Communications C. Commissioners: No Commissioner Communications D. TAC Members: No TAC Communications E. Committees: No Committee Communications F. Legal Counsel: No Legal Communications G. Engineer: No Engineer Communications 8. INFORMATION ONLY (Available at http://www.bassettcreekwmo org/Meetings/2014/2014-June/2014JuneMeetingPacket.htm) A. Grant Tracking Summary and Spreadsheet B. WCA Notices, Plymouth C. WMWA April and May Meeting Minutes 8 BCWMC June 19, 2014, Meeting Minutes 9. ADJOURNMENT Chair de Lambert adjourned the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Regular Meeting at noon. Amy Herbert, Recorder Date Secretary Date 9 city 0 gotaen , MEMORANDUM valley Public Warks Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting August 19, 2014 Agenda Item 3. E. Award Contract for 2014 Winnetka Avenue Streetscape Paver Walk Rehabilitation, Project No. 13-19 Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer RJ Kakach, EIT, Engineer Summary In 2011, the City Council authorized a contract with Stantec, Inc. to develop a Streetscape Asset Management Plan for the Winnetka Avenue Streetscape and City Hall Campus. Within the Asset Management Plan, each element within the streetscape and City Hall campus was assessed and documented. Management strategies, cost estimates, and priorities were developed for each feature based on the physical assessment. Since the development of the Asset Management Plan, staff has designed and managed a number of streetscape element improvement projects that have included rehabilitation of light poles, banner poles, architectural concrete features, railings, arbors, and City Hall campus signs. The Asset Management Plan includes a condition assessment of the Winnetka Avenue paver sidewalk. As it exists today, the sidewalk is experiencing significant settling and deterioration. The paver brick sidewalk was installed before the current American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and a majority of the pedestrian ramps and crosswalks do not meet today's standards and pose safety issues to pedestrians, particularly the disabled. In addition, the downtown area was listed as the number one priority area in the City's Accessibility, Design, Policy, and Implementation Manual for Public Rights-of-Way. Due to its deficiencies and vital association with the Golden Valley downtown area, rehabilitation of the paver sidewalk was listed in the Asset Management Plan as a primary priority project. Therefore, staff has developed plans for a comprehensive rehabilitation project of the Winnetka Avenue paver sidewalk. As part of the project, the existing pavers will be removed and replaced with concrete and all pedestrian ramps will be reconstructed to conform to current ADA standards. The existing architectural feel will be maintained by using a colored concrete border that closely resembles the existing pavers. Staff has solicited bids for the 2014 Winnetka Avenue Streetscape Paver Walk Rehabilitation Project No. 13-19. Proposals included a base bid and bid alternates for sidewalk rehabilitation in the following areas: Base Bid: Pedestrian ramp upgrades, traffic signal revisions, and pedestrian push button station installation along Winnetka Avenue between T.H. 55 and 10th Avenue Alternate 1: Replacement of paver sidewalk with concrete along Winnetka Avenue between T.H. 55 and Golden Valley Road (east and west side) Alternate 2: Replacement of paver sidewalk with concrete along the west side of Winnetka Avenue between Golden Valley Road and 10th Avenue Alternate 3: Replacement of paver sidewalk with concrete along the east side of Winnetka Avenue between Golden Valley Road and 10th Avenue Bids for the project were opened on July 24, 2014. The following Base bid, plus Alternates 1, 2, and 3 were received: Blackstone Contractors, LLC $598,907.75 NewLook Contracting, Inc. $1,249,046.50 Funding for the 2014 Winnetka Paver Walk Rehabilitation Project is including from the following sources: • 2014-2018 CIP (5-018, page 98) at $356,700 ($8,300 has been used on past projects) • 2014-2015 Adopted Biennial Budget (1452-6382, page 54) at $30,000 • Hennepin County Cooperative Agreement No. PW 56-13-12, Hennepin County grant will fund $50,000 of the sidewalk replacement • Hennepin County Cooperative Agreement No. PW 27-13-14, Hennepin County will fund 50% of the base bid, an estimated contribution of$114,100 TOTAL BUDGET: $550,800 SHORTFALL: $48,100 Staff has determined that the elimination of Alternate Bid 1 will ensure the project does not exceed the allotted budget. Based upon elimination of Alternate 1, the contract total will be $521,829.45. Attachments • Project Location Map (1 page) • Resolution Authorizing the Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for ADA Compliant Pedestrian Ramp Construction as Part of the Winnetka Avenue Streetscape Paver Rehabilitation Project (1 page) • Hennepin County Cooperative Agreement No. PW 27-13-14 for Pedestrian Ramp Funds (8 pages) • Executed Hennepin County Cooperative Agreement No. PW 56-13-12 for Sidewalk Funds (10 pages) Recommended Action 1. Motion to award a contract for the 2014 Winnetka Avenue Paver Walk Rehabilitation Project to the lowest responsible bidder, Blackstone Contractors, LLC for the Base Bid and Alternate Bids 2 and 3, in the amount of$521,829.45. 2. Motion to Approve Resolution Authorizing the Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for ADA Compliant Pedestrian Ramp Construction as Part of the Winnetka Avenue Streetscape Paver Rehabilitation Project. 3. Motion to Authorize the Hennepin County Cooperative Agreement No. PW 27-13-14 for Pedestrian Ramp Funds. /a Or E v co Faribautt St Fariba 11-100 010� z a� =:Q 4ewis Rd ca Alt 2 as a a Alt 3 asse ree Ic y0 — ~ ey { E < a� Eo _. o Gold • • Alt 1 , Menl►or� 1 Base Bid - Ped ` Ramp Upgrades H Q Alternates �1 Spirit Chur Print Date: 7/28/2014 e i _ t2014 Sources: O7^pnWI h h et ka Ave -Hennepin County Surveyors Office for IdC Property Lines(2013)&Aerial Photography(2012). Vi] e p -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. GL Streetscape 0 150 300 600 J I I Tn Feet Resolution 14-67 August 19, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR ADA COMPLIANT PEDESTRIAN RAMP CONSTRUCTION AS PART OF THE WINNETKA AVENUE STREETSCAPE PAVER REHABILITATION PROJECT WHEREAS, It is proposed to reconstruct the walks along CSAH 156 (Winnetka Avenue) from TH 55 to 10th Avenue; and WHEREAS, The City Council has authorized Municipal Consent on the project; and WHEREAS, The City Council formally requested that the Winnetka Avenue Streetscape be part of a Hennepin County Cooperative Agreement; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County has allocated funding for pedestrian ramp construction for this project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden Valley to authorize the Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for the pedestrian ramp improvements as part of the Winnetka Avenue Streetscape Rehabilitation Project. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Agreement No. PW 27-13-14 County Project No. 1236 County State Aid Highway No. 156 City of Golden Valley County of Hennepin COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT,Made and entered into this day of ' 20 by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota,hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of Golden Valley, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the"City". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS,the City is proposing to reconstruct the sidewalk along County State Aid Highway No. (CSAR) 156(Winnetka Avenue)between Trunk Highway 55 and 10 Avenue North,as shown on the plans the City Project Number 13-19 (County Project Number 1236),hereinafter referred to as the "Project"; and WHEREAS,included in the Project is the construction of pedestrian ramps,pedestrian push button stations,paver walk removal, concrete walk replacement, and curb and gutter removal and replacement; and WHEREAS,the Project will bring into conformance with the requirements of the American with Disabilities Act(ADA)the pedestrian ramps along CSAR 156; and WHEREAS,the above described Project lies within the corporate limits of the City; and WHEREAS,the City or its agents shall be responsible to develop the plans and specifications for the Project; and WHEREAS,the City has requested that the County approve said plans and specifications,and the County has indicated its willingness to approve said plans and specifications; and WHEREAS,the City or its agents shall be responsible for administering construction of the Project and has adequate personnel available to perform the construction staking,testing, inspection and development of as-built plans required on the Project; and - 1 - yj . Agreement No. PW 27-13-14 CSAR 156, C.P. 1236 WHEREAS,the County will participate in its share of the costs to construct the pedestrian ramps and pedestrian push button stations along CSAR 156 included in the Project as set forth herein; and WHEREAS,it is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 162.17, Subdivision 1 and Section 471.59. NOW THEREFORE,IT IS HEREBY AGREED: I The City or its agents shall prepare the necessary plans, specifications,and proposal; obtain approval of said plans and specifications from the County; advertise for bids for the work and construction; receive and open bids pursuant to said advertisement; enter into a contract with the successful bidder at the unit prices specified in the bid of such bidder; administer the contract; and, perform the required engineering and inspection; all in accordance with said plans and specifications. The contract shall include the plans and specifications prepared by the City or its agents and approved by the County. Said plans and specifications shall conform to Minnesota Department of Transportation(Mn/DOT)Design Standards applicable to County State Aid Highways and to the requirements of the American with Disabilities Act(ADA). II Prior to beginning construction,the City shall furnish the County with two(2)complete sets of County approved plans and specifications for said Project. Upon completion of the Project,the City or its agents shall furnish the County with a complete set of as-built plans certified as to their accuracy by the City's Project Engineer. Said as-designed plans, specifications and as-built plans for the Project shall be furnished by the City at no cost to the County. III The City or its agents shall administer the construction contract and perform all required engineering, inspection and testing. All construction and materials sampling and testing for the Project shall be accomplished in accordance with all applicable standards and requirements of the Minnesota Department of Transportation's(Mn/DOT) State Aid for Local Transportation Division in effect at the time of Contract award. The City shall also obtain, and comply with, any and all permits and approvals required from other governmental or regulatory agencies to accomplish the Project. Said permits and approvals shall be obtained prior to the start of any construction and made available to the County upon request. It is -2 - \N, _ Agreement No. PW 27-13-14 CSAR 156, C.P. 1236 understood that the City or its contractor will obtain a permit from the County for the performance of the work on CSAH 156 as provided herein. Said permit will granted at no cost to the City or its contractor. It is understood and agreed by the City that construction of the Project shall be completed to the satisfaction of the County within two years of the date this agreement has been signed by the parties hereto. IV The construction of this Project shall be under the supervision and direction of the City Engineer or designated representative. All work for the Project shall be completed in compliance with the County approved plans and specifications. The County Engineer and representative staff shall have the right, as the work progresses,to enter upon the premises to make any inspections deemed necessary and shall cooperate with the City Engineer and staff at their request to the extent necessary. The County agrees that the City may make changes in the above referenced approved plans or in the character of said contract construction which are reasonably necessary to cause said construction to be in all things performed and completed in a satisfactory manner. It is further agreed by the County that the City may enter into any change orders or supplemental agreements with the City's contractor for the performance of any additional construction or construction occasioned by any necessary, advantageous or desirable changes in plans,within the original scope of the Project. The City shall obtain the approval of the County Engineer or designated representative on said change orders or supplemental agreements. The County will respond to the City's request for approvals within seven(7) calendar days. V The City or its agents shall acquire all additional right of way,permits and/or easements required for the construction of said Project,at no cost to the County. Upon completion of this Project, all permanent right of way acquired for CSAH 156 as provided herein shall be conveyed to the County by the City with no consideration required. VI The County will participate in the costs to construct the pedestrian ramps and pedestrian push button stations included in the Project. The estimated costs to construct the pedestrian ramps and pedestrian push button stations are$253,000.00. The County's cost participation share in the construction costs for the pedestrian ramps and pedestrian push button stations included in the Project shall be fifty(50)percent. For informational purposes only,the estimated County cost share for the Project is $126,500.00. - 3 - V�-- Agreement No. PW 27-13-14 CSAH 156, C.P. 1236 After an award by the City to the successful bidder on the Project,the City shall invoice the County for ninety five(95)percent of the County's participating share of the construction costs for the Project. The remainder of the County's share of the construction costs will be due the City upon the completion of the Project, and upon review and approval of the Project by the County Engineer or designated representative. Upon approval of the Project by the County Engineer or designated representative the City shall submit its final invoice to the County. The County will within forty five(45)days of said invoices,deposit with the City funds totaling the amount of the invoice. It is understood by the City that the County intends to use County State Aid funds to reimburse the City for the County's share of the Project costs. Accordingly, it is understood and agreed that the County reserves the right not to make payment to the City for its share of the costs if any action or inaction of the City causes MnDOT's State Aid Engineer to determine that the County's costs are not eligible for State Aid funding. VIII It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that upon completion of the Project,the sidewalk and pedestrian ramps included in the Project shall be maintained by the City and all maintenance,restoration or repair required thereafter shall be performed by the City at no expense to the County. IX All records kept by the City and the County with respect to the Project shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party hereto. X Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof,to the extent authorized by the law,and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof, The County's and the City's liability is governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,Chapter 466. The County and the City each warrant that they are able to comply with the aforementioned indemnity requirements through an insurance or self-insurance program. X[ The City agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County,its officials, officers,agents, volunteers and employees,from any liabilities,claims,causes of action,judgments, damages, losses, costs or expenses, including,reasonable attorneys' fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the City, its contractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for -4 - Agreement No. PW 27-13-14 CSAH 156, C.P. 1236 whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable for related to the ownership,maintenance, existence, restoration,repair or replacement of the improvements constructed as part of the Project. The City's liability shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,Chapter 466 or other applicable law. The County agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officials,officers, agents, volunteers,and employees from any liability,claims, causes of action,judgments, damages, losses,costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees,resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the County,its contractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable related to the ownership,maintenance, existence,restoration,repair or replacement of the improvements constructed as part of the Project. The County's liability shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or other applicable law. X1I The City also agrees that any contract let by the City or its agents for the performance of the work on County State Aid Highway No. 156 as provided herein shall include clauses that will: 1) Require the Contractor to defend, indemnify, and hold the County, its officials,officers, agents and employees harmless from any liability,causes of action,judgments, damages, losses, costs or expenses including,without limitation,reasonable attorneys' fees,arising out of or by reason of the acts and/or omissions of the said Contractor, Its officers, employees,agents or subcontractors; 2)Require the Contractor to be an independent contractor for the purposes of completing the work provided for in this Agreement; and 3)Require the Contractor to provide and maintain insurance in accordance with the following: 1. Commercial General Liability on an occurrence basis with Contractual Liability and Explosion, Collapse and Underground Property Damage(XCU)Liability coverages: Limits General Aggregate $2,000,000 Products--Completed Operations Aggregate $2,000,000 Personal and Advertising Injury $1,500,000 Each Occurrence -Combined Bodily Injury and Property Damage $1,500,000 Hennepin County shall be named as an additional insured for the Commercial General Liability coverage with respect to operations covered under this Agreement. 2, Automobile Liability: Combined Single limit each occurrence coverage or the equivalent covering owned, non-owned, and hired - 5 - � Agreement No. PW 27-13-14 CSAR 156,C.P. 1236 automobiles: $1,000,000 3. Workers'Compensation and Employer's Liability: A. Workers' Compensation Statutory If the Contractor is based outside the State of Minnesota, coverages must apply to Minnesota laws. B. Employer's Liability-Bodily injury by: Accident-Each Accident $500,000 Disease -Policy Limit $500,000 Disease -Each Employee $500,000 4. Professional Liability—Per Claim $1,500,000 Aggregate $2,000,000 It understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the above listed Professional Liability insurance will not be required in any construction contract let by City if the City's Contractor is not required to perform design engineering as part of said construction contract. An umbrella or excess policy over primary liability coverages is an acceptable method to provide the required insurance limits. The above subparagraphs establish minimum insurance requirements. It is the sole responsibility of the City's Contractor to determine the need for and to procure additional insurance which may be needed in connection with said Project. All insurance policies shall be open to inspection by the County and copies of policies shall be submitted to the County upon written request. XIII It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the County,and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Minnesota Economic Security Law or the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. -6- Agreement No. PW 27-13-14 CSAH 156, C.P. 1236 Also, any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the City,and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Minnesota Economic Security Law or the Workers'Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. XIV In order to coordinate the services of the County with the activities of the City so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the Hennepin County Engineer or designated representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the County and serve as liaison between the County and the City. In order to coordinate the services of the City with the activities of the County so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement,the City Engineer or designated representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the City and serve as liaison between the City and the County. XV It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. Any alterations, variations,modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. XV1 The whereas clauses are incorporated herein and are hereby made a part of this Agreement. XVII The provisions of Minnesota Statutes 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the Affirmative Action Policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. - 7 - Ula... Agreement No. PW 27-13-14 CSAll 156, C.P. 1236 IN TESTIMONY V4UREOF,the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY (Seal) By: Mayor Date: And: Manager Date: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST: By: By: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board Chair of its County Board Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: And: County Administrator By: Date: Assi tan County Attorney And: Date: V7L( Assistant County Administrator, Public Works Date: APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By: By: Assistant County Attorney Director, Transportation Department and County Highway Engineer Date: Date: - 8- 'W' - Agreement No.PW 56-13-12 County Project No.IM County State Aid Highway No.156 City of Golden Valley County of Hennepin COOPERATIVE AGREEIV,CEINT AGKI� ,Made and e�tud into this . ?C� I± day of t� �_.____,+2013 try and bcturotm the County of Hsnngdn,a body politic and corporate underiie laws of the State of Minnesota,herch after fid,to as the TxmW,ad the City of Golden VaUM a body politic and corporate under the lacus of the State of Minnesota, heteinefter refined to as the WrMESSETH.. WHEREM9 tfie City is peposing to recan0ruct the ddewek along of County State Aid Highway No.(CSAM 156(Winneft Avam)between,Trunk Highway 55 and le Avenue, as shown on the plass the City Project Number (County Project Number 1236),herchafter teflarted to as the`Project';and WSCREAS,the above described Project lies within the oagxnte limits of the City-,and W UMWAS,the City or its agents shall be re: 1e to develop the plass and specf ficatiors for the Project;and WF[EBl(t'AS,the City hes requested that the County approve said plans and speraficador►s,and the County bas indicted its willingness to aMove said plans andspets7 and WHEREAS,the City or its agents shall be respansible for adminu suing conslructios of*c Project and has adequate personnel available to perform the construction staking,testing,inspect= and development of as-built plans required on the Pmjech and WHEREAS,*e County will participate in its SbW[e of the costa to constrtut the sidewalk along CSAH 156 as sot forth herein,and WHEREAS,it is contemplated that said work be carried out by Ow parties!Hereto under the provisions of Minnesota Stntut M Section 162.17,Subdivision 1 and Section 471.59. NOW THEREFORE,IT IS HEREBY AGREED: I - \4 . Agreement No.PW 56-13-12 CSAR 156,C.P.1236 I The City or its agents shall prepare the necessary per,specifications,and proposal;obtain approval of said plans and speciflead=from the Count3,advertise for bids for the work and construction;receive and open bids pursuant to said advertisement;enter into a contract with the successful bidder at the unit prices specified in the bid of such bidder,administer the contract;and, perform the required engineering and inspection;all in accordance with said plans and specifications. The contract shall include the plans and specifications prepared by the City or its agents and approved by the County. Said plana and specifications shall confmax to Minnesota Department of Transportation.(MnMOT)Design Standards applicable to County State Aid M&ways and to the requirements of the American with Disabilities Act(ADA.). II Prior to beginning coustnicticm,the City shall furnish the County with two(2)complete sets of County approved plans and speeif cations for said Prajeck Upon completion of the Project,the City or its agents shall furnish the County with a complete set of as-built plans certified as to dm*accuracy by the City's Project Engi =. Said a"ekgned plans,specifications and w-built plans for that Project shall be furnished by the City at no cost to the County. in The City or its agents shall adnninister the construction contract and perform all required engineetimg,inspection and testing. All construction and materials sampling and testing for the Project shall be accomplished in accordance with all applicable standar and requirements of the Minnesota Deputment of Transportation's(Mu/DOT)State Aid for horst Transportation Division in effect at the time of Contract award. The City Shall also obtain,and comply with,any and all permits and approvals requavd from other governmental or regulatory agencies td accomplish the Project. Said pan its and approvals shall be obtained,prior to tine start of any conshuctioa and made available to the County upon request. It is undwtood and agreed by the City that constriction of the Project shall be complexed,to the satidection of the County within three years of the date this agreement has been signed by the parties hereto. IV The construction of this Project shall be under the m4 vision and direction of the City Emgbuw or designated representative. All work for the Project shall be completed in compliance with the County approved plans and specifications. The County Engineer and representative staff shall have the -2- Agreement No.PW 56-13-12 CSAH 156,C.P. 1236 right,as the work progresses,to enter upon the premises to make any inspections deemed necessary and shall cooperate with the City Engiam and staff at heir request to the extent necessary. The County agrees.that the City may make changes is the above rued approved plans or in the chanswtor of said contract construction,which are reasonably necessary to cause said construction to be in all things performed and completed in a sahshet'ory manner. It is furtba agreed by d w County that the City may eater into any change ordm or supplemental agreements with the City's contractor for tin perfrnmuuae of any additional construction or construction owned by any necessary, advantageous or desirable changes in plans,within the original scope ofthe Project. The City shall obtain the approval of the Ccxmty Brigincer or designated mutative on said change orders or supp2-neural agreements. The County will respond to the City's request for approvals within seven(7) calendar days. V The City or its agents shall acqu ve all additional right of way,permits and/or easements required for the construction of said Project,at no cast to due County. Upon completion of this Project,all perxrd matt right of way acquired for CSAR 156 as provided herein shall be conveyed to the County by the City with no consideration required. VI The County will participate in the costs to construct the Project. The County's cost participation share in the construction costs for the sidewalk shall be twenty five(25)percent. The City understands and agrees that the County's total cost participation for the Project shall not eyed Frfly Thousand Dollars and No Cents($50,000.00)without on arnendment to this Agreement. AfW r an award by the City to the succesdW bidder on the Project,the City shall invoice the County for ninety five(95)pmt of the County's par iicipadag share of the construction costs for the Project, the maunder of the County's share of the co coon cats will be due the City upon the completion of the Project,.and upon review and approval of the Project bythe County Hngincer or designated repr+escutative. Upon approval ofthe Project by the County Engineer or designated representadve the City shall submit its final invoice to the County. The County will withk forty five(45)clays of said invokes,deposit with the City funds totaling the amount of the invoice. 3_ �. Agreement No.PW 56-13-12 CSAH 156,C.P. 1236 VIII it is u nderstoW and agreed by the parties hereto that upon completion of the Project,the sidewalk included in the Project shalll be maintained by the City and all maintenance,,restoration or repair required thereafter shall be performed by the City at too expense to the County. 1X All records kept by the City and the County with respect,to the Project shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each patty hereto. x Ea&party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof,to the extent authorized by the law,and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. The County's and the City's liability is governed by the provisions ofMinne lata Statutes,Chapter 466. The County and the City each warrant ffiat they are able to fly with the aforementioned indemnity requirements through an insurance or self-insurance program. XI The;City agrees to defend,irarurify and hold harmless the County,its officials,officers,ageou, volunteers and employees,from any liabilities,claims,causes of action,judgments,damages,losses, costs or expenses,including,reasonable attorneys'fees,resulting directly or indirectly fmm say act or omission of the City,its contractors,anyone&mdy or indirectly employed by them,and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable for related to the ownership,maintenance,existence, restoration,repair or replacement of the imps�ovements construcW as part of the Project. The City's liability shall be governed by the provisions of Wnmesota Statutes„Cheer 466 or other applicable law. The County agrees to defend,indemnify,and hold harmless the City,its officials,officers, agents,volunteers,and employees from any liability,claims,causes of action,judgmenta,damages, losses,costs,or expenses,including reasonable attorneys'fees,resulting&to-tly or indireetly from any act or omission of the County,its contractors,anyone directly or indirectly employed by them,and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable related to the ownership,maintxnan+ce:, existence,msWradon,repair or replatmmt of the imprm►ements constructed as part of the Project. The Couerfiy's liability shall be govervied by the provisions of Minnesota,Statutes,Chapter 466 or ocher applicable law. -4- W`-- Agreement No.PW 56-13-12 CSAR 156,C.P. 1236 The City also agrees that any contract let by the City or its agents for the pa* mance of the work on County State Aid Idighway No. 156 as provided herein shall include clauses that will: 1) Require the Contractor to de&nd,indemnify,and hold the Comity,its officals,officers,agents and employees harmless fiomn any liability,causes of action,judgmemts,darns ,losses,costs or expensw including,without limitation,reasonable attorneys'fees,arising out of or by reason of the acts and/or omissions of the said Contactor,its officers,employees,agents or subcontractors,2)Require dw Contractor to be an independent comirmtor for the pucposm of completing the work provided for in this Agreement;and 3)Require the Contractor to provide and maintain insurance in accordance with the following: 1. Commercial Crenmal.Liability on an owwrence basis with Contractual Liability and Explosion,Collapse and Underground Property Damage{XM Liability coverages: Lim Its General Aggregate $2,000,000 Products--Completed Operations Aggregate $2,000,000 Personal and Advertising Injury $1,500,000 Each Occurrence,-Combined Bodily Injury and Property Damage $1,500,000 Hennepin County shall be s>In=W as an additional insured for the Commercial General Liability coverage witty respect to operations covered under this Agreement 2. Automobile liability- Combined Single limit each occurrence coverage oT thAi equivalent covering o*wd,non-own4 and hired automobiles: , $1,000,000 3. Worksers'Compensation and Employer's Liability: A.. Workers'Compensation Statutory If the Contractor is based outside the State of Minnesota, coverages must apply to Miinusota lawns. B. Employer's Liability-Bodily injury b3" Accident-Each Accident $500,000 Disease-Policy Limit $500,000 Disease-Each Employee $500,000 _5_ Agreement No.PW 56-13-12 CSAR 156,C.P. 1236 An umbrella or excess policy over primary liability coverages is an acceptable m dM to provide the required insmwce limits. The above snbp::ua rapbs establish minimum insurance requirements. It is the sole responsibility of the City's Contractor to determine the need for and to procuro additional insurance which may be needed in connection with said Project. All insurance policies shall be open to inspection by the County and copies of policies shall be submitted to the County upon written request. XIII It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other parsons engaged by the City is the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the County,and that any sad all claims that may or might arise under the Minnesota Economic Security Law or the Workers'Cornpeasetion Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. Also,any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County in the peaformaaoe of any work ar services required or provided for herein to be pmfo rmed by the County shall not be considered employees of the City,and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Minnesota Economic Security Law or the Workers'Compensation Act of the State of bflmu wta on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be tendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. XIV In order to coordinate the services of the County with the activities of the City so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement,the Hennepin County Engineer or designated representative shall manage this Agri on behalf of the County and serve as liaison between the County and the City. -6 - y,,l Amt No.PW 56-13-12. CSAH 156,C.P. 1236 In order to coordinate the services of the City with the activities of the CouaIy SO as to accomplish the purposes oflhis Agreement,the City Engineer or designated representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the City and serve as liaison between the City and the Comity. XV It is uunclerstt od and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between.the parties relating to the subject natter hereof. All items rid to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and arc decand to be part of this Agreema t. Any alterations,variations,modifications,or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an smeadru to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. XVI The whereas clauses are incorporated herein and are hereby made a part of this Agreement. xVH The provisions of Hnnesota.Statutes 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil dghts and discrimination and the Affirmative Action Policy statement of HanneVm County shall be considered a part of this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. Ok space kft kdMd=e4 blwik) -7- `dv�-- Agreement No.PSV 56-13-12 CSAR 156,C.P. 1236 LN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,the•pafiies hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duty mrffimmd of Qers as of the day and year first above wrium CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By4j� Date: �' / J913 And; nl 44 3 COUNTY OF BENNF.P ATTEST: �: Br Jerk of the CourBoward chair o rts-County BOB 'k Date: Le -44/3- tom: t APPROVED AS TO FORM: And: --�ez Date- Am ate- A� { / And: Date: �/ �� Assisduit AdminiSbutor,Public Wcdm Date: `/l 2 APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: M14ILrNDED FOR APPROVAL Br. 2&��k -) By- :;r —- , ,a-�e� Aftomey Director,Transportation Depatnraat and County Engineer Date: ?�� Date: CERTIFICATE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) 1, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that: 1, As such officer, i have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached and foregoing extract was transcribed. 2. 1 have carefully compared said extract with said original record. 3. 1 find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date indicated in said extract, including any resolution or ordinance adopted at such meeting, insofar as they relate to: RESOLUTION 13-25 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS ON WINNETKA AVENUE 4. Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law: April 16, 2013 WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the seal of said City, this 17th day of April, 2013. J y Nally (seal) Resolution 13-25 April 16, 2013 Member Pentel introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS ON WINNETKA AVENUE WHEREAS, Hennepin County has allocated funding for sidewalk improvements; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley has programmed eligible sidewalk and other pedestrians improvements along Winnetka Avenue(CSAR 156)for 2013; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County is requiring that the City of Golden Valley enter into a Cooperative Agreement to receive grant funding for the improvements; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden Valley to authorize the Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for Sidewalk Improvements on Winnetka Avenue. Shepard M. Harris, M ATTEST: A Susan M. Vimig, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Schmidgall and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof. Clausen, Harris, Pentel, Scanlon and Schmidgall; and the following voted against the same: none,whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. From: Brian Cook Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 2:27 PM To: Knauss, Chantell Subject: HRC Hi Chantell, I'm going to be moving out of the city in the near future, so I think it would be best if I stepped down from my role on the Human Rights Commission. Thank you for all of your work over the past year. - Brian From: Jason Boudreau-Landis] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 4:55 PM To: Harris, Shep Cc: John Kluchka; Wittman, Lisa Subject: Planning Commission Resignation Good afternoon Mayor Harris, I am writing to you this afternoon to resign my position on the Planning Commission. My family and I have sold our home in Golden Valley and we will be moving to Chanhassen at the end of this week. We have enjoyed calling Golden Valley home for the last 10 years and we will miss the wonderful people and places that make GV such a great place to live. I truly appreciate the opportunities that I have been given to serve GV on the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals. I have learned a lot and met many great people and I hope to continue my volunteer service in my new community. Sincerely, Jason Boudreau-Landis city of ll -, ', golde' nq IV MEMORANDUM Planning g valley Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting August 19, 2014 Agenda Item 3. G. Approval of Plat-Tennant Companies PUD No. 114 and Authorization to Sign PUD Permit and PUD Development Agreement - Tennant Company PUD No. 114 Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary At the July 15, 2014, City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing on the Final PUD Plan for Tennant Company. After the hearing, the Council approved the Final Plan. The Final Plat, PUD Permit and PUD Development Agreement have been prepared for consideration. City staff has reviewed the documents and finds them to be consistent with the approved Final PUD Plan and the requirements of City Code. Attachments • PUD Permit-Tennant Company PUD No. 114 (3 pages) • PUD Development Agreement-Tennant Company PUD No. 114 (6 pages) • Resolution for Approval of Plat-Tennant Companies PUD No. 114 (4 pages) • Final Plat -Tennant Companies PUD No. 114 (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution for Approval of Plat -Tennant Companies PUD No. 114. Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the PUD Permit and Development Agreement for Tennant Company PUD No. 114. Tennant Company - P.U.D. No. 114 City Council Approval: July 15, 2014 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Project Name: Tennant Company P.U.D. No. 114 Location: 701 Lilac Drive North, Golden Valley, Minnesota Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Tennant Companies P.U.D. No. 114 Applicant: Tennant Company Address: 701 Lilac Drive North, P.O. Box 1452, Minneapolis, MN 55440 Owner: Tennant Company Address: 701 Lilac Drive North, P.O. Box 1452, Minneapolis, MN 55440 Zoning District: Industrial, Light Industrial, Business and Professional Offices, and Single Family Residential Permitted Uses: The PUD Permit allows for the consolidation of multiple properties into one parcel to enable inter-campus connections. Components: A. Land Use 1. The plans prepared by LHB, dated April 25, 2014, and revised July 7, 2014, submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. Prior to issuance of any building permits for construction within PUD No. 114, the applicant shall submit a final plat to the City for approval. B. Construction 1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memos from the Fire Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated May 19, 2014, and July 9, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 2. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). Tennant Company P.U.D. No. 114 Page 2 3. The implementation of the fire access restriping shall be completed by November 1, 2014. 4. The three Priority 1 items in the Fire Protection Plan shall be implemented by November 1, 2014. 5. The three Priority 2 items in the Fire Protection Plan shall be implemented by November 1, 2015. A financial guarantee shall be submitted as a guarantee the work will be completed on time. 6. Bicycle racks shall be added to the site and shall be secured to either the ground or a building. 7. The Applicant shall evaluate options to access the Luce Line Regional Trail, to increase usage of mass transit, and reduce automobile traffic. C. Grading, Utilities, Access and Other Engineering Issues 1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Public Works Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated May 23, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The Applicant shall construct surface filtration (rain gardens) as part of the walkway construction authorized under the Final PUD Plan. 3. The Applicant shall install a stormwater filtration chamber within three years of the of the execution date of the Final PUD Plan (July 15, 2014). A financial guarantee shall be submitted as a guarantee the work will be completed on time. 4. The sanitary service for the buildings located at 5738 and 5808 Olson Memorial Highway shall be brought into compliance by November 1, 2014, or the Applicant must enter into an 1/1 Deposit Agreement for the repairs prior to approval of the PUD Permit and Development Agreement. D. Subdivision 1. Proof of filing of the plat shall take the form of a certified copy of the fully recorded plat, or a receipt from the County specifically noting that the applicant has paid for such a copy to be sent to the City when it becomes available. 2. The name of the final plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 114" in its title. Tennant Company P.U.D. No. 114 Page 3 It is hereby understood and agreed that this PUD Permit is a part of the City Council approval granted on July 15, 2014. Any changes to this PUD Permit shall require an amendment. Tennant Company Witness: By: Title: Date: CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Witness: By: Shepard M. Harris, Mayor Date: Witness: By: Thomas D. Burt, City Manager Date: Warning: This permit is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Tennant Companies P.U.D. #114 AGREEMENT dated this 15th day of July, 2014, by and between the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City'), and Tennant Company (the "Developer"). 1. Request for Development Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a Planned Unit Development (PUD 114) known as Tennant Companies P.U.D. No. 114, which land is legally described on Attachment One, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof(hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). 2. Conditions of Development Approval. The City has approved the Planned Unit Development on the following conditions: a. Conformance to, and inclusion of, all provisions of the Final Plans for Tennant Company dated April 25, 2014, and revised July 7, 2014, prepared by LHB, and on file with the City (hereinafter referred to as the "Final Plans" ). The City and the Developer agree that any construction referred to in the Final Plans as "future plans" or "future development" are not required to be completed under this Agreement and further agree that an amendment to this Development Agreement is required prior to initiation of such future plans or future development. b. Marketable title in the Developer, if the City Attorney determines a title review is necessary before Final Plat approval. c. The sanitary services for the buildings located at 701 Lilac Drive, and 5738 and 5808 Olson Memorial Highway must be brought into compliance by November 1, 2014. The Applicant must enter into an 1/1 Deposit Agreement for the repairs prior to consideration and approval of the PUD Permit. d. The Developer must enter into a Maintenance Agreement for the stormwater quality treatment facilities and the utilities being constructed as part of the PUD by November 1, 2015. This maintenance agreement will be subject to modification as future phases of the PUD are constructed. e. The Developer must obtain Stormwater Management, Right-of-Way Management, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, and Water, and any other permits that may be required for development of this site. f. The Developer shall construct surface filtration (rain gardens) as part of the campus walkways phased construction authorized under the Final PUD Plan. g. The Developer shall implement the three Priority 1 items in the Fire Protection Plan by November 1, 2014. i. North Canopy sprinkler coverage ii. South fire department access signing and striping iii. Replace existing private fire hydrants. The Applicant must submit a financial security as a guarantee the work will be completed within this timeframe, as discussed later in this Agreement. h. The Developer shall implement the three Priority 2 items in the Fire Protection Plan by November 1, 2015. The Applicant must submit a financial security as a guarantee the work will be completed within this timeframe, as discussed later in this Agreement. i. Northeast fire hydrant and fire department access construction ii. Northwest fire hydrant construction iii. Loop Watermain construction i. The Developer shall install a stormwater filtration chamber (Filtration Area 1 on the approved plans) within three years of the execution date of the Final PUD Plan (July 15, 2014). The Applicant must submit a financial security as a guarantee the work will be completed within this timeframe, as discussed later in this Agreement. j. The Developer shall provide a detailed long-range access plan addressing the possible consolidation and reduction of driveway entrances, as discussed in the Engineering review dated May 23, 2014. k. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 114" in its title. I. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 3. Effect of Development Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement. 4. Development Plans.The Subject Property shall be developed in accordance with the approved plans, original copies of which are on file with the City Engineering Department. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the written terms shall control. 5. Installation by Developer. The Developer shall install or cause to be installed and pay for the following, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer Improvements." a. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments. b. Surveying and staking of work required to be performed by the Developer. c. Installation of gas, electric, telephone, and cable lines prior to building occupancy. d. Installation of sanitary sewer, water mains, and storm sewer, including services to buildings as shown on the approved plans on file at the Engineering Department. e. Installation of storm water quality treatment facilities as shown on the approved plans on file at the Engineering Department. f. Installation of commercial driveway aprons. g. Other items as necessary to complete the development as stipulated herein or in accordance with Engineering comments on Final PUD Plan dated May 23, 2014. h. The grading, erosion control and landscaping, all of which shall all be made in accordance with City approved plans. 6. Permit. The Developer and Owner hereby grant the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a permit to enter the Subject Property to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the site development including construction. 7. Property Fees, Charges and Securities. Developer is responsible for the following securities and shall submit a Stand-by Irrevocable Letter of Credit in a form acceptable to the City Attorney or Cash Deposit, for the following: a. Fire Protection Plan (Priority 1 items) i. 125% of the estimated construction costs (calculated at $36,000 x 125% _ $45,000) as a guarantee that the existing private fire hydrants will be replaced as required in the Fire Protection Plan by November 1, 2014. b. Fire Protection Plan (Priority 2 items) i. 125% of the estimated construction costs (calculated at$120,000 x 125% _ $150,000) as a guarantee that the northeast fire hydrant and fire department access road are constructed as required in the Fire Protection Plan by November 1, 2015. ii. 125% of the estimated construction costs (calculated at $50,000 x 125% _ $62,500) as a guarantee that the northwest fire hydrant is constructed as required in the Fire Protection Plan by November 1, 2015. iii. 125% of the estimated construction costs (calculated at $113,000 x 125% _ $141,250) as a guarantee that the Loop Watermain improvements are constructed as required in the Fire Protection Plan by November 1, 2015. c. Stormwater improvements i. 125%of the estimated construction costs (calculated at $165,000 x 125% _ $206,250) as a guarantee that the stormwater filtration chamber (Filtration Area 1 on the approved plans) will be constructed within three years of the execution date of the Final PUD Plan as required (constructed by July 15, 2017). d. A landscape plan was submitted as part of the PUD. Since construction will be phased, 125% of the estimated cost to furnish and install all materials identified in the Landscape Plan will be due, but not until the time of new construction or expansion of the Developer's corporate campus. 8. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder,the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, levy the cost in whole or in part as a special assessment against the Subject Property. The Developer and Owner, waives its rights to notice of hearing and hearing on such assessments and the right to appeal such assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081. 9. Miscellaneous. a. The Developer represents to the City that the development of the Subject Property complies with all city, county, metropolitan, state and federal laws and regulations including, but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances and environmental regulations. b. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. c. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. d. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. e. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. f. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. The Developer and Owner agree to provide the execution of amendments to this Agreement, as are necessary to effect the recording hereof. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Contract, at the Developer's request, the City will execute and deliver to the Developer or owner a release. g. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to the City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. h. Neither Developer nor Owner may assign this Agreement without the written permission of the City. 10. Notices. Required notices to the Developer and Owner shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the following addresses: Tennant Company 701 Lilac Drive North P.O. Box 1452 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: City Manager City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By: Shepard M. Harris, Mayor By: Thomas D. Burt, City Manager DEVELOPER By: Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2014, by Shepard M. Harris, Mayor, and Thomas D. Burt, City Manager, of the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2014, by Tennant Company, on behalf of the said Developer. Notary Public ATTACHMENT 1 Lot 1, Block 1, Tennant Companies P.U.D. No. 114, Hennepin County, Minnesota Resolution 14-68 August 19, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT—TENNANT COMPANIES PUD 114 WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Golden Valley, pursuant to due notice, has heretofore conducted a public hearing on the proposed plat to be known as Tennant Companies P.U.D. 114 covering the following described tracts of land: Parcel 1: That part of Government Lot 2, Section 33, Township 118, Range 21, lying North of a line described as beginning at a point on the West line of said Government Lot 2 distant 674.6 feet North along said West line and its extension from the center line of State Trunk Highway No. 55, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence East parallel to said center line 143 feet, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence South parallel to said West line 16.2 feet to the Northwest corner of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 11, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence East parallel to said center line 136.28 feet to the Northeast corner of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 11, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence East parallel to said center line 60 feet to the Northeast corner of Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 11, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence Easterly 278.5 feet to a point 658.54 feet North of said center line along a line running parallel to said West line, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 9001; thence Easterly 139 feet to a point 658.17 feet North of said center line along a line running parallel to said West line, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Cast No. 9001; thence North parallel to said West line 13.02 feet to a point 671.19 feet North of said center line along a line running parallel to said West line, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence Easterly 105 feet to a point 670.72 feet North of said center line along a line running parallel to said West line, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence South parallel to said West line 12.8 feet to a point 657.92 feet North of said center line along a line running parallel to said West line, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence Easterly 174 feet to a point 657.79 feet North of said center line along a line running parallel to said West line, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence North parallel to said West line 24.21 feet to a point 682 feet North of said center line along a line running parallel to said West line, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence East along a line which intersects that East line of said Government Lot 2 distant 682 feet North along said East line and its extension from the center line of State Trunk Highway No. 55 to a point 33 feet West along said line from the said East line, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence continuing East along said line 33 feet to the East line of said Government Lot 2 and lying South of a line described as beginning at a point on the West line of said Government Lot 2 distant 272.35 feet South of the Northwest corner thereof, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence East, along a line which intersects the East line of said Government Lot 2 at a point 272.35 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof, to a point 1080 feet West of said East line, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence Southeasterly to a point on the East line of said Government Lot 2 distant 422.35 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark placed at the intersection of said last descried line with a line drawn parallel to ant 33 feet West, measured at right angles from said East line, Except that part of the above-described land shown as Parcel 209B on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-104. Parcel 2: The North 100 feet of the following described premises: That part of Government Lots 2 and 3, Section 33, Township 118, Range 21 described as beginning at the intersection of the West line of said Government Lot 3 with the centerline of State Trunk Highway No. 55; thence North along the West line of said Government Lots 3 and 2 a distance of 674.6 feet, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026: thence East parallel to said centerline 143 feet, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026: thence South parallel to the West line of said Government Lot 2, a distance of 16.2 feet to the Northwest corner of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 11 which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; thence continuing South parallel to the West line of said Government Lots 2 and 3 to the said center line; thence West along said center line 143 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel 3: That part of Government Lots 2 and 3 Section 33, Township 118, Range 21, described as beginning at the intersection of the West line of said Government Lot 3, with the centerline of State Trunk Highway No. 55; thence North along the West Line of said Government Lots 3 and 2 a distance of 674.6 feet, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; thence East parallel to said center line 143 feet, which pint is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; thence South parallel to the West Line of said Government Lot 2, a distance of 16.2 feet to the Northwest corner of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 11, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; thence continuing South parallel to the West Line of said Government Lots 2 and 3 to the said center line; thence West along said center line 143 feet to the point of beginning except the North 100 feet thereof, according to the Government Survey thereof. Parcel 4: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 11, Hennepin County, Minnesota Parcel 5: Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 11, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 6: Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 11, County of Hennepin. Parcel 7: That part of Government Lots Two (2) and Three (3), Section Thirty-three (33), Township One Hundred Eighteen (118), Range Twenty-one (21). Described as follows: Commencing at a point in the centerline of County Road 6th Avenue North, 339.28 feet East from the West line of Government Lot 3, thence East along the centerline of said road, 139.25 feet; thence North parallel with the West line of Government Lots 2 and 3 a distance of 658.61 feet; thence West 139.25 feet; thence South to beginning. Parcel 8: The North 300 feet of the following described property, to-wit: That part of Government Lots 2 and 3, Section 33, Township 118, Range 21, described as beginning at a point in the center line of 6th Avenue North, 617.78 feet East along said line from the West line of said Government Lot 3, thence East along said center line a distance of 139 feet, thence North along a line parallel with the West line of said Government Lots 2 and 3, a distance of 165.02 feet to the point of intersection of said line with a Northerly line of State Highway No. 55 which point is marked by a judicial landmark and is the actual point of beginning of the land about to be described; thence continuing North along said parallel line a distance of 493.15 feet to a point marked by judicial landmark, thence West a distance of 139 feet to a point in the line parallel to the West line of said Lots 2 and 3 which point is marked by a judicial landmark and is located 658.54 feet North along said line from the center line of said 6th Avenue North, thence South along said parallel line a distance of 493.54 feet to the point of intersection with said parallel line with the North line of said State Highway, which point is marked by a judicial landmark, thence East along the North line of said highway 139 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning. Parcel 9: That part of Government Lots 2 and 3, Section 33, Township 118, Range 21, described as beginning at a point in the center line of 6th Avenue North, 617.78 feet East along said line from the West line of said Government Lot 3, thence East along said center line a distance of 139 feet, thence North along a line parallel with the West line of said Government Lots 2 and 3, a distance of 165.02 feet to the point of intersection of said line with the Northerly line of State Highway No. 55, which point is marked by judicial landmark and is the actual point of beginning of the land about to be described; thence continuing North along said parallel line a distance of 493.15 feet to a point marked by judicial landmark, thence West a distance of 139 feet to a point in a line parallel to the West line of said Lots 2 and 3 which point is marked by a judicial landmark and is located 658.54 feet North along said line from the center line of said 6th Avenue North, thence South along said parallel line a distance of 493.54 feet to the point of intersection with said parallel line with the North line of said State Highway, which point is marked by judicial landmark, thence East along the North line of said highway 139 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning, except the North 300 feet thereof. Parcel 10: That part of Government Lots 2 and 3 of Section 33, Township 118, North, Range 21 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the center line of Trunk Highway No. 55 distant 756.78 feet East along said center line from the West line of said Government Lot 3; thence East along said center line 105 feet; thence North parallel to the West line of said Government Lot 3, a distance of 172.14 feet, which point is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13280; thence continuing North parallel to the West line of said Government Lots 2 and 3 a distance of 485.78 feet, which pint is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; thence continuing North parallel to the West line of said Government Lot 2 a distance of 12.8 feet, which point is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; thence Westerly 105 feet to a point 671.19 feet North of said center line along a line running from the point of beginning and parallel to the West line of said Government Lots 2 and 3, which point is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; thence South parallel to the West line of said Government Lot 2 a distance of 13.02 feet to a point 658.17 feet North of said center line along a line running from the point of beginning and parallel to the West line of said Government Lots 3 and 2, which point is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 9001; thence continuing South parallel to the West line of said Government Lots 2 and 3 to a point 165.02 feet North of said center line along a line running from the point of beginning and parallel to the West line of said Government Lot 3, which point is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 9001; thence continuing South to the point of beginning: except that part thereof which lies between two lines run parallel with and distant 150 feet and 160 feet Northwesterly of Line 1 described below: Line 1. From a point on the West line of Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 24 West, distant 757.6 feet North of the West Quarter corner thereof, run Easterly at right angles to said West section line for 46 feet to the point of beginning of Line 1 to be described; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for 235.6 feet; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 44 degrees 39 minutes 00 seconds for 500 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 11 degrees 11 minutes 50 seconds curve (delta angle 46 degrees 04 minutes 00 seconds ) for 411.41 feet and there terminating Parcel 11: That part of Government Lots 2 and 3, Section 33, Township 118, Range 21, described as beginning at a point on the center line of State Trunk Highway No. 55, distant 861.78 feet East along said center line from the West line of said Government Lot 3; thence East along said center line 174 feet; thence North Parallel to the West line of said Government Lots 3 and 2, a distance of 657.79 feet, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; thence Westerly 1744 feet to a point 657.92 feet North of said center line along a line running from the point of beginning and parallel to the West line of said Government Lots 3 and 2, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; thence South parallel to the West line of said Government Lots 2 and 3 a distance of 485.78 feet, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrents Case No. 13280; thence South along said parallel line to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof. WHEREAS, all persons present were given the opportunity to be heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden Valley, that said proposed plat be, and the same hereby is, accepted and approved, and the proper officers of the City are hereby authorized and instructed to sign the original of said plat and to do all other things necessary and proper in the premises. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. TENNANT COUPAN/ES F U.D. NO. 114 R.T. DOC. N0. NW CORNER OF GOV'T LOT 2 OF ,;•I C.R. DOC. NO. _ SEC.33,T. 118,R.21 / NE CORNER OF So VOF EEC'T33,T.LOT2118,R.21 N --� / V V• i7 r, o o w cam" N A /n 07 1 3E V v. O�•��� ony A POINT 1 FEET o WEST OF THE EAST ///�����,��- z LINE OF GOV'T LOT 2-\I Q�A� - �'--9°05'45"E 1080.19 ' S89 005'457- 335.75 ----.,,1 =----__- -------F------------=---_ ------ ---- - 1080.00- , � $ �--------- - -- ��A MINNESOTA WESTERN I��`A/1 IT LI AF11. 1RIGHT '' O //�� 25 �- -- -- NB/%2'9(4 RAILWAY COMPANY) n!J L _MNOOT RI WAY LINE OF 3 C� `y`O 3 I -�__--- � NO 04 WAY ' e/ I �� /0�4 42 Qi ` 0 80 160 0P --_ --- __ Q _ A POINT 33 FEET �` ``♦ I I PER TRANSMISSION -- y -WEST OF THE EAST ` ALE IN FEET DOC.N0.730242E EASEMENT _-�'��- -_I_� LINE OF GOVT LOT 2 J v r-33 3 G� I /968 • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND O DENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT F'i W SET AND MARKED BY PLS NO. 15480 1 sI J - X • DENOTES FOUND JUDICIAL LANDMARK LLJ O DENOTES FOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON JJ PARCEL MONUMENT = w`n a tOpf "� >oi THE WEST LINE OF THE GOVERNMENT LOT 2 OF 1 ¢ u 3 SEC. 29,TWP. 118, RING.21 IS ASSUMED TO ao BEAR NOO°23'44"E \ j I LOT 1 Drainage and utility easements are shown thus: B L O C K r wmz I - o 0 Being 10 feet in width and adjoining the plat 1 n boundary lines, unless otherwise indicated, as A 1 I I8 POINT OFNING LINE I shown On the plat. le BEGIN QI I N8855%6' 'C S03 09 36 W PARCEL 4 E CORNER OF ' 984 ' ° `,s , C.=57.47 DETAIL B 10 PARCEL 2 ACT A,R.L.S.NO. 11 L, J L=57.48 (RLS Na //) SOA. U N I (43.00 DESC) •5 O (60.Ba) /1.g/9'/q, y\A"E I '--t--_--- =---1-R=787.40 l 1 •6'y(RLS N0. I I) o // (278.50 DESC) /-0 W Hpp\ Ep51 1 63.52 MEAS) _ (136.28) \589 23 48 E S89.25'53"E (278.61 MEAS) Z D/-SCS) N89°08'39W \3TBO ocs ----- J F<'-1_ _ 1 d=4°10'58" 1 _ -- S89 AS,-6020 N89`I4'S6"W )�° .-(104.93 MEAS„ �(\2 N89°21'26"W I II _ 3�' 1 SOUTH LINE OF 0� / o 136.13 MEAS -- /i--� ( ) _ _ (136.77 MEAS) 105.00 DESC (174.23 MEAS _ N89 2339 W 295.61 �� '� 1 zoo z - ( ); ) rH^I - PARCEL 2098 NW CORNER OF N89°25'51"W - (139.00 DESC (174.00 DESC "'\ I I MNDOT RIGHT OF 1 p- I ie TRACT A, 3 \- (136.72 MEAS) 139.89 " ) ,S'+ �" WAY PLAT N0. 0�42 v I awe s o I'` o W e I R.L.S.NO. II I O� (139.25 DESC) o° 3 - IS 27-104 G, 5 iC Q N N892554 W ` , I IfW<� G P 1 oo°1v a o o ^T ^, O NE CORNER OF (139.25 DESC) �9' o I°N I Ia J� o iY i° I I 1 2g �R aoo :\fag I"' pP?�i /�PP�a•(Qg1\B __/ TRACT E,R.L.S. /I N89�2�348 WII O� No. I1 2 1rcsa 1JV•28 I $ I 2 / E� <F l) - O�n0y3 M`,55 R NORTH LINE OF 1 xOUTH LINE- / (7) I I `� V, I d' o� I J \\ 0V\ %�' - M1 GOVT LOT 3 F NORTH/, ! 2 c -y'11' a� IPO FEET// I In tb o- ihn„ d I� �� J r7 g �L I< 9} G0� °`>"yey0! � ku I c / t\I OI J n � / � I 'SOUTH OF PARCEL 9H i a/� �0,4`69� td Q F\` ✓ I ¢N�o C , MNDOT RIGHT OF WAY PLAT N0.27-104 N O Fr7� I QP 1 N °N I I ��o MoN J3 I ° O (SOUTH LINE OF ay^+_ , I O NORTH 300 FEET Zo �Zo m ytiR.y� J`F O SEE s s /SETA/L B 1 I N�I /36.1' :V) S89 23'48'£ I e �a �yJ \ >,J1 / A SOUTHERLY a/ °O •� n A{� F,0. � \ MNDOT RIGHT LINE OF (- �J �, Q SOUTH LINE OF n P ORTH LINE OF- 5"\F,N'F"�1\9V'\8 \\\ i• U'f•; PLAT N0.27_Io4 WAY / i 3Q ) �N(� I �GOV'T LOT z I I F,P`' N°' FyG�.y9� \\ ° 't, ?A� / LINE TABLE 9°23'20"W 1319.17 _ _ h GOVT LOT 3 - 000" O0°3'I LINE LENGTH GEARING 0 0�6 LI 10.46 N00°I I'7"W m�_! t0 __ ,_, tnp SANITARY PER 5-\05X60- •"' °�W I/4 COR OF o0o CIU 1 /VOQ° / SANITARY EASEMENT yb. \ ; ',\ / L2 0.11 SDO°11'57'E SEC.33,T. IIB,R. �poC.N0.1931383 R \ / SE CORNER OF GOVT LOT 2 25 25 - ( EASEMENT PER pN0 \,''j / .10 I�u 7 \y / OF SEC.33,T.IIB,R.21 241HENNEPIN COUNTY SB9°27b4'E '� �`• A� SBB?7'a/'E I /Q _ r DOC.N0. 1982438 AGE SEM 'f •0098 ,/ HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON OURVE TABLE Qt 3 -� ,•' 822 1\ \\\� AL1Y EA EN; / 'L0\6 ^� �, \ / MONUMENT CAST IRON MONUMENT //676 -yc ` /.7647 \\ \\\ 3fj1\y0 `, \ / UR RADIUS LENGTH I DELTA I CHORD I BEARING �\ \�_� _ 16°52'22" 106.13 NBI°24'04"E 136.28 - 2 0 �'C \' 2 ^ \1,// w� C2 351.69 106.61 17°22'03" 105.20 N81°09'1 " N - o M NORTHERLY RIGHT OF W _a a �F 1 \' N \, J,: N89 2704 W WAY UNE OF STATE L1 ` DETAIL A ��" oiyp TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. ^ `/ 139.00 t \ \\ o �z0� 55 AS MONUMENTED h 1 / �� / C \'\ (ter )\� �°,. Oa�/ ),ps" n NORTHERLY RIGHT VV89 2704 \ Q rc°m O L\J / OF WAY LINE OF SEE 1 1 ')'j `�'. �u.ep'j/ (�' P. 1.69 - c a o O d ozo !n N> O s /1 ^e STATE TRUNK I 3 DETAIL A \1 \ \ ^�/ sora/57°r /BB.6- - ��� w�i oor O t0 ' S tV tJ HIGHWAY N0.55 ^ N\1 \ \ o o w o �;Mr ry o I . x--/=00 = EXCEPTION g �" Qr / � NBB'2701'W 7ATE MOWL o oo Z ,-_��w•° t� \ 56.78-- ---X61.7&-h- _ Q ----- ---- _ n \1 Rj W 1/4 COR OF (339.28 DESC) ----617.7&--- , _ I LINE I-\ to SEC. 19,T.29,R. _ HENNEPIN COUNTY (338MEAS) - k"��L�11.41 _ I(139.25 DESC) __;;';' _. 139.00, ,\ -105.00 - 174.00(/42.l2 MEAS}' ( J `(/40.// MEASf' N89 2704 W 279.00 N89°27'04"W N8927'04"4V -CENTERLINE OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO.55 CENTER LINE OF HWY.N0.55JISUNDE LAND SURVEYING IS 0.51 FT NORTH OF J (FORMERLY KNOWN AS 67H AVENUE NORTH) SECTION CORNER &IM72 OIF2 59'9FM TENNANT COMPANIES P.U.D. NO. 114 R.T. DOC. No. KNOW ALL PER BY THESE PRESENTS: That Tennant Company, a Minnesota corporation, fee owner of the following described property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit: C.R. DO PARCEL I PARCEL 9 CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CERTIFICATE NUMBER 1046120 CERTIFICATE NUMBER 729519 That port of Government Lot 2,Section 33,Township 118,Range 21,lying North of a line described as beginning at a point on the That part of Government Lots 2 and 3, Section 33, Township 118,Range 21, described as beginning at a point in the center line of GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA West line of said Government Lot 2 distant 674.6 feet North along said West line and its extension from the center line of State 6th Avenue North, 617.78 feet East along said line from the West line of said Government Lot 3,thence East along said center line a o said center line 143 feet,which oint is distance of 139 feet, thence North along a line parallel with the West line of said Government Lots 2 and 3, a distance of Ifi5.02 This plat of TENNANT COMPANIES P.U.D. N0. 114 was approved and accepted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Trunk Highway No. 55,which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence East parallel t p feet to the point of intersection of said line with the Norther) line of State Highway No. 55,which oint is marked b dicta)landmark Minnesota, of a regular meeting thereof held this da of__ 20� If applicable, the marked by a Judicial Landmark: thence South parallel to said West Ione 16.2 feet to the Northwest corner of Tract A,Registered Lon P Y 9 Y P Y N 9 9 Y heast and is the actual point of beginning of the land about to be described; thence continuing North along said parallel linea distance of written comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of Transportation and the County Highway Engineer Survey No. I1,which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence East parallel to said center line 136.28 feet to the Nort 493.15 feet to a paint marked by judicial landmark, thence West o distance of 139 feet to a point in a line parallel to the West line have been received by the City or the prescribed 30 day period has elapsed without receipt of such comments and corner of Tract A,Registered Land Survey No. 11, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence East parallel to said center line 60 feet to the Northeast corner of Tract E,Registered Land Survey No,. 1l, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence of said Lots 2 and 3 which point is marked by a judicial landmark and is located 658.54 feet North along said line from the center recommendations,as provided by Minnesota Statutes,Section 505.03,Subd. 2. Easterly 278.5 feet to a point 658.54 feet North of said center line along a line running parallel to said West line,which point is line of said 6th Avenue North, thence South along said parallel line a distance of 493.54 feet to the point of intersection with said marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No.9001; thence Easterly 139 feet to a point 658.17 feet North of said parallel line with the North line of said Stote Highway,which point is marked by judicial landmark,thence East along the North line of center line along a line running parallel to said West line, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case said highway 139 feet, more or less,to the actual point of beginning,except the North 300 feet thereof. CITY COUNCIL OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA No. 9001; thence North parallel to said West line 13.02 feet to a point 671.19 feet North of said center line along a line running parallel to sold West line,which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence Easterly 105 feet to a point 670.72 feet North of said center line along a line running parallel to said West line, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence South parallel to said PARCEL 10 -_ ___ - West line 12.8 feet to a point 657.92 feet North of said center line along aline running parallel to said West line,which point is CERTIFICATE OF TITLE By_ _,may. By_ _�Clerk marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence Easterly 174 feet to a point 657.79 feet North of said center line along aline running parallel CERTIFICATE NUMBER 738834 to said West line,which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence North parallel to said West line 24.21 feet to a point 682 feet North of said center line along a line running parallel to said West line,which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence That part of Government Lots 2 and 3 of Section 33,Township IIS North,Range 21 West, Hennepin County,Minnesota,described os East along a line which intersects that East line of said Government Lot 2 distant 682 feet North along said East line and its follows: Beginning at a point on the center Zine of Trunk Highway No 55 distant 756.78 feet East along said center line from the extension from the center line of State Trunk Highway No. 55 to a point 33 feet West along said line from the said East line, which West line of said Government Lot 3; thence East along said center line 105 feet; thence North parallel to the West line of said point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence continuing East along said line 33 feet to the Eost line of said Government Lot 2 and Government Lot 3, a distance of 172.14 feet,which point is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13280; lying South of a line described as beginning at a point on the West line of said Government Lot 2 distant 272.35 feet South of the thence continuing North parallel to the West line of said Government Lots 2 and 3 a distance of 485.78 feet,which point is marked by Northwest corner thereof,which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence East, along a line which intersects the East line of a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; thence continuing North parallel to the West line of said Government Lot TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT,Hennepin County,Minnesota said Government Lot 2 at a point 272.35 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof, to a point 1080 feet West of said East line, 2 a distance of 12.8 feet, which point is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; thence Westerly 105 which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence Southeasterly to a point on the East line of said Government Lot 2 distant feet to a point 671.19 feet North of said center line along a line running from the point of beginning and parallel to the West line of I hereby certify that taxes payable in 20_and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat. 422.35 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof,which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark said at the intersection of said said Government Lots 2 and 3, which point is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; thence South lost described line with a line drawn parallel to and 33 feet West,measured at right angles,from said East line, parallel to the West line of said Government Lot 2 a distance of 13.02 feet to a point 658.17 feet North of said center line along a Dated this day of-- , 20__. line running from the point of beginning and parallel to the West line of said Government Lots 3 and 2, which point Is marked by a Except that port of the above-described land shown as Parcel 2098 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 9001; thence continuing South parallel to the West line of said Government Lots 2 No. 27-104. and 3 to a point 165.02 feet North of said center line along a line running from the point of beginning and parallel to the West line of said Government Lot 3, which point is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 9001; thence continuing Mark V. Chapin,Hennepin County Auditor South to the point of beginning; PARCEL 2 except that part thereof which lies between two lines run parallel with and distant 150 feet and 160 feet Northwesterly of Line I BY: _- -_-Deputy CERTIFICATE OF TITLE described below: CERTIFICATE NUMBER 1002777 Line I. From a point on the West line of Section 19,Township 29 North,Range 24 West, distant 757.6 feet North of the West The North 100 feet of the following described premises: That part of Government Lots 2 and 3,Section 33, Township 118,Range 21 Quarter corner thereof, run Easterly at right angles to,said West section line for 46 feet to the point of beginning of Line I to be described as beginning at the intersection of the West line of said Government Lot 3 with the centerline of State Trunk Highway No. described; thence deflect to the right at an angle o 0 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for 235.6 feet; thence deflect to the right at 55; thence North along the West line of said Government Lots 3 and 2 a distance of 674.6 feet, which point is marked by a Judicial an angle of 44 degrees 39 minutes 00 seconds for 500 feet: thence deflect to the right on a I I degrees I I minutes 50 seconds curve SURVEY DIVISION,Hennepin County,Minnesota Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; thence East parallel to said center line 143 feet,which point is marked by a (delta angle 46 degrees 04 minutes 00 seconds) for 411.41 feet and there terminating; Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; thence South parallel to the West line of said Government Lot 2, a Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,Sec. 3838.565(1969), this plat has been approved this day of distance of 16.2 feet to the Northwest corner of Tract A. Registered Land Survey No. I I which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark PARCEL I 20_ set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; thence continuing South parallel to the West line of said Government Lots 2 and 3 to the said center line; thence West along said center line 143 feet to the point of beginning. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CERTIFICATE NUMBER 1209043 Chris F. Mavis,County Surveyor That part of Government Lots 2 and 3. Section 33, Township 118,Range 21, described as beginning at a point on the center line of BY: PARCEL 3 State Trunk Highway No. 55, distant 861.78 feet East along said center line from the West line of said Govemment Lot 3; thence East along said center line 174 feet; thence North Parallel to the West line of said Government Lots 3 and 2,a distance of 657.79 feet. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; thence Westerly 174 feet to a point 657.92 CERTIFICATE NUMBER 1001498 feet North of said center line along a line running from the point of beginning and parallel to the West line of said Government Lots 3 That part of Govemment Lots 2 and 3 Section 33,Townshi 118,Ran a 21,described as be at the intersection of the West and 2, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; thence South parallel to the West line p g ginning of said Government Lots 2 and 3 a distance of 485.78 feet, which point is marked by in Judicial Landmark set pursuant a Torrens line of said Government Lot 3, with the centerline of State Trunk Highway No. 55; thence North along the West Line of said Case No. 13280; thence South along said parallel line to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof. Government Lots 3 and 2 a distance of 674.6 feet, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; thence East parallel to said center line 143 feet, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case as re No 13026; thence South parallel to the West Line of said Government Lot 2,a distance of 16.2 feet to the Northwest comer of hereby certify that the within pial of TENNANT COMPANIES P.U.D. N0. 114 w corded in this office this_ Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 11,which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 13026; Have caused the some to be surveyed and platted as TENNANT COMPANIES P.U.D.NO. 114 and do hereby dedicate to the public for day of___-,20_at__-o'clock__.M. thence continuing South parallel to the West Line of said Government Lots 2 and 3 to the said center line; thence West along said public use forever the public ways and also the drainage and utility easements as created by this plat. center line 143 feet to the point of beginning except the North 100 feet thereof, according to the Government Survey thereof. Martin McCormick,Registrar of Titles PARCEL 4 In witness whereof said Carlson Real Estate Company, a Minnesota limited liability limited partnership under the laws of the State of Minnesota,has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this -__day of-- 20__ BY: -------Deputy CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CERTIFICATE NUMBER 1083532 Tract A. Registered Land Survey No. 11,Hennepin County, Minnesota Tennant Company,o Minnesota corporation PARCEL 5 COUNTY RECORDER,Hennepin County, Minnesota CERTIFICATE OF TITLE SIGNED: -_-its__ -- I hereby certify that the within plat of TENNANT COMPANIES P.U.D. NO. 114 was recorded in this office this CERTIFICATE NUMBER 1198584 day of-___,20_at___attack__M. Tract D. Registered Land Survey No. 11, Hennepin County, Minnesota. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF _ Martin McCormick, County Recorder PARCEL 7 BY: -Deputy WARRANTY DEED The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this-_day of 20-_,6y ___ ___, the_ _ _of Tennant Company, a Minnesota corporation under the DO M NT N MB R B B laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said corporation. That part of Government Lots Two(2)and Three(3), Section Thirty-three(33), Township One Hundred Eighteen(118),Range Twenty-one(21). described as follows: Commencing at a point In the centerline of County Road 6th Avenue North, 339.28 feet East lrom the West line of Government Lot 3; thence East along the centerline of said road, 139.25 feet; thence North parallel with the West line of Government Lots 2 and 3 a distance of 658.61 feet; thence West 13925 feet; thence South to beginning. --- ------ Notary Public. -County, Minnesota Hennepin County,Minnesota My Commission Expires (Abstract Property) _`v\ PARCEL 8 I,Mark S. Hanson, do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land �L CERTIFICATE OF TITLE Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey, that oil mathematical data and CERTIFICATE NUMBER 551798 labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands as defined in Minnesota Statutes,Section 505.01, Subd.3,as of the date of this certificate are 00 The North 300 feet of the following described property,to-wit: shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. 0That part of Government Lots 2 and 3.Section 33,Township 118, Range 21, described as beginning at a point in the center line of 6th Avenue North,617.78 feet East along said line from the West line of said Government Lot 3,thence East along said center line a Dated this___day of __ 20- distance of 139 feet, thence North along a line parallel with the West line of said Government Lots 2 and 3,a distance of 165.02 feet 0 to the paint of intersection of said line with the Northerly line of State Highway No. 55 which point is marked by a judicial landmark V and is the actual point of beginning of the land about to be described; thence continuing North along sold parallel line a distance of Q` 493.15 feet to a point marked by judicial landmark,thence West a distance of 139 feet to a paint in a line parallel to the West line of said Lots 2 and 3 which point is marked by a judicial landmark and is located 658.54 feet North along said line from the center Mark S.Hanson,Licensed Land Surveyor line of said 6th Avenue North, thence South along said parallel line a distance of 493.54 feet to the point of intersection with said Minnesota License No. 15480 parallel line with the North line of said State Highway, which point is marked by a judicial landmark,thence East along the North line /. of said highway 139 feet,more or less, to the actual point of beginning. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this_ day of -,20_,by Mark S. Hanson. Notary Public, -___County, Minnesota JISUNDE*,, rp*� pf1 My Commission Expires_ LAM SURVEYING SfEE-r 1 OF ShEFM rr" y aoi ' en M E M 0-_ R "'A" MN D U M w YPlanning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting August 19, 2014 "60 Days" Deadline: June 20, 2014 "60 Days" Extension: August 19, 2014 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing- Preliminary PUD Plan for Marie's Woods PUD No. 116 - 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue - Peter Knaeble, Applicant Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Summary The Applicant, Peter Knaeble, is seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit to develop six single family homes on two existing single family lots. The existing single family homes would be demolished and six new homes would be constructed. The property is zoned "Moderate Residential (R-2) Density" and guided for long-term "Low Density" on the General Land Use Plan map. The total area of the two lots is 1.6 acres. The site is bounded by Highway 55 to the north, by Harold Avenue to the south, and is located across the street from Lions Park. There are single family homes on either side of the proposed project. The proposed PUD varies from the underlying zoning designation in terms of lot area, lot width, front yard setbacks, rear yard setbacks, and side yard setbacks. In a pre-application meeting, Staff suggested the Applicant explore the option of providing a public street with cul-de-sac to serve all of the proposed homes, thereby minimizing the curb cuts onto Harold Avenue and centralizing the utilities under a public right-of-way. Staff also felt this would establish a pattern for the area that could be replicated along Harold Avenue in the future. The Applicant evaluated this option and has chosen to pursue approval of his original layout. Two neighborhood meetings were held - one in advance of the public hearing at the Planning Commission in which the current layout was presented and one after the Planning Commission meeting in which a cul-de-sac plan was presented. Overall, neighbors were more supportive of the current proposal than the cul-de-sac plan, though some did voice concerns about numerous curb cuts on Harold Avenue and about the potential for increased runoff. Staff tentatively recommended approval at the Planning Commission meeting on May 28. The Planning Commission discussed with the Applicant the possibility of consolidating the proposed driveways into a single cul-de-sac in order to minimize curb cuts and centralize the utilities under a public right-of-way. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the current proposal and encouraged the Applicant to consider a revision to his plans. After working to develop a cul-de-sac option, the Applicant invited three neighbors to attend a meeting with Staff on August 1 to discuss the plan. The neighbors indicated they did not support a cul-de-sac plan but were generally amenable to the plan currently being proposed. Staff is convinced that for a number of reasons the cul-de-sac plan would result in a better development for the City. However, that option is not being offered at this point and the Council must evaluate the proposal that has been submitted. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Applicant's Narrative (1 page) • Planning Commission Minutes dated May 28, 2014 (6 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission dated May 28, 2014 (5 pages) • Memo from the Fire Department dated May 19, 2014 (2 pages) • Memo from the Public Works Department dated May 21, 2014 (6 pages) • Site Plans dated April 9, 2014 (9 pages) Recommended Action Motion to deny the Preliminary Plan for Marie's Woods PUD No. 116. In addition the Council makes the following findings pursuant to City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 5(E): 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site but does not achieve a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. The PUD plan does not include efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD plan does not result in development compatible with adjacent uses and is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is not consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan does not meet the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. 314 - 21 530 �\ 7140 7028 7030 54 317 7215 321* 171 G 7120 �_� 521 =(52 0 u` eh`LC r ��7031 Ir 7462 7442 7201 vj 511 > 7151 7460 7458 7438 74401 510 e 7100 7040 7020 7456 7436 Y T 7454 7434 522520 512510 7101 7452 7432 501 7330 7500 7450 7430 I— _j � Subject Properties: 03 7218 and 7200 Harold Ave. F State Hwy No. 55• I 7040 ;''& 7045 0 O 7340 4 •- m 7031 7600 7420 :....a � 7430 ;:'�:.:u�. , 69 I , �_ r:= 7236 7200 7218 7182 17025 I �y: {' 73307324 ,�;.• 7156 7146 r75�7 445 7425 T300 7303 340 i 6945 Z T320 _ N 7309 > 330 L'75_113 7310 7310 6 _-, •_' 6941 7315 — 320- 7330L )s Park 4. 7325 310 73256935 . _ 73400- 0 7327O300 240= 7340 :yju7310 awrr�a+...,.. - r Terra Engineering,Inc. CM!Engirxcrrg Land PlanniN•Consu ting 4/21/14 Re: Marie's Woods PUD Golden Valley, MN TE :=14-103 This property, and its entire block. is currently zoned R-2 Moderate Density Residential Zoning. This zoning district allows single family homes, twin homes and townhomes, up to a maximum density of 8 units/acre. Our proposed single family development has a density of 3.7 units/acre. We are proposing single family homes with lot area and lot setback variances. Three twin. homes (six units) could be built on this site without variances. The site density would be the same whether six twin home units or six single family homes were built on this site. The building coverage, impervious area, site grading, tree removal, and utility service construction would also be almost identical with the construction of either six twin home or six single family homes on -his site. 1N`e believe this six lot single family development will be a high quality project and an asset to this neighborhood and the City. This PUD will meet the City's housing density goals, and satisfy the need in Golden Valley for a variety of affordable residential housing types. This project is taking an underutilized site and converting it into a beautiful single family residential development for six new families to live in Golden Valley. Peter 3, Knaeble. PE Terra Engineering, Inc. 6001 Glenwood Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 763-593-9325 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 3 The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent an Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance ovisions. Conditio t 1. The pl s prepared by mfrs, dated 4/ 5/14 submitted with the applic, bn shall become a rt of this approval. 2. The recomm dations and requireme Its outlined in the menm< rom the Public Works Departm t to Mark Grimes, C mmunity Development Director, dated May 19, 2014, shall be `' me a part of this pproval. '` 3. The recommendation >-and requirem :nts outlined the memo from the Fire Department to Mark Grimes, Commu ity Development Director, dated May 19, 2014, shall become a part o 'is approval. 4. Access to the newly created Lo s fall bg,maintained via a driveway easement. 5. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D.' o,.,,l 15" in its title. 6. A park dedication fee of $80,640, or: of the land value, shall be paid before Final Plat approval. 7. All signage must meet the requirem ants of e City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 8. This approval is subject to all"other state, fede 1, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this develo ment. 3. Informal Public Heaaring — Final f UD Plan — Tennan ,Company — 701 Lilac Drive North — PU=114 Applicant. "fennant Company d Address' 701 Lilac Drive Northli P dose: To allow for the cons alidation of multiple properties into one rcel to p fi� enable inter-campus onnections. D to the lack of a quorum, this item wasabled to the June 9, 2014, Planning ol�mmission meeting. 4. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan — Marie's Woods — 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue — PU-116 Applicant: Peter Knaeble Address- 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue Purpose: To allow for the reconfiguration of the existing two single family properties into a new six-lot, single family development Zimmerman explained the applicant's request to develop six single family homes on two existing single family lots at 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue. He referred to a site plan of the properties and noted that two of the proposed homes would have direct access onto Harold Avenue and the other four homes would share two driveways. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 4 He stated that the applicant held a neighborhood meeting as required and four neighbors attended, however, the applicant did not meet the 10-day notice requirement. He referred to the staff reports and discussed some of the concerns including the length and maintenance of sewer services, the confirmation of the high water level of the wetland and the inadequate width of the driveways with no turn around areas. Segelbaum referred the Fire Chief's staff report which states that Lots 3, 4 and 5 do not meet the requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code and asked how the Planning Commission can review the proposal if it doesn't meet the Fire Code requirements. Zimmerman stated that there are things the applicant can do in order to meet the requirements. He added that the plan would not go forward until the Fire Code issues are addressed. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposal but thinks there are some improvements that can be made. Segelbaum asked if analysis was done on the possibility of having a cul-de-sac instead of all of the proposed driveways. Zimmerman said he thinks it is possible to have a cul- de-sac, but it is a question of how many lots the applicant would then have. Baker referred to sheet 8 in the plan set which shows a conforming lot layout and asked Zimmerman to explain the purpose behind it being included. Zimmerman stated that the conforming layout shown in the plans would still be a PUD it would just consist of twin homes instead of single family homes and was included to provide a comparison. Segelbaum stated Golden Valley has several existing flag lots and asked if they were allowed before current City Code requirements. Zimmerman stated that flag lots were allowed at one time. Grimes added that the City Code was amended in the early 1990s to not allow flag lots because of negative feedback received from residents. Baker questioned who would own the driveways. Zimmerman said they would be shared driveways with an easement over them. Baker asked how the width of Lot 5 is measured since there is no street frontage. Zimmerman stated that the front of Lot 5 is the east property line along the proposed driveway and it measures 40.6 feet in width. Segelbaum asked about the distance between the houses on Lots 4 and 5. Zimmerman said there would be 15 feet between the houses on Lots 4 and 5. Baker questioned why the plans show a berm being built on the lot to the west when that lot is not part of this proposal. Zimmerman said he thinks the plan is illustrating what the area could look like in the future. He added that a similar proposal with a cul-de-sac could possibly be replicated to the west but another proposal like this current proposal would more difficult to replicate. Baker asked if this proposal would constrain future development. Zimmerman said it's hard to tell without knowing a proposed layout. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 5 Peter Knaeble, Applicant, reminded the Commissioners that his previous plan only included the 7218 Harold Avenue property. Since then, the 7200 Harold Avenue property became available and he feels this proposal has a more creative layout, and creates a larger development with higher density, which is what staff and the Planning Commission wanted. He referred to the questions regarding a cul-de-sac and said there are a number of reasons that a cul-de-sac would not be a good fit. He stated that the site is 1.6 acres in size and the average lot size he is proposing is 11,800 square feet. The minimum required lot size is 10,000 square feet. He referred to the recently built homes on Rhode Island Avenue near this proposal and stated that the lots in that development are 50 feet wide and have a 5-foot setback on one side and a 10-foot setback on the other side and no less than 15 feet between any of the homes, which is what he is also proposing. He referred to the proposed berm and said he included it on the plans to show how it would fit with future development. He stated that the Engineering and Planning Departments have recommended approval and he is working with the Fire Chief regarding his comments including the installation of sprinkler systems on any of the homes not fronting on Harold Avenue. He showed the Planning Commission a proposed layout that had a cul-de-sac in the center with three lots on one side and five on the other. He stated that when he showed the neighbors this plan they did not like it as much because the houses would be closer to their side yard property line. He added that a cul-de-sac would also add more impervious surface. Waldhauser asked Knaeble if he considered a 6-lot, cul-de-sac option. Knaeble said no because the relationship to the neighbors on the east and west would be the same and he is trying to maximize the density. Baker asked Knaeble if staff required that the density be maximized. Knaeble said no, staff asked him to look at a range of densities and to consider options that would increase the density. Grimes agreed and stated that the properties are zoned R-2 and that the previous proposal for this property was almost the same density as the R-1 Single Family zoning district. Cera asked about the width of Harold Avenue. Knaeble said that Harold Avenue is 26 feet wide. Knaeble said he has considered other options but he thinks this proposal is the best. He handed out an illustration of a proposed layout that addresses the comments in the staff reports and reiterated that the neighbors were supportive of the shared driveway concept instead of a cul-de-sac. Segelbaum asked if staff had reviewed the plan Knaeble handed out. Zimmerman said no. Baker asked about the distance between the houses on this new plan. Knaeble said the setbacks are the same as his other proposal, 5 feet on one side, and 10 feet on the other per Zoning Code requirements. Segelbaum asked about the trees shown on the new plan. Knaeble stated that it is just a rendering showing some existing trees and some proposed new trees, but it is not an actual landscape plan. Grimes stated that each lot will require a tree preservation plan. Cera opened the public hearing. Mary Jane Pappas, 20 Ardmore Drive, said her lot size is half an acre so when she sees this kind of development with 6 homes on 1.6 acres it upsets her a lot. She said it would Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 6 be fair to allow 4 houses but not 6 or 8. She said Golden Valley is losing its natural landscaping, privacy and appeal every time something like this is built. She said the proposed houses are clearly too small and this is a big departure that she is not comfortable with. She said the applicant should be asked to use geothermal energy because the future is in front of us and we need to make these types of changes to benefit everyone. Larry Kueny, 7303 Ridgeway Road, said he received a notice from the applicant regarding the neighborhood meeting four days before the meeting. He said he knows that the neighborhood meeting is nothing official but something is not right. He said at that meeting the neighbors thought they approved the first plan that the Planning Commissioners discussed and that they haven't seen the new plan handed out at this meeting. He stated that the first plan showed two driveways on Harold Avenue and the second plan shows four, which is a lot. He said he originally didn't like the idea of a cul- de-sac but that sounds better than this new plan the Applicant showed. He questioned which plan the Commission would be voting on if approval is recommended. Susan Kelly, 7324 Harold Avenue, said she is not opposed to change. She said the hearing notice for the neighborhood came in an envelope with no return address. She said she was told that the first plan discussed is what would be approved. Now there is a new plan that would change the neighborhood dramatically and she is opposed. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Cera closed the public hearing. Knaeble stated that the properties in question are zoned R-2 not R-1 which allows 8 units per acre so the proposed density is appropriate. He stated that geothermal energy is a good idea and if the families purchasing the properties want to do that there will be no restrictions against it, but he would be against geothermal being a requirement. Baker asked Knaeble if the homes will be "spec" homes. Knaeble said they will be custom built homes. He added that he has two or three families interested in building houses similar to the ones down the street on Rhode Island. Waldhauser asked about the price of the homes. Knaeble said they will be in the $450,000 to $500,000 range. Segelbaum asked Knaeble which plan he is asking the Planning Commission to approve. Knaeble said he is asking for the plan originally submitted to be approved. The one he showed the Commission at this meeting was just another concept. Baker asked Knaeble if he would be pursuing that second alternative plan. Knaeble said he wants to hear the staff's response on the second plan. He stated that staff was concerned about the proposed shared driveway and his newer plan addresses that concern. Baker asked Knaeble how this plan would affect parking at Lion's Park. Knaeble said it won't affect it all and noted that parking isn't currently allowed on the north side of the street. He added that the spacing of the driveways would not be unlike the homes on Rhode Island Avenue. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 7 Cera referred to the 16-foot private driveway on the project Knaeble did on Turners Crossroad and asked how that is different than a public road. Knaeble stated that the Turners Crossroad property has 4 homes that share a driveway whereas this proposal would have 2 homes sharing a driveway. He added that in his experience there have been no issues with cars being on the driveway at the same time. He said he feels it is more appropriate to have less impervious surface. Segelbaum asked if the Planning Commission can require that geothermal energy be used. Waldhauser said doesn't think they can address that at all. Cera asked if the City Council will see the same plans the Planning Commission received. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked for clarification on the density issue. Grimes stated that the applicant originally submitted a proposal for two smaller single family homes. He explained that the City Council designated this area R-2 to encourage higher density and different types of housing. Baker said $500,000 houses won't achieve higher density or more affordable housing. Grimes stated there are other reasons the area was zoned R-2 such as the desire for single level living, smaller lots, and properties with less maintenance. Waldhauser added that people really want big houses on small lots. She added that she would like to see a private road up the center of the property rather than private driveways along the sides of the property. She stated that a 16-foot with road won't change the amount of impervious surface that much. Cera said he doesn't like the idea of allowing flag lots and a cul-de-sac would make the project look like a more cohesive development and not like homes were just "shoe horned" in. Segelbaum agreed with Cera. He said he appreciates that the applicant is trying to meet the requirements, but the City would be compromising in so many areas to get more density. He said the proposal seems far afield from things that have been granted in the past and that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Baker also agreed and said he is not confident that the purpose of the R-2 zoning is to put more expensive houses in that space. He said he thinks the purpose was to create diversity in the costs of homes and questioned if this is the correct use of the R-2 zoning designation. He said if the City is going to fit homes in the R-2 zoning district, more affordable homes should be encouraged. Grimes suggested giving the applicant some further direction or asking him if he would like to table or withdraw his request. Knaeble said he may proceed with this plan or he may come back with different plans. He said the question of affordability is a relative term and that it is up the families who purchase the homes how much they want to spend. Segelbaum said he would like the proposed new homes to be commensurate with the existing homes in the neighborhood. Cera asked about the square footage of the proposed homes. Knaeble stated that the homes would be approximately 2,200 to 2,400 square feet. He said that $450,000 is relatively affordable for a new home in Golden Valley. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 8 MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of the proposed PUD plan because the access and safety issues were not adequately addressed and because of the impact this development would have on future development of the two adjoining lots. Segelbaum asked that the motion be amended to add that the proposed plan compromises many different City Code requirements, flag lots being one example. Waldhauser said she does not want to add that language to the motion because she appreciates that it was brought to the Planning Commission as a PUD and she would expect deviations from City Code requirements with a PUD. Informal Public Hearing —Z ing Code Text Amendment— Definition of Lot Width and Lot Depth —ZOO 94 pplicant: City of Golden V, Iley Pu ,ose: To consider am nding the definition of Lot Width and Lot Depth in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. Zimmerman expl 'ned that staff received an application for a subdivision and a neighbor pointed out that the is an inconsistency in how lot width and lot depth is determined in the Zoning Code vers the Subdivision Code. He stated that staff is now looking for direction on how to inteet and apply the language. He stated that the Zoning Code defines lot depth as the mean (average) depth between front and rear lot lines and lot vl�dh as the mean (average) width measured at right angles to the mean depth. The Sybdivision code defines lot depth as the shortest distance between the front and red lot lines measured at right angles to the street right of way and lot width as the minimum d st;pnce between side lot lines measured at right angles to lot depth at the minimut building setback line. He discussed several other cities, requirem is and showed several examples of various lot shapes and how width and depth are calcited. He stated that the options are to: 1.) keep the Zoning and Subdivision Codes unchaed (new lots must meet minimum width at front yard setback and maintain the minimum air rage width throughout the lot). 2.) Modify the Subdivision Code to define width as ave ge width throughout the lot (to match Zoning Code). 3.) Modify the Zoning Code to define w th as width at front yard setback (to match Subdivision Code) or 4.�Other options the PI ning Commission would like to see. He stated that staff is suggesting, based on past prec dent, ease of interpretation and administration, and conformity'with neighboring commu 'ties, that the definition of lot width within the Zoning Code be r vised to define lot width as a width of the lot at the front yard setback line to be consistent with the Subdivision Cod Segelbaum wanted to clarify that aff is not recommending the elimin tion of lot width re uirements; they are recommen ing that the Zoning Code be revised to be the same as t Subdivision Code which requir s 80 feet of width as measured at the front setback I e. Zimmerman said yes, that is taff's recommendation. Segelbaum stated that this is CZ yo of MEMORANDUM valley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: May 28, 2014 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing— Preliminary PUD Plan for Marie's Woods PUD No. 116— 7200 & 7218 Harold Avenue — Peter Kneable, Applicant Background The Applicant, Peter Knaeble, is seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit to develop six single family homes on two existing single family lots. The existing single family homes would be demolished and six new homes would be constructed. The property is zoned "Moderate Residential (R-2) Density' and guided for long-term "Low Density" on the General Land Use Plan map. The total area of the two lots is 1.6 acres. The site is bounded by Highway 55 to the north, by Harold Avenue to the south, and is located across the street from Lions Park. There are single family homes on either side of the proposed project. Summary of Proposal The proposed PUD would allow the Applicant to creatively divide the property utilizing two shared driveways and a layout that stacks some of the lots north-south between Highway 55 and Harold Avenue. Two of the homes would have direct access onto Harold Avenue; four of the homes would share two driveways. Given the current frontage of the two existing lots, without a PUD the site only accommodates two single family homes or two twin homes for a total of two to four units. Under the proposed PUD, the site would contain six single family homes. The R-2 Zoning District allows single and two-family homes at a moderate density of up to eight units per acre. The Low Density land use in the Comprehensive Plan allows for a density of less than five units per acre. At 3.75 units per acre, this proposal is consistent with both the Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. The property currently addressed as 7218 Harold Avenue would be split into Lots 1, 2, and 3: Lot 1 would have frontage of 48 feet and be 8,161 square feet in size. The proposed building pad would be 33 feet wide and set back 35 feet from Harold Avenue. Lot 2 would have frontage of 48 feet and be 8,157 square feet in size. The proposed building pad would be 33 feet wide and set back 35 feet from Harold Avenue. Lot 3 would have frontage of only 13.1 feet and function as a flag lot with the majority of the area located closer to Highway 55. It would be 14,945 square feet in size. The shared driveway for Lots 2 and 3 would run along the west side of the site and be 9 feet wide. The property currently addressed as 7200 Harold Avenue would be split into Lots 4, 5, and 6: Lot 4 would have no frontage and would be located just south of Highway 55. It would have 26,356 square feet and would be accessed via an easement and shared driveway. A wetland would occupy much of the eastern portion of this lot. Lot 5 would have no frontage and would be located centrally between Highway 55 and Harold Avenue. It would have 6,176 square feet and would be accessed via and easement and shared driveway. The proposed building pad would be 36 feet to the east and 46' to the west. The shared driveway for Lots 4 and 5 would run along the east side of the site and be 9 feet wide. Lot 6 would have frontage of 119 feet and be 7,090 square feet in size. The proposed building pad would be 30 feet wide and set back 25 feet from Harold Avenue. In a pre-application meeting, Staff suggested the Applicant explore the option of providing a public street with cul-de-sac to serve all of the proposed homes, thereby minimizing the curb cuts onto Harold Avenue and centralizing the utilities under a public right-of-way. Staff also felt this would establish a pattern for the area that could be replicated north of Harold Avenue in the future. The Applicant evaluated this option and has chosen to keep the original layout. A Neighborhood Meeting was held on Wednesday, May 21, and the Applicant presented the proposal to four residents. In general, the attendees were supportive. N O N O 501 7330 � u 0 7101 ; men�orial mvvvw--,- Olson &Jew 7040 0 0 7045 7031 6900 0 0 O W O N ti ti co ti N ON LO LO r• ti ti ti O0 -ko �0 7303 340 ,n 7309 330 o04 ' rn 7315 -C, PUD 116 - Site Map Land Use and Zoning Considerations The Moderate Residential (R-2) Density Zoning District regulates various aspects of development. As a PUD, the City can offer flexibility from the regular zoning requirements in order to achieve a better development. The following table summarizes how closely the requirements of the R-2 Zoning District are met under the current proposal: R-2 Zoning District Marie's Woods PUD 116 Dimensional Standards Lot area 11,000 square feet From 6,176 square feet Lot width 100' From 46' (exception being Lot 3) Front yard setback 35' 25' to 35' (exception being Lot 3) Side yard setback 15' From 5' Rear yard setback 20% of lot depth Varies—some less than 20% Density Up to 8 units per acre 3.75 units per acre Lot coverage 30% of lot area maximum Unknown Impervious surfaces 50% maximum Unknown Public Works and Fire Safety Considerations As is standard practice for development proposals, plans for this proposal were reviewed by the City's Public Works Department to ensure the site can be adequately served by public utilities and that traffic issues are resolved. A memorandum from the Public Works Department that addresses access, utilities, grading and stormwater management, and tree preservation is attached. The Fire Department reviewed this proposal to ensure that adequate emergency vehicle access is achieved on the site. A memorandum from the Fire Department that addresses the length of the driveways and the ability for fire vehicles to turn around is attached. Justification for Consideration as a PUD The PUD process is an optional method of regulating land use in order to permit flexibility in uses allowed, setbacks, height, parking requirements, and number of buildings on a lot. Staff has determined that this application qualifies as a PUD because it achieves the following standards established in City Code: • Encourages preservation and protection of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, water ways, wetlands, and lakes. • Encourages creativity and flexibility in land development. • Encourage efficient and effective use of land, open space, streets, utilities, and other public facilities. • Encourage development in transitional areas which achieve compatibility with all adjacent and nearby land uses. • Achieve development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • Achieve development consistent with the City's redevelopment plans and goals. In order to be approved as a PUD, the City must be able to make the following findings: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. 3. Efficient— Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Marie's Woods PUD No. 116, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans prepared by Terra Engineering, dated April 9, 2014, submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated May 19, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Public Works Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated May 21, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. The final design shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. 5. A park dedication fee of$2,133 shall be paid before Final Plat approval. 6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Applicant's Narrative (1 page) Memo from the Fire Department dated May 19, 2014 (2 pages) Memo from the Public Works Department dated May 21, 2014 (6 pages) Site Plans (9 pages) It it of 0 I 'd e* no. -*Ar valley File Department 753-593-8079 / 763-593-8098 (fax) Date: May 19, 2014 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Community Development From: John Crelly, Fire Chief Subject: Preliminary PUD Plan —7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue — Marie's Woods The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the preliminary PUD plans submitted on April 22, 2014 for 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue—Marie's Woods. Listed below are the fire department comments: 1. Lot 1 as proposed meets the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. 2. Lot 2 as proposed meets the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. 3. Lot 3 as proposed does not meet the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. The following need to be addressed: a. The private driveway is approximately 230 feet in length. A fire road that exceeds 150 feet shall be provided with an approved turn around. b. The private road/driveway is 9 feet wide which is not adequate to traverse with a fire truck. Also, what standard is the road/driveway constructed to. The fire department would not be able to provide a reasonable level of fire protection to this home. 4. Lot 4 as proposed does not meet the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. The following need to be addressed: a. The private driveway is approximately 170 feet in length. A fire road that exceeds 150 feet shall be provided with an approved turn around. b. The private road/driveway is 9 feet wide which is not adequate to traverse with a fire truck. Also, what standard is the road/driveway constructed to. The fire department would not be able to provide a reasonable level of fire protection to this home. 5. Lot 5 as proposed does not meet the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. The following need to be addressed: a. The private driveway is approximately 120 feet in length. Due to the width of the driveway and the unknown construction of the road surface the fire department will not commit to driving on this surface. This will delay firefighting activities. b. The private road/driveway is 9 feet wide which is not adequate to traverse with a fire truck. Also, what standard is the road/driveway constructed to. The fire department would not be able to provide a reasonable level of fire protection to this home. 6. Lot 6 as proposed meets the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code. Note: The biggest challenges facing the fire department are the very lengthy driveways that are extremely narrow (fire trucks are 8' 6" wide), the distance to a water supply and our ability to turn around and get back to a public street. Typically the fire department will park on the street in front of a house and lay a 200 foot pre-connected hose which will reach ALL interior points of a home. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065 or by e-mail, 9crelly@goldenvalleymn.gov city df mlden!-, MEMORANDUM valley Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: May 21, 2014 To: �rk Grimes, Director of Community Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Public Works Spcialist Subject: Preliminary PUD Plan —Marie's Woods—7200 & 7218 Harold Avenue Public Works staff has reviewed the application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), called Marie's Woods, located at 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue. The comments contained in this review are based on plans submitted to the City on April 9, 2014. Site Plan and Access The Developer proposes to combine the two existing single-family parcels located at 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue and subdivide them into six new single-family parcels. All lots will have driveway access onto Harold Avenue; however, shared driveways (9 feet in width) will be created for Lots 1 and 3, and Lots 4 and 5. Staff has concerns about shared driveway situations and has seen many instances where problems arise regarding driveway design and materials, maintenance responsibility, and cost obligations. In addition, the shared driveway width must be adequate to allow for snow removal and for vehicles to pass one another. Therefore, it is suggested that the driveways be a minimum of 16 feet in width. In order to assure the long-term success of the shared driveway situations, the Developer must draft and record private driveway easements that clearly address these items. The draft easements must be reviewed by staff prior to Final PUD submittal and must be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. Copies of the recorded easements must be submitted to Public Works. The final design and location of the driveways onto Harold Avenue will be determined at the time of permitting for home construction. The new driveways must meet City standards including the installation of concrete aprons. A City Right-of-Way Management Permit is required for the construction of each driveway. The existing homes will be demolished to make way for the proposed development. The Developer must obtain all necessary permits to demolish the homes and cut off the existing utility services. G:\Developments-Private\Marie's Woods-7218 Harold\Memos\Memo_PW_PreliminaryPUD_Review.docx Preliminary Plat The existing properties proposed for development are part of Auditor's Subdivision Number 322. There appear to be no platted easements across these properties. City records show that the City obtained an easement for drainage and utility purposes in 1985 over the east 15 feet of the property at 7200 Harold Avenue for the construction of an 18-inch storm sewer pipe. Future access to this storm sewer pipe must be preserved as part of this development. The Developer is dedicating a new 25-foot easement as shown on the preliminary plat, and therefore has satisfied this requirement. As such, the existing 15-foot drainage and utility easement may be vacated as part of this process. There is an existing wetland on the property located at 7200 Harold Avenue that, upon platting, will be situated on Lot 4 of the development. The Developer will be required to dedicate an easement over the wetland that is a minimum of 10 feet upland of the delineated wetland edge, in order to accommodate a 10-foot native vegetation buffer zone. The buffer requirement is discussed in more detail in the stormwater management section of this review. The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires 10-foot drainage and utility easements on all plat boundaries and 12-foot easements centered on all interior lot lines. The final plat for this development must include easements on all property lines consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed development is adjacent to Trunk Highway 55 and therefore MnDOT will review the plans and may provide additional comments. Utilities The City's water system that provides service to these properties has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. The proposed development is within a sanitary sewershed that is tributary to system capacity issues in several locations including near the intersection of Laurel Avenue and Turners Crossroad. The City's 24-inch diameter sanitary sewer is effectively at capacity in this location and there is minimal capacity available for future redevelopment along the 1-394 corridor unless inflow and infiltration can be reduced throughout the sewershed. The City is putting plans in place to reduce the inflow and infiltration in the City's portion of the sanitary sewer system over the next several years. In addition, the proposed number of units at this location will likely contribute minimal wastewater flows to the overall system. Therefore, connections to the City's sanitary sewer system should be acceptable as proposed. There are existing sanitary sewer and water services serving the existing homes. Plans show that the existing services can be utilized by Lot 2 and Lot 6. New services will need to be constructed to serve the remaining lots. The new services will be grouped (for Lots 1 and 3, and Lots 4 and 5) to line up with the shared driveways into the development. Consolidating the new services as planned will reduce the number of pavement cuts in Harold Avenue. Harold Avenue was reconstructed by the City as part of the 2012 Pavement Management Project. Since the pavement is less than five years old, the Right-of-Way Management Ordinance requires an advanced level of restoration. According to the City's restoration standards, cutting open a pavement less than five years old requires a full-width pavement mill and overlay at a length determined by the City Engineer. The extent of the mill and overlay will be determined by the City Engineer at the time the Developer applies for a Right-of-Way Permit to install the utilities. Staff has a concern about the length of the sewer service to Lot 3 and the long-term maintenance of the service. Although the Developer has proposed cleanouts every 100 feet or less on the plan, the City has concerns about the deposition of solids. Before the Final PUD plans are submitted, the Developer must submit an analysis showing that the service can be constructed as proposed without experiencing hydraulic issues. The City has a Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) Reduction Ordinance. City records indicate that the property at 7200 Harold Avenue has obtained a Certificate of Compliance with the 1/1 Ordinance. The Developer has entered into a deposit agreement with the City for the property at 7218 Harold Avenue to ensure future compliance. All existing and new sewer services in this development must be inspected by the City after construction, and must achieve compliance with the City's 1/1 Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the homes. Grading and Stormwater Management The proposed development is within the Sweeney Lake sub-watershed of the Bassett Creek Watershed. However, due to the size of the development,the project does not meet the threshold for review by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). It appears the development will include a two-phased approach. In the first phase, the overall site will be graded to cut down the existing hill in the middle of the development, construct a berm along Highway 55, and prepare the lots for construction. In the second phase, individual lots will be graded by each builder as the lots are sold. The Developer will be required to obtain a City of Golden Valley Stormwater Management Permit for the overall site grading. In addition, the Developer or Builders will be required to obtain individual Stormwater Management Permits for each lot at the time of permitting for home construction. A stormwater management plan that meets City standards is required as part of the Stormwater Management Permit submittal. This PUD is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit. A copy of this permit must be provided to the City, prior to issuance of any permits to begin work on site. There is a wetland on the property being developed and therefore the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) will apply. The City of Golden Valley is the local governmental unit responsible for administration of the WCA. The developer has submitted a wetland delineation report, and a Notice of Application is being prepared consistent with WCA regulations. According to the grading plan submitted, there are no proposed impacts to the wetland. However, the overall stormwater management plan for the site, as well as the individual stormwater plan for Lot 4, should show protection of the wetland, and care should be taken during construction to ensure that the wetland is clearly marked and protected at all times. The preliminary utility plan shows that the normal water elevation of the wetland is controlled by an 18-inch reinforced concrete pipe that is located within a public easement. The pipe provides drainage from the wetland to the south into the City's storm sewer system in Harold Avenue. City records indicate that the pipe is owned and maintained by the City. The City will inspect the pipe outlet in the wetland to determine if it meets current City standards. The City will also inspect the entire length of pipe to determine if the material, size, and condition meet City standards. If it is determined that the pipe does not meet City standards or the needs of the development, the developer may be required to make the necessary repairs or construct a new pipe as part of the project. It is anticipated that the City will continue to own and maintain this storm sewer pipe upon completion of the development. In addition to the stormwater requirements discussed above, the City's Stormwater Management Ordinance outlines the following general performance standards that apply to this development and must be incorporated into the Final PUD plans: 1. Lowest Floor Elevation -The lowest floor elevation of new principal and accessory structures must be at least 2 feet above the calculated high water level of the wetland. The Developer has estimated the 100-year high water level of the wetland and has based the lowest floor elevations of the new homes on this information. However, it is not clear how the high water level was estimated. The Developer must submit calculations to the City showing the calculated high water level. The overall preliminary grading plan appears to meet this performance standard as submitted. However, if each lot is custom graded and plans are subject to change, the Developer or Builders must ensure that each stormwater management plan submitted meets this requirement. 2. Wetland Setback— New principal structures must be set back 25 feet from the delineated wetland edge. The plans submitted are in conformance with this requirement, and the Builder must ensure that individual stormwater management plan for Lot 4 is also in conformance. 3. Native Vegetation Wetland Buffer -The Developer must create a buffer of native vegetation around the portion of the wetland within the PUD, consistent with the BCWMC's Watershed Management Plan and the City's Surface Water Management Plan. This buffer must be a minimum 10 feet in width and should be shown and described on the stormwater plan or landscape plan for the development. The Developer will be required to deposit a financial security guaranteeing proper establishment of the buffer and its maintenance for the first three growing seasons. Although proposed to be located in a public easement, the wetland buffer will be owned and maintained by the Developer or future owner of Lot 4. The owner of Lot 4 will be able to create an access corridor to the wetland consistent with the buffer requirements listed in the City's Stormwater Management Ordinance. As discussed earlier, the proposed development is within the Sweeney Lake sub-watershed. Sweeney Lake is listed as an impaired water for nutrients (phosphorus) by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Review by the City will include an evaluation for compliance with the Sweeney Lake Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan. The establishment of a native vegetation buffer around the wetland as a proposed best management practice will likely satisfy the TMDL requirement for this development. Tree Preservation This development is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. The two-phase grading approach will include a requirement for a Tree Preservation permit at the time of overall site grading, and separate Tree Preservation permits for each lot at the time of home construction. The Developer has submitted a Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan showing the removal of a number of significant trees. An inventory tabulation will also need to be submitted. The City Forester will review the plan in more detail to determine if additional information is required before Final PUD Plan submittal. Recommendation Based upon a review of the materials submitted by the Developer, Public Works staff recommends approval of the Preliminary PUD Plans for Marie's Woods, subject to the comments contained in this review, summarized as follows: 1. The Developer must draft and record private driveway easements to address concerns regarding shared driveways, as discussed in this review. 2. Approval is subject to the review and comments of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 3. The Developer must dedicate easements on all property lines consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 4. The Developer must dedicate an easement over the wetland that is a minimum of 10 feet upland of the delineated wetland edge, in order to accommodate a 10-foot native vegetation buffer zone, as discussed in this review. 5. The Developer must submit an analysis showing that the sanitary sewer service to Lot 3 can be constructed as proposed without experiencing long-term maintenance issues, as discussed in this review 6. All existing and new sewer services in this development must be inspected by the City after construction, and must achieve compliance with the City's 1/1 Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the homes. 7. The Developer must submit calculations to the City showing the calculated high water level of the wetland. 8. The Developer must create a buffer of native vegetation around the portion of the wetland within the PUD, as discussed in this review. 9. The City Forester will review the plan in more detail to determine if additional information is required before Final PUD Plan submittal, including a tabular inventory. 10. The Developer must obtain Stormwater Management, Right-of-Way Management, Tree Preservation, Sewer and Water, Demolition, and any other permits that may be required for development of this site. Approval is also subject to the comments of the City Attorney, other City staff, and other agencies. Please feel free to call the Public Works Department if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Tom Burt, City Manager Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Mitch Hoeft, PE, Utilities Engineer Mark Ray, PE, Street Maintenance Supervisor Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester Kelley Janes, Utilities Supervisor Joe Fox, Water Resources Engineer John Crelly, Fire Chief Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Jerry Frevel, Building Official Sue Virnig, Finance Director n ti n N04 N N N U) m M C G � C O Lo O N co _ _ N N 0 ,n C C co PLANS aa, ,« . n SUBDIVISION . _ ory 4i f ye r s nrt FOR: M_ _ARIE' S PUD -A' GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA REM" Aix SITEMAW NAL. NO SCALE ,G °ccon P-M SHEET INDEX . s SHEET DESCRIPTION �� ,, 1. COVER SHEET / SHEET INDEX •o d 2. EXISTING OVERALL AREA PLAN a 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN ril 9 4. PRELIMINARY PLAT I"e 5. UTILITY PLAN 6. GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN , 7. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 8. CONFORMING TWIN HOME PLAN 9. SITE PLAN DENSITY R-2 MODERATE DDENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING d�TERRA ENGINEERING INC.LAND SAM APPLICMT GV LE CL� SING. FAM., TWINS. TOWNHOMES MIN. LOT AREA 11,000 SF (TOTAL BOTH TWIN UNITS) 6001 AVE. 6001 N ENW00D AVE. GOLDENN VALLEY. MIN. LOT WIDTH 100' (AT 35' FSB) (TOTAL BOTH TWIN UNITS) MN 55422 GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 N MAX. BLDG. COVERAGE 30% 763-593-9325 612-309-9275 MAX. IMPERV. PER LOT 50% PETER KNAEBLE, P.E. PETER KNAEBLE (((��H X 35' FSB peterknaebleOgmail.com peterknoebleOgmail.com Z 20% RSB 15' SSB <35' STREET SIDE) (OUTSIDE SSB ONLY) a 30' MAX. HEIGHT REHOER do ASSOCIATES INC. JACOBSON ENVIRONMENTAL, PLLC — N 2.5' MAX. EAVE PROJECTION 3440 FEDERAL DRIVE, #110 _ EAGAN. MN 55122 BROOK5821 HUMBOLDTHUMBOLNT AVE. NO. 651-452-5051 612-802-6619 12-8 2– CENTER, MN 55430 � GREG GENTZ, RLS BEN CARLSON, V GGentzOrehder.com BEN ConenvO, WDC jacobsonenvOmsn.com SITE ADDRESS: 7200-7218 HAROLD AVE., GOLDEN VALLEY, MN HAUGO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 13570 GROVE DRIVE, /278 4/9/14 SITE AREA: 70,889 SF (1.627 AC.) MAPLE GROVE, MN 55311 PAUL HAUGO pma"r Nn LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE EASTERLY Y2 FRONT AND REAR, OF LOT phaugoOhougogts.com 14-103 40, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 322, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN.; AND LOT 039 AUDITOR'S SUED. NO. 322 W. 118.15' EX. HWY. 1 >� �"" 198 va,1 --� -..>� NW `A3TIVA N3G'= LT LO ZT9£9L:xej SZ£6£69£9Lx4m 3'd 1=21 Y+Nod R7 ZZySS alosauulyy'sllad8auu)yy S S 12lVIN O larow ♦ 0 anuany poomuol0 T009 yan m• � �� NVId �1V23A0 �a, � I SNOLLICNOO ONLLSDC3� � � G��N�oO N 1 0 j � I Cl) W $ r----Tc--� r— CF I— ---i 1 yk I ---I 1 I %D 1 C r_J I L__—___--JI I 1 f L_--A t I � I It% b lag s lag L---J ams r---, g ``l CD 11 '---' . .,rte:::: •::: .y;,�. ,....'':.; :�:::,,;::: �S._ 3 3 AN w Z ^ o a Ln to k� r 3 a v = 3 2 W F— rr x N tl i M cu > I I M a, LLJ wo A Z cn 3 C3 r---I � I I I Cl I r rn � A W 110 Li A S L---J W F, A} 4 a N t LL. W -J r--� LJ LO cv) p`-' i i k N v N v I----I 'old,d�J 1 _ fiXi yl , Cb ip —275 40.0' 0D OD LO AD11 .0' STORM T w " c 03 STORM% ", " I / N _ td i ro XX % IC b � O� I $to u p iv z I Nqe� .+ N n O I Gx c to n r#� as 3,0 EX. V S 0 I V t a I --- �° R � .�►r00.34'08'W 0 66 R W \. Q�\\ _ 40.07' ::5,' I 75.0 �� © / / \ �� OD v ) �o co .� -- —_ � --- o � �nzdrn E , D $8—\ W 46 15,D&U EASE. � sAO 18r ORM o \ x � a 3i .23' SO '34108'q ; OD � J b i N g � o o al I ------ �� � L _J 34 .60' I 1a �C mfg o m Y apart vu wWrt�4Uft=1 aW isvtrmru EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN Maes , Twraof �, RM the ...r , tO stet, Igm»etu. 6001 Glenwood Avenue W O ` MARIE S ^�— 0" Minneapoffs,Minnesota 55422 V) GOLDEN VALLEY, MN pD� J/97t♦ R".No. 14aµ v��� 763 593 9325 Fax:763 512 0717 .TLO ZIS£9L:XBJ SZ£6£6S£9L „per "°'t 'ON ,aa�� NW `A3TIVA N3aIW' ZZdSS elosauulyy'sllodeauulW �Ivs S31adW \ 0 anuany pooMualO T009 3 •11111MN►1 TOS p�3 p� 4 cut vuo �apun .WNV AM A •a> 1Vld �l2rdNiWll3ad a W "V'EIR J pyQ� z rn o � _ zz Wile Ft' Egr hid 1 l IN 1 ' < ' US J ,EZ'048 ,9'6CE 19'04 10,09 z I \\ all C44 l i WVVs3, ma ,sal Z I y / — 4— Gs�E C M \ Q _.._.._.._.._.._.. F.._.._.._.., W SID n I \ I to K .._.._.._.._.._.._.._... %D Fill. W I �' I M n L.._.._.._.._.._. ._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.--.._.._.._.._.._.._.. .0 1 i 19 _ _ irs ,r LJ ,0'SL L - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'3SV3f19aAT I .0'49 '00 V J ,LO'01� '3Stl3 fl'la AT 3Stl3�19Q,S ".� _._.._.T — --I 3 M.80,4E.00N N vWi, z M08 199 a. Ia Li w �N I (Q I M! W .In Q� (f 7 a A L'3Stl3 ri'!f�lOt'1 ;��-'______ —..J r�— J Z 1 � s o I Y -�ozr- --— -.._ - u M 'o H � i� v N " Ito UMv> _3 a H ; N I IM pq I a �-"I W 1 Y 3 .p OD N I coLLJ I W I TIto , r — _L 1 1 1�'SSS ,0t _.._.._.._.._.._.._..� Q I 3Sb3-f11II-ST.._ _.._.._. J i _.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..i - - - - - - - -_ flss ,Oz 3sd3 ma h— Q _ 0 0, 0 ,0'STT ,0'0k 191SL2 ,0'SL 069 75.0' 275.6' 40.0' A �, 115.0' STORM n i z x ►- NCD N o C [9 3f'-STORM IV IV N g N m .. A = dg m� 0 r 5' D&U EASE. D --- - - - — �m — 18' DdU EASE. < I I I A m .._ __ ok ob CA L — - - - - - - _ I wc-� �� � Cil �k = c r— — — — 10' DE.0 EASE. 1 d I Q N U cp EX SW lot P I C 1 m m rnI 1 W �L - - - - - - -31. a rn� - - - - �� �N00.34'08'W 66 RI I 5_D&U EASE.J 10' DILU EASE. 40.07' j? $ 10' D&U EASE- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --' 75.0' co= c — — — — — oI Tm i V OD •A ( l i I UIW co td N -_- ---_ T S SER. I~ I UI0 00 / \ (I VN ji" -� r.+Cy�wf1 EASE. I C -'1 I 8' STORM _ � 340.23' S00.34'08'k ro = m 1 / o l . _J g 31 I I -____--- �� � X8 � o uirTrTrTrTrTrT g z � �� Z oo H 2 �(A $ this plan orand $ r rv>ma Y JHWT HILL rpat«w Ey me.ftWWvWW%a a,..�._a..r..M ip0yTerra UTILITY PLAN that I am underthe v stROA mWW'"OW. v 6001 Glenwood Avenue MARIES WOODS—PUD Minneapolis,Minnesota 55422 WGOLDEN VALLEY MN P.W d P.E. V use 763 593 9325 Fax:763 512 0717 00tr: 4/9/14 RMP,No. 14844 —X75.6' __ 40,0' ab %0 115.0' CD 0 i o � Q1 C i CD r, I LLJ �} _ f I / GRD. LIMIT/SILT FENCE w am � O-1 9' DOVEWAY Ir Rai Lq Ot ct 0 66' ROW 919 b \, ke9� // NOo•34'08-W Z _ 40.07' 75.0 <--�- c I 949' QEn I N ...... Z _ � b �t�: mss. - 1 / Rjm Oec�n^ y� � 0�4•> 88 —15D& SE. „ 9DRI EWAY ` 'L6 s Al i GRprL'IMIT/SILT FE E 34 23' •.500.34'08' i 1 YA—j dD F---_1 � i I I 00 N. <EP CR r c hill x� i� Im 651;- c a ppopo�� Moog 9 i7�yQxQ{ S CCC777Z iii777 Z fig= S rt �A 5I VARA 8 ptw Ed HE pkin or $ -= :dYIIEi m."M l�4 O«Ild GRADING do EROSION CONTOL PLAN �"`am a LI0tf1� �� SWAA Mpnnaet'L 6001 Glenwood Avenue 0 nnncr M ARI S nor,Ki�_ ; I w o" Mtnneapolls,Minnesota 55422 w �Yl/7^N ^!� EN VA ' Y, MN Dow aroLU Papp," 14844 �� 763 593 9325 Fax:763 512 0717 75.0' 275.6' 40.0' 115.0' 0 �D CD v v1, c., w 04bFENCE W � r _ --- m ED -- d 9' DRIVEWAY a rto >FI M-I �-- I OR w b N -< ..o i - I fu wo � w ----- o m F----I ' cj % I �•� $ N .�.� .: ^jam N a 66' ROW _ ' / $ 2i °L , N00.34'08'W O rZ V J ¢" 0 75.0' T- 49' is .N c` vx;� 1 V 7C I as - rNmt D PI A i ) �oi FA) _ cyr \ „*1i,tv tv 9' DRIVEWAY i / ; # \ -- G2 GRF LIMIT/SILT FENCE 340.23' SO •34'08' i I R I i I I __j I 1 V15 I I P,P,q I I ——J 348.60' PPgig 'T' a r c � c8 �� fi or Twra TREE PRESERVATION PLAN n2 '� " w-lowAMYr ow � � e 6001 Glenwood Avenue V W "°°�" MARIE"S WOODS-PUD Mlnneapolls.Minnesota 55422 GOLDEN VALLEY MN Pda J P.E. �+ro°Ner: o. s 763 593 9325 Fax:763 512 07V Dot.: t/O/74 R.q. Na. 14844 75.0' 275.6' 40.0' 115.0' 0 0C) V a� ai N W D --^{ h is, SSB $ -.1 -4 ^o e �: s�-1 N G, I —< s �} m N � ,.—I� 843 N I �-+ w 1400' 147.2'y. 0!1 .-r o O tlq�tn �p [� � W ..J ro .a. i_.._.._.._.._.._..J N 66' ROW � L ls' SSB Is' SSB �N0o•34'08•v 1400' 1 s' 40.07 75.0' ls' SSS „_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.. —� rte.._.._.. .._ :N n r �r ao m Cil w !m N o NI y—I . td: Ull it I335.E �.. — --�-1'— ILA No 0i -----�` \ m C3 rn CU)AZ yo \ U �0 I f� w 340.23' $00.34'08'! ; 1 / ) UK J-51 r1qu I rZ I I l .\ 0169. m.=.1y4 CSr q<o�4V2 -V M A S Wc O r A � mi CO3 > Z �Z Gln !7 N � DN �o C Z v CD g O Nf 3. TcC3O i U C3 X ,-4oQ �. 2 � CA Z E v Z ROY � e151 ufn =1 FIT" I hereby awft Umt UM PW of $ npert was=°A' im Oma �� CONFORMING TWIN HOME PLANk.c ,�:the Twra Stat4 NinaMo. ' 6001 Glenwood Avenue " " MARIE S U Minneapolis,Minnesota 55422 W GOLDEN VALLEY, MN o a a/s/ta Peep.No. 14844 ( v�G° 763 593 9325 Fax:763 512 0717 75.0' 275.6' 40. 115.0' .. 0 CD V a� �\W1I ^` Ofi v' s� �JJ m 9' DRIVEVAY tj m 0 &'dn wC3 u V, I r-7771 f--{ \.1 o 0 GZ tU W IV 66' ROW N00.34'OS'w 40.07' 75.0' 0 0 49' Ln 0is .o 'N 000 A A 0 � Un / \ V•/� -- O a CD o?mm �wUA 0 o C) 00 \0 -t 9' DRIVEVAY x �23, S00.34'0 i I � CD ' ———J 348.60' A{ nom Hig g� gre g N Z � � ArVAMM °v m.. � Terra .�, SITE PIAN „ "" �e (� 5� yy 6001 Glenwood Avenue _ e wmest MARIEYS WOODS-11% D Minneapolis,Minnesota 55422 W GOLDEN VALLEY, MN p�*. a/®/tea Papp.No. 1494a ids 763 593 9325 Fax:763 512 0717 city ofg 4 . va" Hey" Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting August 19, 2014 Agenda Item 4. B. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Paisley Lane Woods - 221 Paisley Lane Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Summary At the July 14, 2014, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted to recommend approval of a minor subdivision of the property located at 221 Paisley Lane (Paisley Lane Woods). The proposal would create two lots from the existing lot, each meeting the necessary lot area and lot width requirements as outlined in Chapter 12 of the City Code. The existing home would be demolished. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes dated July 14, 2014 (6 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission dated July 14, 2014 (3 pages) • Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, dated July 7, 2014 (2 pages) • Site Plans (5 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for Paisley Lane Woods, 221 Paisley Lane, subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. A park dedication fee of$1,540 shall be paid before final plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated July 7, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. estcheste� _ Z Subject Property: a 221 Paisley Lane ; -- -., R 0 0 Z � C4�C y� ~S vlu�z Q vi4 0 t O 2 a / C r I \ x � t \ 3 I o Western Ave , Glenwood Ave _ n u o N d v a o C O Q Y r _o a u Y Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 4 egelbaum said that while he is sympathe, c to the applicant, he wishes he could.,,o6rk wi the staff recommendations. Waldha r said she would appreciate a ore detailed response to th;e!applicant's attorney's p ' is on whether road plannin' is or is not required. Zirp erman stated that there are provis s in the City Code that llow the requiring ofzd6dication to be done. Waldhauser questa ed if the City has diSbretion of requiring, or not requiring the dedication. Grimes sai o, the City has provide accessfor future development. He added that if the property the south (1 X01 Noble Drive) chooses to subdivide, staff would not recommend keepin he existing 20-foot-wide driveway to serve two or three new lots. Cera said there are als ire co.#icerns-_aid utility concerns. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Wal user and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval subject to the follo h findings and conditions: 4 Findings: 1. Both lots of the proposed.subdivisioJmeet the requgements of the Single Family Residential (R-1) ZoniDistrict. r 2. The City Engineer finds that the lots ire buildable. Conditions: 1. A prelimin� utility plan must be pro Y ided that better illustrates a feasib4le extension of sewer aq water to the new lots. r 2. The C' Frequires the dedication of ri ht-of-way to accommodate the extensio 4 f a pub,' street and a cul-de-sac. Additi nal easements are required as outlined in e J 10, 2014, memo from the Public orks Department. 3. park dedication fee of $20,800 (2% f estimated land market value) shall be paid by the applicant prior to final plat approv . 3. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 221 Paisley Lane — Paisley Lane Woods — SU12-16 Applicant: LDK Builders, Inc. Address: 221 Paisley Lane Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's request to subdivide the property into two separate lots. He stated that the existing home would be removed, and two new homes would be built. Lot 1 would be 22,958 square feet with 93.4 feet of width at the front setback and Lot 2 would be 24,129 square feet with 90 feet of width at the front setback, both of which exceed the Zoning Code requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 5 He stated that a neighbor has expressed concern regarding the size of the existing cul- de-sac and the ability to maneuver emergency vehicles. The Fire Chief has confirmed that the size of the cul-de-sac is adequate, and that the City is willing to consider restricting parking to one side during construction only, to help alleviate concerns. Zimmerman said that there has also been concern about tree preservation and explained that up to 20% of the trees on each lot (40% total) are allowed to be removed. Matt Pavek, Civil Site Group, engineer for the project said this is a pretty simple, straightforward subdivision request that meets all of the requirements of the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code. Kluchka asked if the proposed new homes would be spec homes or custom homes. Pavek said he doesn't know yet. Segelbaum asked if the applicant would be willing to pay for the widening of the cul-de- sac. Pavek stated that he didn't think so, because the cul-de-sac was just re-built a couple of years ago. Blum asked what will happen to the group of existing trees located at the end of the cul- de-sac. Pavek said he anticipates that the entire grouping of trees won't be disturbed. Baker asked about the price range of the proposed new homes. Pavek said the price range would be between $500,000 and $700,000. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Diane Richard, 217 Paisley Lane, submitted a petition signed by people opposed to the proposed subdivision. She said there are many people in attendance who want to address conflicts with the plans, and how this is destroying the neighborhood. Brian Walvatne, 227 Paisley Lane, said he recorded the fire truck accessing the cul-de- sac and put in on YouTube. He referred to Section 12.20 in the Subdivision Code and noted that it states the design standards call for a closed end turn-around with an outside diameter of 100 feet, and a street right-of-way diameter of 120 feet. He said the existing cul-de-sac has a maximum diameter of 54 feet, as measured by Jeff Oliver, which makes it difficult for commercial vehicles, snow plows and garbage trucks to maneuver. They have to back out because they can't make a loop. He urged the Planning Commission to deny this proposal. He asked how the developer arrived at 80 feet of width, and if they are using part of the radius to measure the width. He read from the June 23 Planning Commission minutes regarding a different item where measuring the width of a lot using a horizontal line was discussed. He said in this case, they are not using a horizontal line they are using the circumference of a circle. Peter McAllister, 210 Edgewood Avenue North, stated that goal number two in the Comprehensive Plan is to protect traditional neighborhoods. He said the plans show an oak tree that might be partially on his property, and he would like to know for sure if it is on his property. He said it is his understanding that many oak trees have died in other Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 6 LDK projects. He said he is also concerned that the applicant doesn't have proposed designs for the houses yet because one could be 19 feet away from his property. He said there is a downhill slope going toward his property, and he wants to know what will happen with run-off because he doesn't want mud to destroy his property. He said he doesn't like the idea that the proposed silt fence will be on his property either. Ann Cooper, 316 Meander Road, said she watched the house being built at 308 Meander Road and how it has changed the land and trees. She said she is concerned about her trees, and that she has a very unusual stand of 300 year old oak trees. She said when long term planning is discussed the importance of trees to the community is often included. She said she grew up in Golden Valley seeing gophers, pheasant, and quail, and has noted 45 different species of birds. She said people walk their children there and people from businesses walk there because it is a special place. She said she is concerned that without trees there will be a lot more run-off and with every additional house that is built, land and trees have changed. She said she doesn't want trees to die and she wants legacy trees taken care of. She said there are many trees on the 221 Paisley Lane property that are already dead and should not count toward ones they are saving. She said she wants the developer to work with neighbors regarding the shared trees, and she wants the developer held accountable. Jim Fredkove, 26 Paisley Lane, said that this property is a high point in the neighborhood and the approval of this proposal will result in changes to the retention of the groundwater, the rainwater, and the melting snow. He asked how the City holds developers financially responsible to ensure existing drainage patterns are maintained without negative impacts to neighboring properties. He said rain gardens will not address the situation. He said that a tree preservation plan or a grading and erosion control plan doesn't allow for public comment so he has concerns that this will be addressed properly. He said he hopes the City will be proactive and will require the developer to put money an escrow account to mitigate any potential issues to the surrounding areas. He said in the past, promises have been made and promises have been broken, and he doesn't want the City to be sued by homeowners because of this. Robert Kolasa, 117 Paisley Lane, said he is concerned about preserving native vegetation. He referred to the tree preservation plan and discussed the trees that are proposed to be removed. He said some trees that are marked to be saved are already dead, or trees that have a three-trunk system are being counted as three trees. He said he finds it ironic that the developer doesn't have to remove invasives and that buckthorn is not counted as a tree for removal. He added that the prior owner made an effort to remove buckthorn. He showed the Commission several pictures of the trees on the property, and said he wants the forester to take a closer look at what is being counted. Jerry Kassanchuk, 235 Paisley Lane, said he moved here because it is a special area. He said dividing this one large lot into two, and putting in two cookie cutter homes is not going to be good for the neighborhood. He said the three new houses east of his on Meander Road are an indication of how this can hurt the neighborhood. He referred to the Comprehensive Plan and reiterated that one of the goals in the plan is to preserve Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 7 traditional neighborhoods and this is a traditional neighborhood. He said the developer could build a million dollar home, make the same profit, and not hurt anyone. Jean-Philippe Richard, 217 Paisley Lane, said the lot is very hilly, probably the steepest hill in the neighborhood, and is covered with dense woods with a foot of leaves. He said he doesn't know how much of it will be removed, but the water is going to run off the property. He said that even though on paper the property can be subdivided, he is not so sure it is a good idea. He said it would be nice if the Planning Commissioners could walk the neighborhood and actually see the lot. He said if the neighbors can't do anything about the subdivision it would be very nice if the builder(s) could build something like what was already built before. Brad Gilmore, 208 Paisley Lane, said it is their goal to present a strong and unified voice. He said they do not support this subdivision because it adversely affects the residents by putting strain on the cul-de-sac and the likely erosion and run-off. He said there are water issues in this neighborhood, and he has installed $13,000 of drain tile. He said the subdivision will adversely affect the remarkable wildlife in the area, and these are matters that should be respected and considered as being very important. He said the subdivision doesn't preserve the character of their neighborhood. They have modest houses, every house is different, and what is happening in the neighborhood will change that forever. He said their neighborhood was laid out 60-plus years ago and questioned if anyone has the right to change was set up 60 years ago, and it just seems wrong. He said the subdivision adversely affects the quiet peacefulness of their wide open space. He said many of them who recently bought in to the neighborhood paid a premium to raise their children there because of the way the neighborhood feels, so by developing this neighborhood the way they feel it is being developed will take away from the value of their houses and conflicts with why he bought his house in Golden Valley. He said the real problem that he has with what is going on is the quality of the construction being put in the neighborhood. He said he feels terrible for the people who are buying these $500,000 to $700,000 houses because in 5 to 12 years they are going to be failing into the swamp they are being built on. He said he wants to know who is approving construction that is surrounded by water on three sides and he wants to know that everything is being taken care of. He said when he sees examples of what he is trying to avoid, that is when he raises his hand and says it has to be looked at, at the very least, and stopped at the very best. He said this neighborhood is at a tipping point and this is a unique situation and he doesn't know where else this is happening. They have lots up to one acre in size, and the old houses are at a stage where they could be torn down as a cost effective measure so for $200,000 per lot, a $300,000, 4,000 square foot house at the lowest construction price per square foot could be built. This concerns him because it's temporary, and will change the look of the neighborhood, and the properties will fall into the hands of people who really don't care about their neighborhood. Stacy Hoschka, address not given, stated that she is a Bassett Creek Watershed Commissioner attending the meeting to listen. She stated that the drainage plans will go through a review process and that the Watershed Commission's number one priority is flooding, and the flooding of homes. She said some of the water issues can be Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 8 mitigated. She stated that with respect to silt fences, and storm drains, because this property is on top of a hill, it could be a reasonable concern that the silt fences could fall apart, so she strongly urged the developer to submit a "beefed-up" plan, and to have inspections of the silt fences and storm sewer intakes. She referred to the tree preservation plan and questioned the removal of the trees that are dead and/or fragile, or if they are located in a position where they could be damaged or die, are counted toward the trees that are saved, but could be counted in what is removed. She stated that she lives in a house, on an acre lot that was homesteaded in 1856, and there was a lot of concern when she bought her house about what was going to happen to the birds, etc., but she kept the house the way it is, so it is doable, and it is a very nice way to live. Sean O'Neill, 209 Meander Road, said he is concerned about the practices of the builders, and how they're building the new homes, because when the new houses near him were built it was a mud pit for months while truck after truck brought in dirt. He said another concern is keeping silt off roads and out of the streams and sewers because there is a lot of water in the area. He said he is concerned about the integrity of the neighborhood because the existing homes are set back, and don't look alike. He said he was amazed when the builder of the new homes on Meander built two of the same homes next to each other. He said he wants this new proposal done responsibly, so it blends in with the neighborhood. Kathleen Watkins, 112 Paisley Lane, said she moved here because the lots were big, the houses were in the middle, there were grown trees, and she didn't have to worry about her kids playing in the neighborhood. She said she understands the day has come for subdivisions, but questioned how they will get two houses on this property because of the steep incline. It will change the elevation, and she thinks a more creative architect or builder could address the subdivision better than any LDK homes she has seen. She said there is a drainage issue and this will add to those problems. John Rode, 205 Paisley Lane, asked who is going to take care of the mud slide when it happens. He said the applicants were surveying the property in March and they still don't have plans for the houses. He said his sump pump runs more now than it did before the streets were reconstructed. He said there is not room for these new houses and he is totally against the proposal. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka referred to the cul-de-sac requirements and asked if the Subdivision Code requires the existing cul-de-sac to be expanded. Zimmerman said the requirements in the Subdivision Code would apply if a new cul-de-sac was being proposed. Grimes added that streets and cul-de-sacs are built narrower to reduce impervious surface. He stated that one new home will add approximately 10 trips per day and the cul-de-sac is adequate for this proposal. Waldhauser asked if the neighbors could pay for a wider cul- de-sac. Grimes said the neighbors could petition the City for the cul-de-sac to be widened at their cost. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 9 Kluchka asked about the grading plan. Grimes stated that each lot will have an individual grading plan and tree preservation plan, and that the City Engineer is satisfied the grading will work. Waldhauser asked if impaired or dead trees are excluded from the tree count, and asked about the accuracy of the count. Kluchka said the final count will be confirmed by the City Forester. Grimes added that the City does not require buckthorn to be removed. Segelbaum asked about trees that straddle a property line. Zimmerman said he would defer to the Forester in that situation. Kluchka asked about the City's approach in making sure that drainage plans are appropriate. Zimmerman stated that drainage plans are reviewed during the building permit process and reiterated that the proposed subdivision will not be allowed to make any existing drainage issues worse. Segelbaum asked what assurances there are that drainage plans will work, and if there is any type of post-construction recourse against a builder if there are problems. Baker said he wants to be sure the City Council knows that this is an issue they need to address. He said he is sympathetic to the loss of character, but that can be changed if residents push for it. Boudreau-Landis asked if other cities have separate zoning districts. Grimes said yes. Segelbaum said he does not see a way the Planning Commission can recommend denial of this. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to approve the Paisley Lane Woods minor subdivision subject to the following findings and conditions Findings: 1. Both lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the Single Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. 2. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. 3. The addition of the new lots will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. Conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. A park dedication fee of $1,540 shall be paid before final plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated July 7, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. 5. A neighborhood meeting held by the applicant must be held before City Council consideration. city, of Lxs goldM ��. lley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: July 14, 2014 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing— Preliminary Plan for Minor Subdivision — 221 Paisley Lane— LDK Builders, Inc., Applicant Summary of Request LDK Builders, Inc., is proposing to subdivide the property located at 221 Paisley Lane into two separate lots. The existing home would be demolished and two new single family homes would be constructed on the two new lots. City Code requires that each new lot be a minimum of 10,000 square feet in the Single Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. Lot 1 to the west would be 22,958 square feet and the lot to the east, Lot 2, would be 24,129 square feet. City Code also requires that each lot have a minimum of 80 feet of width at the minimum front setback line. Lot 1 would have approximately 93 feet of width; Lot 2 would have 90 feet of width. The dimensions of both of the newly created lots provide a sufficient building envelope for development. Qualification as a Minor Subdivision The proposed two lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the property located at 221 Paisley Lane is an existing platted lot of record, the proposed subdivision will produce fewer than four lots, and it will not create need for public improvements. The applicant has submitted the required information to the City that allows for the subdivision to be evaluated as a minor subdivision. Staff Review of Minor Subdivision Staff has evaluated the proposed lot subdivision request as a minor subdivision. As previously indicated, the proposed subdivision would create two lots in the Single Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. The Applicant has submitted a survey of the existing lot prior to the proposed subdivision, as well as a preliminary plat displaying the two lots after the subdivision. These documents provide the City with the necessary information to evaluate the proposed minor subdivision. The City Engineer has submitted a memorandum dated July 7, 2014, regarding recommendations from the Public Works Department concerning this request. Requirements set forth in the Engineering memo are to be included in the recommended action of this subdivision. Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Subdivision According to Section 12.50 of the City's Subdivision Regulations, the following are the regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions with staff comments related to this request: 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. Both lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the Single Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not buildable. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utility systems by the addition of the new lots. The addition of the new lots will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the City. As discussed in the Engineering memo, drainage and utility easements must be shown on the final plat. 5. If public agencies other than the City have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the minor subdivision, the agencies will be given the opportunities to comment. No other public agencies have jurisdiction over the streets adjacent to the site. 6. The City may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney for dedication of certain easements. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 7. The minor subdivision may be subject to park dedication requirements. A park dedication fee of $1,540 (2% of estimated land market value with credit for one existing unit) shall be paid by the applicant prior to final plat approval. Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. A park dedication fee of$1,540 shall be paid before final plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated July 7, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated July 7, 2014 (2 pages) Site Plans (6 pages) City 0f0 golden' MEMORANDUM lPublic Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: July 7, 2014 To: VMark Grimes, Community Development Director From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Joe Fox, E.I.T., Water Resour s Engineer Subject: Paisley Lane Woods Minor Subdivision —221 Paisley Lane Public Works Staff has reviewed the application for a minor subdivision to be named Paisley Lane Woods. The subdivision is located at 221 Paisley Lane. Preliminary Plat and Site Plan The proposed subdivision includes dividing the existing single-family parcel into two single-family lots with frontage on Paisley Lane. The Developer will be required to obtain a City of Golden Valley Right-of-Way Management Permit for the installation of driveway aprons onto Paisley Lane as well as for utility service installation. There were no easements dedicated on the original Tralee plat in 1939. The preliminary plat for the current proposed subdivision shows 6-foot drainage and utility easements along the sides of the new parcels and 10-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and back of the new parcels. These easements are acceptable as drawn. The existing home will be torn down. A City of Golden Valley Demolition Permit will be required along with Sewer and Water Cutoff Permits. Utilities In the new subdivision, Lot 1 will use the existing water service and a new sanitary service. Lot 2 will use a new water service and the existing sanitary service. The existing home at 221 Paisley Lane is compliant with the City's Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance. Both new homes must also be compliant with this ordinance before a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. G:\Developments-Private\Paisley Lane Woods\Memo_Minor_Subd_PaisleyLn.docx Stormwater Management The proposed subdivision is within the Sweeney Lake sub-watershed of the Bassett Creek Watershed. The lots will be individually graded by the Developer. This project does not meet the threshold for review by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. The Developer will be required to obtain individual City of Golden Valley Stormwater Management Permits for each lot at the time of home construction. At the time of permit application, Grading and Erosion Control Plans that meet City standards must be submitted. Tree Preservation This development is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Because each lot will be custom-graded at the time of home construction, the project will be considered a single-lot development, in which a separate Tree Preservation Permit will be required for each lot. The Developer has submitted a Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan which will assist in the review of each permit application. Recommendation Based upon a review of the materials submitted by the Developer and appropriate City ordinances and standards, Public Works staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision for Paisley Lane Woods. Approval is subject to the Developer obtaining the required permits as described above and becoming compliant with the City's Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance. Please feel free to call me with any questions regarding this matter. C: Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist John Crelly, Fire Chief Jerry Frevel, Building Official Kelly Janes, Utilities Supervisor Jason Zimmerman, City Planner &\Developments-Private\Paisley Lane Woods\Memo_Minor_Subd_PaisleyLn.docx GR O U P 4931 W.35TH ST.SUITE 200 ST.LOUIS PARK,MN 55418 _ CivilSileGmup.mm Matl Pavek Pat Sarver 763-213-3944 952-250-2003 PAISL Y LAN WOODS GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA JtLDK celve Homes'QOnn SHEETINDEX ISSUED FOR: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE C-0.0 TITLE SHEET N C-1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN/SURVEY uui lir -" vtisnT a may" a _ C-2.0 PRELIMINARY PLAT,SITE PLAN Z *'."-"w" C-3.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN g r) CID 4 tat 2 C- PRELIMINARY PLAT . PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN O } C-55.0O PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN � J � � zW 1 W U CITY SUBMITTAL Z o N Q o = w v w Y Q z: let t Lu < J DEVELOPER: MASTER LEGEND: LU _DK HOMES V .� ------932 -------- EX.2'CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL < 74.. 8242 125TH AVE. N ti 4 v o E Go MILACA,MN 56353 EXISTING SPOT GRADE ELEVATION a .� Nntnen Sae 419 PROPOSED 2'CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL a _ Glow Aix ry,Lo SPOT GRADE ELEVATION(GUTTERIFLOW LINE Iti y GlgIMOq� –�° UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) :5w,,tMro � p PROPERTY OWNER: azz.oac 1 422orc SPOT GRADE ELEVATION BACK OF CURB(TOP OF .�s k LAWRENCE DAVIS CURB) REBECCA BADER 4220- SPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF WALL g } 221 PAISLEY LN U • GOLDEN VALLEY,MN 55422 42208`" SPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF WALL "I O DRAINAGE ARROW x a EMERGENCY OVERFLOW IHEREBv CERTIFY THAT THIS PUN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS SITE LOCATION ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: SILT FENCE I GRADING LIMIT PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SITE LOCATION MAP N --- EOF -- CIVIL SITE GROUP __ SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY 4931 W 35TH STREET INLET PROTECTION LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SUITE 200 UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MII . ST LOUIS PARK,MN 55416 IESOTA 763-213-3944 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SOIL BORING LOCATION MaMew R.Pavel, SURVEYOR: DATE 6-13-14 LICFr NO 44263 CURB AND GUTTER(T.O=TIP OUT) LOT SURVEYS COMPANY,INC. -----�a--------- ISSUEISUBMITTAL SUMMARY 7601 73RD AVE.NORTH PROPOSED MANHOLE STORM DATE DESCRIPTION MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55428 (763)560-3093613-14 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL � PROPOSED CATCH BASIN OR CATCH BASIN MANHOLE STORM PROPOSED GATE VALVE WETLAND DELINEATOR: PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT NIA Oe PROPOSED MANHOLE SANITARY PROPOSED SIGN PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER — PROPOSED STORM SEWER I— GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: PROPOSED WATER MAIN REVISION SUMMARY EXISTING SANITARY SEWER DATE DESCRIPTION TBD _ EXISTING STORM SEWER —' '— EXISTING WATER MAIN —G �— EXISTING GAS MAIN —E E EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC __C--------—–C— EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE O EXISTING MANHOLE m EXISTING ELECTRIC BOX TITLE SHEET ❑ EXISTING CATCH BASIN -* EXISTING LIGHT EXISTING HYDRANT 14 EXISTING GAS METER /� O EXISTING STOPBOX 0 EXISTING GAS VALVE /\\/�'o-0.O ►� EXISTING GATE VALVE 33"IW'tlJ Established in 1962 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. F.B.NINVOICENo: 82727 .B.NO. 1074-60 LAND SURVEYORS SCALE: 1"= 20' REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7691 73rd Avenue North (763)560-3093 0 Denotes Found Iron Monument. EXISTING.CONDITIONS SURV{<•1'FOR:: Minneapolis,Minesga.55428 Fax No.560-3522 O Dengec Iron Manuirianf LDK BUILDERSLtrUPLf Q �FrtiMtP' x000,0 Donates Ezisfin9 Elevation Basis for Propertylocated in Section 33,Township IIS,Range 21, bearings:is - oenotas E.lstingconrour Hennepin County,Minnesota. i -- assrnned Denotes Proposed contour Property Address:221 Parsley Lane,Golden Valley,MN / PID No,33-118-21-33-0004 / WUSTINGHARDC0VBR s s/ ReNdeaoe=2466sgS Benctunark Top nut ofhydrant near northeast corner. Dock,Pavors&Conc.-697aq;ft Elevation 90534 feet Driveway-3528sq:f! TbadHardoovar=6691 sq.R / (,atl 902 i Ni Ameofftoal=47097sq.R Percentage ofHm*dvvr=14.2% /s. s'v nU','rG ;�wwer Pde (t-lY/s Go' 902.3'-'W`Wc� J 907.1 - kr nhvle �ad �A�/0450".�l�t � y l tap=902.65. ty 4i pbf W 903.90 rf,5 V1. ty ^� 15prx n 10 910.0 Sac. p =148°03136 + 9�k ,rte fi„sAl ^ Power P r .. I A �... � 90G '') 121rr�re,_. 21�-1 1. r t� �A_ G9,5tY /_.,.]9!7 9TTdd.O A •� 916 lTp �� -912.y //A k 90.5.8 ' (L"� � ! i 1 / i t A, 917.5 I 1 cDl !! 1 j I 1 - ,i 921.E 6 /� 5 I P 1 I/ i I 922.3 113c7:0 1 _� 9 I _ 92/.0 ✓," OlAe ! ! .RJ. 9/5:0 Ca 5 d b1 r daor,ws - r. ! 1 feta L ✓ ! 1 I onc` A ! ! : 141.5 .9 V. ` 15..8 aJOt - 5J lfr.2 � i. /! i r ! ! , 1 ' 195. dop s 1 ac 9vMrQ a .9.16 ga3 ar:rer' rC' �C r� �9/ �' J ✓ 24 oak/ -�/ \\�1 �111 a r 1 I ��T 91�'S;6 �! � ! 4' r 918 /C d r jlr'7/ 1 ! 1 ) _ W /51. X1.1 923.0 71y 922. `� 2 _ 1 r I, I 921.3',.. . ' ��, r� 8 '91 -52 5 !' ! !4 / S/r X52 1 1S'p+x L 9 4.0 . '�t I � p 928.9 - � l � ! � a i 6'oak �r� � 90g• � !r y�k 11 r ! r 916.1p i "rx \91�R ��,, \ O'aak 'Ole CP I \ V' be"a7•i, oak Po 91s.7 S88 I 1`5658"E 200.80 9/3.6 SETBACK;REQUIREMENTS: FRONTS Principal structure-35 feet Porch.&,Dock-30 feet SIDE: The only easements shown are from.plats of record or information For structures 15'or less in height the setback is.15 feet;. Lot 2,Black 1,"TRALEE",Hennepin County,Minnesota. provided by client. for structures l5.or greater setback is 15'plus 0.9 for each.additional 7'of structure ova IS feet. REAR: I certify that this plan specification,or report was prepared by me or . 20%oflot depth. under my direct supervision and that Iam a duly Licensed land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Setback lines shown are for the structure's current condition. Surveyed this 7th day of April 2014. F efor to City code foradditional.requirements. Rev. -Drown By og& Sigurd File No- T-2-i V 074W-V,1274wg o-T-2-116107460-V,127dwe Gr R Pre Mon Reg.No.24992 a no m n N � O o Z � C e� 3 D A O ES£99 NW'`OV-IIW''3AV HIM ZVZ8 F- Z �..+ <poww a g g �� 9N S3WOH Mal Nap`=N N � a a ea �a x >- W < 'tea a oFow y H N ZZbSS NW`l3lldA N3410`J`3Nbl13lSldd LZZ `=0==oLLo a Q t4 ON � � � U �1 gym j �oo�w3z m J t: °z = ° Z M^i rc°�<$gz ra g boa w °,oF U > W w d w am Sa00M 3N�d� Jl3�Slb�d waaj== 103rOld b 44b U N N �Q U U a W a z W f b 3 O a O S J O~ ❑ W 7 U J O W Q 0 O o N P V W N W W W O O J aD N W Q W Y _ W (7 (� z z z.� z g z LL O O Z N C7 C aW0 > > LL JK m N in m K m 55 Q .�. N N N o Q n / Z Ir �m R K OL K O h Z Qm � �~ 3 � O = 3 p F4o �❑ \ 0 0 Y N r Z 3 z 3 0 Y U o . 8 . 1 z 21. o I W"�m�s m n\ Z LL • > > w ru o N + Zz z o I \\ O a U z Q z W W r J J qK W Zgo `Y' w `�' o a > W y O S O W Z O F U F F❑ o z W T m ❑ ❑ 2 WNW U NN N O 6 LL U LL 0 O OF G N Ul Z N CQ L y O y L O Z_ vWy w N a N 2' y Q II^�, ' / ``\``f ,r �.0e100, SI \ \.` , �p Ia. a+ LL 00co LO Orn N I i I r - - - - - a- - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — i ��,�--G------------------Qac----------------------J - 1.SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL LAYOUT&GENERAL GRADING NOTES. 11. FINISHED GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETED.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE i Vii b i t e 2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION(INCLUDING BUT AREAS WITHIN LIMITS OF GRADING,INCLUDING ADJACENT TRANSITION AREAS.PROVIDE A G R O U P NOT LIMITED TO SITE PREPARATION,SOIL CORRECTION,EXCAVATION,EMBANKMENT,ETC.)IN SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACE WITHIN SPECIFIED TOLERANCES,WITH UNIFORM LEVELS OR 4931 W.35TH ST.SUITE 200 SLOPES BETWEEN POINTS WHERE ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN,OR BETWEEN SUCH POINTS AND ST.LOUIS PARK,MN 55416 ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER.ALL SOIL c;wlSiwrmuPuum • TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNERS SOILS ENGINEER.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXISTING GRADES.AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISH GRADED SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM Matt Pavek Pat Sarver BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REWIRED SOIL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS,TRAFFIC AND EROSION.REPAIR ALL AREAS THAT 763-213-3944 952-25D-2003 l C ECO HAVE BECOME RUTTED BY TRAFFIC OR ERODED BY WATER OR HAS SETTLED BELOW THE l V� THE SOILS ENGINEER. H _ CORRECT GRADE.ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS SHALL BE 3.GRADING AND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESTORED TO EQUAL OR BETTER THAN ORIGINAL CONDITION OR TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF - ��r NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM(NPDES)PERMIT REQUIREMENTS& THE NEW WORK. S PERMIT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. 12. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE AGGREGATE BASE,A TEST ROLL WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE 1 4,PROPOSED SPOT GRADES ARE FLOW-LINE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS,UNLESS STREET AND/OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LOADED OTHERWISE NOTED. ' TANDEM AXLE TRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TONS THE TEST ROLLING SHALL BE AT / f ( S.GRADES OF WALKS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH 5%MAX.LONGITUDINAL SLOPE AND 1%MIN. THE DIRECTION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLETED IN AREAS AS DIRECTED AND 2%MAX.CROSS SLOPE,UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. BY THE SOILS ENGINEER THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WHICH SECTIONS OF THE STREET OR PARKING AREA ARE UNSTABLE.CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE 6.PROPOSED SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 3d UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE ON THE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. DRAWINGS.MAXIMUM SLOPES IN MAINTAINED AREAS IS 4:1 /QQA 7.PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS,FREESTANDING WALLS,OR COMBINATION OF WALL TYPES 13. TOLERANCES \ - GREATER THAN 4'IN HEIGHT SHALL BE DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED BY REGISTERED 13.1. THE BUILDING SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE RETAINING WALL ENGINEER DESIGN DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMIT-TED FOR REVIEW AND THAN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE,OR 0.30 FOOT BELOW,THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION AT ANY APOINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE. APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION /��, 'i; ♦ 5 F� 13.2. THE STREET OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT LDK ♦ 'o \ - \ &THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF GRADE STAKES VARY BY MORE THAN 0.05 FOOT ABOVE,OR 0.10 FOOT BELOW,THE PRESCRIBED ?.c; ♦ THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION TO ESTABLISH PROPER GRADES,THE ELEVATION OF ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A FINAL FIELD CHECK OF FINISHED GRADES 13.3. AREAS WHICH ARE TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WITHIN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE >FI031lCS.COfiI} ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENGINEERI ANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO TOPSOIL AND SODDING OR BELOW THE REQUIRED ELEVATION,UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE �• ���^�� r \ \ \ ACTIVITIES. ENGINEER. 13.4. TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO PLUS OR MINUS 1,2 INCH OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS. \ 9 IF EXCESS OR SHORTAGE OF SOIL MATERIAL EXISTS,THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TRANSPORT 14. MAINTENANCE ALL EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL OFF THE SITE TO AN AREA SELECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR OR � 14.1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT NEWLY GRADED AREAS FROM TRAFFIC AND� \ ` ♦ , -- 000000 �♦ \ R IMPORT SUITABLE MATERIAL TO THE SITE. EROSION,AND KEEP AREA FREE OF TRASH AND DEBRIS. • `*" >/r \ ♦` �� 10. EXCAVATE TOPSOIL FROM AREAS TO BE FURTHER EXCAVATED OR REGRADED AND 14.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND REESTABLISH GRADES IN SETTLED,ERODED AND F 3$. 908 ` O� STOCKPILE IN AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE SITE.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE ENOUGH RUTTED AREAS TO SPECIFIED TOLERANCES.DURING THE CONSTRUCTION,IF REQUIRED, GRADING LIMIT, \FSg , N\ \ \ TOPSOIL FOR RESPREADING ON THE SITE AS SPECIFIED.EXCESS TOPSOIL SHALL BE PLACED AND DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD,ERODED AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE SILT FEN/'ll�iE \ `9j IN EMBANKMENT AREAS,OUTSIDE OF BUILDING PADS,ROADWAYS AND PARKING AREAS.THE ESTABLISHED SHALL BE RESEEDED AND MULCHED. 'yA, 04 F \ - \ O \ CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBCUT CUT AREAS,WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED,TO A DEPTH 14.3. WHERE COMPLETED COMPACTED AREAS ARE DISTURBED BY SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS OR ADVERSE WEATHER,CONTRACTOR SHALL SCARIFY, 10 O OF 4INCHES.RESPREAD TOPSOIL IN AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED TO LO 910 - �?;a A�O \. \ S - MINIMUM DEPTH OF 4INCHES. CONSTRUCTION.EAPE, D COMPACT TO REQUIRED DENSITY PRIOR TO FURTHER O � \ ` AN 00 G��O ff��2 Gj` wP N GENERAL EROSION CONTROL NOTES: CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY GRADING NOTES: O LU z _. �jQ. U, \ s 1.SEE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN(SWPPP)FOR EROSION AND 1.RESERVED FOR SPECIAL CIN NOTES Q Lu 1 -... 91.2 A O� N '1� \ SEDIMENTATION NOTES AND DETAILS. W > W U - r I 912 ` \ \ ` ♦•J A� _ \ 2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONTROLLING ALL Z W 0 \ \ V` •g` (� �m SILTATION AND EROSION OF THE PROJECT AREA.ALL EROSION CONTROL AND SILTATION O TO I G F 91 3.00 \\ \ r\ �O v \ ; CONTROL MEASURES SHALL COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA'S BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Q U i LOT 1 \ \\�G T �.. � ��Ah. GRADING LIMIT, MANUAL.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY TO CONTROL J UTUJ \ Q7 O �•• I \ EROSION AND SILTATION INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,STAKED STRAW BALES,ROCK Y \ \ ;, SILT FENCE ENTRANCES ANDIOR SILT FENCES.CONTROL SHALL COMMENCE WITH GRADING AND Z Q = 22,958 S 91 Nm \ O O \ CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT UNTIL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK BY THE OWNER. J J ' I - \ - A 6'• pU :�, p _ \ \ - THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDES;ALL DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION AS W Lc)�• N I LF:90 8.50 \ \ \ \ \ ♦ 1 OI \ \ \ REQUIRED TO PREVENT EROSION AND THE DEPOSITING OF SILT.THE OWNER MAY,AT J W Eli TB:916.50 \ \ \ I HISMER OPTION,DIRECT THE CONTRACTOR IN HISMER METHODS AS DEEMED FIT TO /A Ln N `` \ Sr- N ^^^.,��� \ PROTECT PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS,ANY DEPOSITING OF SILT OR MUD ON NEW OR V/ Q a0 p y ,p I- \ EXISTING PAVEMENT OR IN EXISTING STORM SEWERS OR SWALES SHALL BE REMOVED D_ 81 F B \ 6\ \� ` \ AFTER EACH RAIN AND EFFECTED AREAS CLEANED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER, ^ N S DROP GAR \ }I. Owl \ ALL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR. li N 915.0 \ I♦� RP:916.00 X \ \ BLOCK NO. \ STRUCTURE LABEL,TYP. O \ >� ♦ 1 91 .5 �, A ��g0 TYP CITY CURB 100't STATION r i X hUTILITY\ UTILITY LINE,TYP.(SAN.,WATERMAIN) w FINISHED f GRADE UTILITY SERVICES LINES,TYP. 0 'I' 916 I CONC.WALK 6+00 SYy 1 t- '�9�4 •J /� � FINISHED ELEV. CORNER I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, ♦- 8 42'RS 9 �j� C91f \ , FRONTS MIEIN 9 N SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS 1 4 1 - - 3 SUPERVISION AND THAT I AMA DULY I�C PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT 16`_ ��-� / :/ TI- I LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER - UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ♦,--- --- rQ 1�>•a SUGGESTED DRIVEWAY 6.00 1 ROAD NAME MI NESOTA. 1 LOCATION 1 F:944.00 1� /T�, DRIVEWAY SLOPE F:935.50 BUILDING FRONT PAD J c. GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. 7944,so SETBACK Ma new R.Pavek i - - -.T - - - - _ � � � �Q� / SIDE UTILITY EASEMENT o uceNse No.44263 _ _ \ �1 LOT NO 9 W IATE 613 14 LOWEST FLOOR ELEV. a I P:935.00 LOT DIMENSIONS' I 1 BUILDING PAD LATE DESCRIPTION SUMMARY TOP OF BLOCK ELEV. yl 1 I -. 6.11314 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL uw -r RECOMMENDED HOUSE TYPE .z'P REAR PAD GROUND ELEV. BUILDING SIDE SETBACK - __----- - BUILDING REAR SETBACK SILT FENCE,TYP REAR UTILITY EASEMENT PROPOSED CONTOURS EXIST.CONTOURS / REVISION SUMMARY TYPICAL LOT INFORMATION: DATE DESCRIPTION GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WPRELIMINARY W W.GOPH ERSTATEONECALL.ORG (800(651)454-TOL454-0002 LFREEOCAL ^ GRADING PLAN (651)454-0002 LOCAL C3.0 1'=p,-0• 10,10,-0® 1.SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL DIMENSIONS AND LAYOUT AND GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES,CATCHBASINS,OR OTHER STRUCTURES. %.ivu t e 1111 NOTES. 15. PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ARE FROM CENTER TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE OR TO END OF G as311 W.35THOST.SUITE2 0 P 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND FLARED END SECTION. ST.LOUIS PARK,MN 55416 ' TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY .wm 16. UTILITIES ON THE PLAN ARE SHOWN TO WITHIN 5'OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT.THE swan PavP-1, CJWSIl G-ppai sante NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS. 263-213-3944 952-2W-" CONTRACTOR IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL CONNECTION TO BUILDING LINES. 3.THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND MECHANICAL PLANS. EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS 17. CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE BUMPED 0.04 FEET.ALL CATCH INFORMATION LITY COMPANIES AND,WHERE POSSIBLE,MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD.THE BASINS IN GUTTERS SNAIL BE BUMPED 0.15 FEET PER DETAILS.RIM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON MATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE.THE CONTRACTOR V Z - THIS PLAN DO NOT REFLECT SUMPED ELEVATIONS. MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE ANY ,= EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES.IT SHALL BE THE 18. A MINIMUM OF 8 FEET OF COVER IS REQUIRED OVER ALL WATERMAIN,UNLESS OTHERWISE CONNECT TO EX MANHOLE, f' ` - "' '" RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH NOTED.EXTRA DEPTH MAY REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 18'VERTICAL W/SAN.SERVICE,CORE % j CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.THE LOCATIONS OF SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES.EXTRA DEPTH WATERMAIN IS ^ -- SMALL UTILITIES SHALL BE OBTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR,BY CALLING GOPHER STATE ONE INCIDENTAL DRILL, REPLACE STREET IN %y/ � � e \ \ CALL.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED T >! YYY DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER19. A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL . - KIND PER CITY STANDARDS SEPARATION IS REQUIRED FOR ALL WATERMAIN,STORM SEWER AND SANITARY SEWER PIPES, 4.ALL SOILS TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY AN INDEPENDENT SOILS ENGINEER. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. \ ', EXCAVATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVING UNSTABLE OR UNSUITABLE SOILS SHALL BE NIS 20.ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS COMPLETED AS REQUIRED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER.THE UTILITY BACKFILL CONSTRUCTION AND COORDINATED WITH THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER,THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOILS TESTS AND SOIL INSPECTIONS 21.CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES SHALL BECORE-DRILLED. T D �`. J,�t J,11,, \ - WITH THE SOILS ENGINEER * %g, � .-,.- I \, �"� 22.COORDINATE LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF SERVICE CONNECTIONS WITH THE MECHANICAL 5.UTILITY INSTALLATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT EDITION OF'STANDARD DRAWINGS SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER MAIN AND SERVICE LINE INSTALLATION'AND SANITARY SEWER 23.COORDINATE INSTALLATION AND SCHEDULING OF THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES WITH )-I013]CS.COTTt NEW WATER SER ` \ AND STORM SEWER INSTALLATION'AS PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF ADJACENT CONTRACTORS AND CITY STAFF. �\ MINNESOTA(C SPECIFICATIONS.AND SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CIN AND THE USE EX SAN SERV. PROJECT SPECIFIC24.ALL STREET REPAIRS AND PATCHING SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CIN.ALL PAVEMENT CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SAWCUi.ALL'-TRAFFIC CONTROLS SHALL ' \ ; 6.ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE TO CITY REQUIREMENTS. BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF 7.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPEN,TURN OFF,INTERFERE WITH,OR ATTACH ANY PIPE OR HOSE THE MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES(MMUTCD)AND THE CITY. THIS SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO SIGNAGE,BARRICADES,FLASHERS,AND \ \ % TO CI TAP ANY ADVERSE BELONGING TO THE CITY UNLESS DULY AUTHORIZED L DO SO BY FLAGGERS AS NEEDED.ALL PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES.NO \ � THE CITY.ANY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY SCHEDULED OR UNSCHEDULED j DISRUPTIONS OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC ARE THE LIABILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR ROAD CLOSURES SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CITY. ' \ \ \ \\ 8.CASTINGS SHALL BE SALVAGED FROM STRUCTURE REMOVALS AND RE-USED OR PLACED AT 25.ALL STRUCTURES,PUBLIC AND PRIVATE,SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO PROPOSED GRADES CN NEWS NSERV. \ \ \ , THE DIRECTION OF THE OWNER. WHERE REQUIRED.THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL OWNERS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH. C Lo 7 \ STRUCTURES BEING RESET TO PAVED AREAS MUST MEET OWNERS REQUIREMENTS FOR Lo M . \ \ � 9.ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN CEAM SPECIFICATIONS EXCEPT AS MODIFIED TRAFFIC LOADING. 0 z EXTEND EX WAT R SERV. \ 2 \ HEREIN. CDM \ \ \ ` O� G�` \� '*Fl 10. ALL MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. 26.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANIES. O W Z 1 Q y A ✓ G,.`a 27.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE CONNECTION OF IRRIGATION SERVICE TO UTILITIES. J �/� f \ \ cC� 11. ALL WATER PIPE SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON PIPE(DIP)UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. -J v/ J LU \ A `(� \`9 COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION SLEEVES NECESSARY AS TO NOT IMPACT 1,1 \��`; 12. ALL SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE POLYVINYL CHLORIDE(PVC)UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES. W U 13. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE(RCP)OR HIGH DENSITY 28.CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND SUBMIT Z LU 0 Q 1 PO OLYETHYLENE(HDPE)UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THESE PLANS TO ENGINEER UPON COMPLETION OF WORK. Q % 14. ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR O Z LLI LOT 1 \�G \ \ \ WATERTIGHT.APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT J ( V > r % 22,958 SF Q o F l W J \\\ \ \\ \ CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY UTILITY NOTES: J w i ` \ 1.RESERVED FOR SPECIAL CITY NOTES y % 04 ` \ \ ` r \ � a ` \ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS \ ` PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY \ LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NESOTA. V C Malfh I ` - \ \ ^ DATE 6-13-14 eW-ENSE No.44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY 3 DATE DESCRIPTION G13-14 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALLORG PRELIMINARY I (800)252-1166 TOLL FREE UTILITY PLAN (651)454-0002 LOCAL I V r f v £9£99 NW'VOVIIW`AAV Hl9Zl ZbZ8 ...,, w z z A Jw o a 0 ~ z$a S3WOH Nal day = of z n, N'� N zQ msa F� a 3 V/ 0= ZZV99 NW`l3IIVn N3410`J'3NVl l3ISIVd lZZ ffi q o N . < D W W �mw °waw " J ° g p Z W �aV rc° ogg r E O a CL u�mNai N w aN SaOOM 3NVI A31SIVd wa .F5 aj== o ' W w � a iO3road ~ q aR 4 J Awa Q QLLo U JJN W W,o Q Z o` W m (n S v Lu IY 2<0 S a O C9 • T @@ P v4 4`o N r Z w w ryas a F- a- BQ� Sa O z o W�aa�; rcW g gg W S ffi8aa � €�z ' y55 55y� g< 5g h� y�5�`,��`,�h �� �5 0 9 w -7v-6 O yZ>� (F� mil�n b m b b b�o(o a 5 N m i�F c� ry a'b N N c� (n m ry a io iu• p ry N Ntrvv i�io b m rv — ry n ry a' i to m a - m b p m `o`o Q w W J w � oa000s0000s000000000000�so � 'g a a m _ e O 1= s' = v o >> C7 UL 0 gg o08 �� msmmZ $ � NN � NDN �m���a5g ���al 88So � w a12 A U i-00\, \% ,/ ,`4 a a 41. hNR 1 "E'm ` ♦ I m.R" ♦♦ UP - 1 ♦♦ .om " / / NO , ""A. CI AAAAAN "Nm i "um NN I 1 1 40 mom s � 1 VII 1 ' j NaR �:� L �` , may, 'a" �� ♦��I ����: JF 40 1 ' 1 R s� 1 m2 z �b h O�� "R� ♦♦ ; .P I P City 0 ,$a goldcn MEMORANDUM valley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) WPM Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting August 19, 2014 "60 Days" Deadline: July 7, 2014 "60 Days" Extension: September 5, 2014 Agenda Item 4. C. Public Hearing- Ordinance#519 - Rezoning from Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) - 1001 Lilac Drive North - Max Zelayaran, Applicant Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Summary Coinciding with his request to subdivide the property at 1001 Lilac Drive North, the Applicant is proposing to rezone the eastern portion of the lot from Single Family (R-1) to Moderate Density (R-2) Residential in order to construct two twin homes. Residential properties to the north and west are zoned R-1, while two properties directly to the south across Lindsay Street are zoned R-2 and contain two twin homes. The proposed rezoning is not out of character with the neighboring properties and is consistent with the Low Density land use designation in the City's Comprehensive Plan. This item was continued from the July 1, 2014, City Council meeting. At that time, the Council suggested revising the plan to rezone only the southeast parcel to R-2 and allowing the other two new parcels to remain R-1. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • City Council Minutes dated July 1, 2014 (1 page) • Planning Commission Minutes dated June 9, 2014 (5 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission dated June 9, 2014 (1 page) • City Code Section 11.22: Medium Density (R-2) Residential Zoning District (4 pages) • Site Plan (1 page) • Official Zoning Map (1 page) • Ordinance#519, Rezoning from Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2), 1001 Lilac Drive North, Max Zelayaran, Applicant (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 519, Rezoning from Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-1)to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2), 1001 Lilac Drive North, Max Zelayaran, Applicant. -7-17.77 71 .' 1113 ice, 1118 �., its 1240 1231 7230 AM. 1131 1107 z " x 1106 z —1220 1234 18,1'* 1221 1220 1221 5600 3310 Subject Property: 2 -120q - 1207 1200 -1201- 120. Y Ptroentx S t ! p 1001 Lilac Drive North nt„� 5 3325 J 1 i 1Y 40 1141 I �- 1100 ” 0 1130 ti31 ;i 1130 1131 , 5880 5040 3820 3800 -: # 1120 1121 Q 1120 1121 112 A 3340 3 �, SsaO ssz0 5607 3300 1100 5200wo 11 ` 58� 5S25Z Nam x 3733 - ThOVand Rd ° 3321; 5901 52?1, 1041 1040 { Ecam a 1r ldP ki.sF'�' �k •-.44 ,r,. — Wy,, 55375535 55275525 i 1030 1031 1020 Yt7 Y7Y, 102 .... Z i '800.,,.: l` �` u z .v�F 1�,0 1001 ? Y40 z 1 9 '.--r•__v^^i,-1 f+' ` .. *"„-'ii k314 930 �"�-'^r--.""r--•-- "^.`-....,,`._ `-^` � 921 9#a lac LOG 241 d Official City Council Minutes -4- July 1, 2014 4B. Publicri a iminary Plan for Carousel Automobiles PUD — continued 6. The PUD plan the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. 4C. Public Hearing - Ordinance #519 - Rezoning from Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) - 1001 Lilac Drive North - Max Zelayaran, Applicant City Planner Zimmerman stated that items 4C and 4D are related issues. He presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council. Attorney Barnard answered questions from the Council. City Manager Burt answered questions from the Council. Mr. Max Zelayaran, Applicant, reviewed his plans and answered questions from the Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. Mr. Randy Anderson, 5645 Lindsay Street, stated he was not opposed to redevelopment but he is opposed to having two twin homes built on the lot. He is concerned about having more rental properties in the area and that the applicant stated he would built the single family home for $200,000. He is worried as to where the driveway placements will be due to the busy street is on a hill. He would like to see a park on the lot but would be okay with two single homes and one twin home. Mr. Michael Garant, 5540 Lindsay Street, stated he would be okay with two single homes and one twin home but not the proposed one single home and two twin homes. He stated Lilac Drive is a busy street that at one time had stop signs. He would like the signs back up, Ms. Renee Bergquist, 5620 Lindsay Street, stated she is not opposed to two single homes and one twin but does not feel there is not enough room for the proposed two twins and one single family home. She is concerned about the noise levels due to the fact the new homes will be built on a hill above her home. She also stated the neighborhood has had past sewer flowing issues and feels more homes in the area will bring more issues. She would like to see a park or community garden on the lot. Mr. Anderson stated at a neighborhood meeting he attended, it was stated the sewer flowing issues would be address when the street improvements were done. The improvements were scheduled to be done in 2016 but now have been pushed to 2018 or later. Mr. Mick Bergquist, 5620 Lindsay Street, stated he is concerned about water drainage in the area. He feels that if these homes are built, because they are on a hill that he would have water drainage problems. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. There was much Council discussion regarding the proposed variance for rezoning and the subdivision of the lot. MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Mayor Harris to table this item until the August 19, 2014 City Council meeting and extend the application date, upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor thereof: Clausen, Fonnest and Harris and the following voted against: Schmidgall and Snope and the motion carried. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 4 The PUD plan meets the PUD Int t and Purpose provision and all other UD rd' provisions. Conditio 1. The pla dated April 25, 2014 pre ared by LHB submitter ith the application shall become a of this approval. 2. The recomme ations and require ents outlined in a memo from the Fire Department to Grimes, Com unity Develop (ent Director, dated May 19, 2014, shall become part o is approval. 3. The recommendations d require entso�tt hed in the memo from the Public Works Department to Mark Grim Com nity,Zvelopment Director, dated May 23, 2014, shall become a part of this ap va 4. The implementation of the fire ac 4 ` restriping shall be completed prior to Final PUD Plan approval. 5. The Applicant shall work with e Fi ` D'' artment to reach an agreement regarding the timing for implementatio 'of the ;ire Prction Plan prior to approval of the Final PUD Plan. 6. The Applicant shall co truct surfac „filtration (rain` ardens) as part of the walkway construction authori d under the Fi I PUD Plan. 7. The Applicant shal,,>tnstall a stormwa r filtration chambe ithin three years of the execution date o he Final PUD Plan 8. The Applicant 'all demolish the vac t building located on Par .15 and shall remove the nitary sewer up to the ain prior to approval of the I PUD Plan. 9. The Appli nt shall submit a revised rking plan that meets accessib require nts with respect to the num r and location of handicapped pa ng spaces to the tisfaction of the City's Buildin Official prior to approval of the Final D Plan. 10.The anal Plat shall include "P.U.D. N 114" in its title. 11.A1 ignage must meet the requireme s of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 12. is approval is subject to all other st te, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this develop ent. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Subdivision — 1001 Lilac Drive North — Golden Valley Homes — SU12-15 Applicant: Max Zelayaran Addresses: 1001 Lilac Drive North Purpose: To reconfigure the existing property which would allow for the construction of two new twin homes and one new single family home. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 5 4. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 1001 Lilac Drive North — Golden Valley Homes —ZO12-19 Applicant: Max Zelayaran Address: 1001 Lilac Drive North Purpose: To rezone a portion of the existing property from R-1 Single-Family residential to R-2 Moderate Density residential to allow for the construction of two twin homes. The Informal Public Hearing for Items 3 and 4 were combined as was the discussion. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's proposal to subdivide the currently vacant lot it into five separate lots. One R-1 Single Family Residential lot would remain and four lots would be rezoned to R-2 Moderate Density Residential to allow for the construction of four twin home units. All of the proposed new lots meet the area requirements of the Zoning Code; however, Lots 2 & 3 would be 116.43 feet wide instead of the required 120 feet. The City is also requiring an additional 5-foot dedication of right-of-way to bring Lindsay Street into compliance so the applicant is requesting an 8.57 foot variance to allow the width to be 111.43 feet. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposal as it is compatible with the two existing twin homes directly south across Lindsay Street and it is consistent with the density designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Kluchka asked if the property line between the two proposed R-2 lots could be moved further north in order to obtain additional lot width. Zimmerman stated that the lot to the north meets the width requirement and there isn't enough overall width to make both lots conform. Cera asked about the hardship for allowing Lot 2 to be smaller than required. Zimmerman stated that hardship doesn't have to be proven; the standard is to consider practical difficulties. Cera questioned the process and asked which action has to happen first, the subdivision or the rezoning. Zimmerman stated that the two can be considered concurrently. Segelbaum asked how many lots could be created if the property remained R-1 Single Family residential. Zimmerman said there could possibly be three single family lots created. He added that the applicant could also have one single family lot and 1 twin home lot. Grimes stated that the City Code requires each unit to have its own sewer and water. Also, in order for each twin home to have a separate tax I.D. number, there needs to be a lot line through the middle of the two units and a covenant agreement in place. Max Zelayaran, Applicant, stated he is proposing to have one single family home and two, two-family homes, but he is willing to be flexible and build two single family homes Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 6 and one two-family home. He stated that if he builds two twin homes there will be a chance for more families to live here. Kluchka asked the applicant if he can sell the size of house he is proposing right next to Highway 100. Zelayaran stated that there is a sound wall and that it is a very convenient and peaceful area. Waldhauser asked about the steep grade of the property. Zelayaran stated that the single family home will be set back further on the property and that the grade of the property isn't going to be a problem. Kluchka asked the applicant if he plans to build the houses and then sell them or to build custom homes, or to use the homes for rental properties. Zelayaran said that the homes will not be luxury homes. Baker asked the applicant if will sell the vacant lots or if he intends to build the houses. Zelayaran said he plans to build the single family home first and see what happens with the market after that. Cera asked the applicant if he had a neighborhood meeting. Zelayaran said no. Segelbaum asked about the price of the proposed homes. Zelayaran said the homes would be $180,000 to $200,000. Segelbaum asked the applicant how long he has owned the property. Zelayaran said he has owned the property for ten years. Segelbaum asked the applicant why he hasn't developed the property until now. Zelayaran said the economy was too bad. Kluchka asked the applicant when he wants to start construction. Zelayaran stated he'd like to start construction as soon as he gets approval. Randy Anderson, 5645 Lindsay Street, said this property used to be a fire station and an area where kids played. He said the neighborhood is starting to turn over and there are no parks nearby, so he thinks this property would be good for a park, not for homes. He said there is freeway noise and it is going to be loud. He said he understands development, but he is opposed to two sets of twin homes because they become rentals which are not always the best thing. He said he is also concerned about the grade of the lot and having cars backing out onto the frontage road. He said a neighborhood meeting would have been nice and that he would prefer a single family home and one twin home. Ronald Garant, 5540 Lindsay Street, asked how the drainage for this proposed development would work because it sits a lot higher than his property and he doesn't want to get flooded out. He said he doesn't have too much against the proposal, but it seems that the property isn't big enough for all that is being proposed, He reiterated that his main concern is the drainage. Michael Garant, 5540 Lindsay Street, said he is opposed to allowing two twin homes and he would rather see two single family homes and one twin home because there are already two twin homes across the street from this property that aren't being Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 7 maintained. Kluchka asked Garant if the existing twin homes on Lindsay are rental properties. Garant said yes. Leo Anderson, 5625 Lindsay Street, said Lindsay Street is supposed to be reconstructed in 2016 and questioned if this proposal fits with those plans especially if the corner is straightened out. He stated that cars coming from the west screech around this corner and the lot to the north of this property is owned by MnDOT and doesn't get mowed. David O'Donnell, 1107 Welcome Avenue, said he doesn't like this project. He said he doesn't mind single family homes, but this is creating a neighborhood of rentals and nobody is going to build their dream house next to a highway. He said he is also concerned about the traffic. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka questioned if this is the right place for R-2 zoning. Segelbaum stated that generally, changes in zoning should be done with longer range planning, with Comprehensive Plan updates or when a property can't be developed under its current zoning classification. He added that the area surrounding this proposal is mostly R-1. Zimmerman noted that R-1 and R-2 zoned properties are consistent with the low density Comprehensive Plan designation. Cera said he doesn't typically like "spot zoning" or rezoning property for a specific development, but questioned if building three homes in the $400,000 range would sell in this location. He stated that there are also many double bungalows that are owner occupied, not rentals. Kluchka agreed and stated that the City has stronger rental licensing laws than it has in the past. Grimes said he doesn't see this proposal as "spot zoning" because R-1 and R-2 properties are permitted in the low density category in the Comprehensive Plan. Waldhauser asked there have been staff discussions about straightening out Lindsay Street. Zimmerman said not to his knowledge. Baker asked if a neighborhood meeting was held. Zimmerman stated that this application pre-dated the City's new neighborhood meeting policy. Kluchka asked about the drainage concerns mentioned by the neighbors. Zimmerman explained that the City has requirements about not adversely altering drainage during development. He said that a grading plan will be required during the building permit process. Grimes referred to the City Engineer's staff report and stated that each lot will be required to have separate stormwater management permits, and that the developer must be sure that existing drainage patterns are maintained without negative impacts. Waldhauser said it is encouraging that the houses are in a more affordable range, but the traffic at the corner concerns her. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 8 Segelbaum said his preference would be to have the properties remain R-1 unless the applicant can show that the property is just not selling with the current zoning designation. Cera said there are other R-2 properties in this neighborhood and that this proposal may be a viable option. Baker said he agrees with Commissioners Waldhauser and Cera that it is important to provide a less expensive housing option. He said he appreciates the neighbor's concerns that these could be rental properties, but the City has no control over that. He added that he would have liked to have seen better communication with the neighborhood. Grimes suggested that a turnaround driveway area be added so cars don't have to back onto Lilac Drive. Waldhauser asked how that requirement could be attached to the property if someone builds there in the future. Grimes said the City can't require a turnaround driveway area, but it can be a recommendation. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Cathy and motion carried 4 to 1 to recommend approval of the Rezoning and Subdivision with Variance requests subject to the following conditions. Commissioner Segelbaum voted no. 1. A Variance regarding lot width is permitted for Lot 2 allowing it to be 111.43 feet in width instead of the required 120 feet. 2. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 3. The "Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Conditions" shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. A park dedication fee of$1,600 shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat. 5. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated June 2, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 6. A Subdivision Development Agreement may be required. 7. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. Informal Public Hearin — Preliminary PUD Plan Review— Carousel Automobiles (Porsch Dealership) PUD #95, Amendment#3 A licant: Twin Citie Automotive (Porsche) Addres 9191 Wa zata Blvd. x" Purpose: To J o o.ah'e construction of a new Porsche building. Zimmerman referr o a en of the property and explained the applicant's request to amend their fisting P to a' for the construction of a new Porsche building in the existin "arking lot to ated to the st of their Audi building. The proposed new buildi ould be two st ries with a foot ' t of 24,240 square feet. The first floor would b ed for showroom s ace, sales offices, rvice areas and a car wash. The second city 0 g o 1 d e nlo,y 4. � MEMORANDUM va.ley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: June 9, 2014 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing— Rezoning Petition — 1001 Lilac Drive North — Max Zelayaran, Applicant Background The Applicant, Max Zelayaran, is petitioning to rezone a portion of his lot at 1001 Lilac Drive North from Single Family (R-1) Residential Zoning District to Moderate Density (R-2) Residential Zoning District. As part of his development plans, the Applicant intends to subdivide the existing 1.05 acre lot into three lots. The lot to the west would be 17,642 square feet and would remain as a single family home; the two lots to the east (15,149 square feet and 13,014 square feet) would be rezoned and two twin homes would be constructed. These twin homes would be subdivided further with zero lot lines through the structures and properties, resulting in a total of five lots at this location. Residential properties to the north and west are zoned R-1, while two properties directly to the south across Lindsay Street are zoned R-2 and contain two twin homes. To the west, Lilac Drive North separates the property from Highway 100. The proposed rezoning is not out of character with the neighboring properties and is consistent with the Low Density land use designation in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning Petition, rezoning the easternmost portion of 1001 Lilac Drive North from Single Family (R-1) Residential Zoning District to Moderate Density (R-2) Residential Zoning District in order to accommodate the future development of two twin homes. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Moderate Density (R-2) Residential Zoning District Section of City Code (4 pages) Site Plan (1 page) Official Zoning Map (1 page) § 11.22 Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) Subdivision 1. Purpose The purpose of the R-2 Zoning District is to provide for single and two-family dwellings at a moderate density (up to eight (8) units per acre) along with directly related and complementary uses. Subdivision 2. District Established Properties shall be established within the Two-Family (R-2) Residential Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.22, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.22 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the Two-Family (R-2) Residential Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter. Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses The following uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Residential Districts: A. Single Family dwellings B. Two-Family dwellings C. Townhouses D. Foster Family Homes E. Home occupations, as regulated by Section 11.21, Subdivision 15 F. Essential Services - Class I G. No more than one (1) kitchen area and one kitchenette shall be permitted in each dwelling unit Subdivision 4. Accessory Uses The following accessory uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Zoning District: A. Accessory structures, including private garages as defined in this Chapter. Subdivision S. Conditional Uses The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 4 § 11.22 Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: A. Residential facilities serving from seven (7) to twenty-five (25) persons B. Group foster family homes Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots In the R-2 Residential Zoning District a lot of a minimum area of eleven thousand (11,000) square feet shall be required for any principal structure. A minimum lot width of one hundred (100) feet at the front setback line shall be required. Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility All structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code. Subdivision 8. Easements No structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. Subdivision 9. Maximum Coverage by Building and Impervious Surfaces Structures, including accessory structures, shall not occupy more than thirty percent (30%) of the lot area. Total impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area. Subdivision 10. Principal Structures Principal structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-2 Zoning District. Garages or other accessory structures which are attached to the house or main structure shall also be governed by these setback requirements, except for stair landings up to twenty-five (25) square feet in size and for handicapped ramps. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be thirty-five (35) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. Open front porches, with no screens, may be built to within thirty (30) feet of a front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be twenty percent (20) of the lot depth. 3. Side Setback. The required side setback shall be fifteen (15) feet. 4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the rear yard setback, use the longer lot line. To determine the side yard setback, use the shortest lot line. Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 4 § 11.22 B. Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning District to exceed a height of thirty (30) feet as defined in the City's building code. C. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty (30) inches into a required setback. D. Decks attached to principal structure. Decks over eight (8) inches from ground level shall meet the same setbacks as the principal structure. Subdivision 11. Accessory Structures Accessory structures shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the R-2 Zoning District: 1. Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback and side setback as the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least ten (10) feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory structure as long as the ten (10) feet of separation can be met. 2. Front Setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than thirty- five (35) feet from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. 3. Side and Rear Setbacks. Detached accessory structures shall be located no less than five (5) feet from a side or rear yard property line. 4. Separation between Structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. B. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning District to exceed a height of one (1) story. One (1) story may not exceed ten (10) feet from the floor to the top plate. Attic space in accessory structures shall be used only for storage and/or utility space. C. Garage Construction Required. No building permit shall be issued for the construction of a new principal structure in the R-2 Zoning District not Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 4 § 11.22 including at least a one (1) stall garage per dwelling unit. Single family dwelling units shall require a two (2) stall garage. D. Accessory structures including detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses and gazebos shall be limited in size to a total of six hundred fifty (650) square feet per dwelling unit. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. E. Decks. Free standing decks or decks attached to accessory structures shall meet the same setback requirements as accessory structures. F. Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback and location requirements as accessory structures. G. Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall not be allowed in the front yard of any single or two-family dwelling. Source: Ordinance No. 371, 2nd Series Effective Date: 07-13-07 H. Photovoltaic Modules. Free-standing Photovoltaic modules, including solar panels and other photovoltaic energy receivers, which are in excess of three (3) square feet shall meet the same setback, location and height requirements as accessory structures. Source: Ordinance No. 443, 2nd Series Effective Date: 8-13-10 Subdivision 12. Garden Structures Garden Structures shall be located no closer than five (5) feet to any property line. Garden Structures shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height. Source: Ordinance No. 433, 2nd Series Effective Date: 2-26-10 Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 4 PRELIMINARY PLAT _OF~ GOLDEN VALLEY HOMES -for- Max Zelayaran I I � --------------------Jt 1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION _``� {E E Commencing at a point of the East line of Government Lot 1, Section 33, Township 118, r ` / Range 21, 835.9 feet South of Northeast corner of said Section 33, Township 118, Range 21; thence South 217.8 feet along East line of said Section 33; thence West at right angles to said East section line a distance of 333.0 feet; thence at right angles North 217.8 feet; thence at right angles East 333.0 feet to the point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Except that part of the above-described land shown as Parcel 14F on Minnesota Department _I of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-104. I "t-- *Description per Certificate of Title 1043852.5.• / 1 'r - NORTH --- r------ c S89°48'57"W faM MNDOT 2111.5 9 ----- t,r__v L9Inllek/eow.�(DoduleP) (noM t.ar) r. mmumwi t mp��d RFn�66}60 ' ' -- _-N 81.00I o ml � — — 3 't IN.o.ez') M.-a77s i •• - I IB 10 I -----�---�—� 110 � � tl � GRAPHIC SCALE BENCHMARK �. '%` _ C`^' ; BASIS FOR ELEVATION:NAVD 88(VIA REAL TIME GPS r,•v -/1 r ` 6 I� ' +s MEASUREMENTS UTILIZING MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VRS NETWORK) `, r—`v` I _ 1 '� ,`v.' <-v`1,I �/♦ ; I n IN FEET) -,r g I_ V _ J 1 inch = 90 It. BASIS FOR BEARINGS:HENNEPIN COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM. C I R2 Lot een Twit Home tV �\ 17.6423 e%fL I Er ;I (0.40 acres) �. 3 Tap Na,H 2" ••= --sr--s-13;0143-sq.fL -887.12 j - ® L - - (0.30 J to LEGEND - - - - - - - n • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND on +29.69 - o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET 1 1 , I - - � - _ J - r - - I © DENOTES UTILITY BOX \ I 11 6 1 � t..• -I 10 xi`3au, s0 DENOTES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE Pemr x rd I a DENOTES STORM SEWER MANHOLE - I IG / ❑ DENOTES CATCH BASIN pQ DENOTES GATE VALVE I O DENOTES FIRE HYDRANT Ir R1 Lst m!. C, DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR \ p l Rt Lot Ig $1T'•"NOfAe + C a /r -"n DENOTES OVERHEAD WIRE \ O ( Singla House �I 2 �` g 14,1.'W!ep.R a n z i a, ->-DENOTES SANITARY SEWER ,� �.nJZ i (aJ6 enp� Iwu� -»--DENOTES STORM SEWER \ ;e -•-DENOTES EXISTING FENCE eeo' \\ / ,I °- e .v -101.2 DENOTES EASTING ELEVATION. L DENOTES BITUMINOUS \ \ 61 hell6 61 J to N i, DENOTES CONCRETE \ ' a _ J �- - - - - - - L + y i o RYn+ 0.47 " 8n. n. m. o 1 121.36 \ �� tna.871.a2 a 61.00 " - - - \ 16 -89 " N89°51'32"E of \M m ,ew' S8 ° 8'57" 3 74 Development Data: toCosn \ *�, LNDSAY STREET� N00°0835'W -Proposed Zomng-R 1 lot(Lot 1) � RYrI-6e1.01� B,q G x 19 x0N9. x9a44 ye6�9 �5 9e'A� -RI Requirements: Im.-670- \ \ xee<s xe. o -Mlmmum Lot Area-10,000 sq.fl. a"CIP w t r Moin -Impervious surface shallnotexceed 50"-6 -Setback Requirements: Sw� t - \1�Ittf(I tt --eess66 t -Front Setback=35' -Decks and porches with no screens=30' 1 -- ---- -------- Tap Nat befit -Rear Yard Setback-20%of Im depth < < <\ -Side Yard Setbafr structures 15'in height or less tn-861.71 8'VOP Sewer Mal RNt-N3.69 < I B'vCP Sewer Hom 674.31 Inv.-87139 ck=12.5' -Side Yard Setback=12.5'+0.5'for each additional 1 foot in � height over 15'feet high. \ Proposed Zoning-R2(Lot's 2&3) I -R2 Requirements: a -Minimum Lot Area-I1,000 sq.fl. Minimum Let Width=100' se Ez.Heua E.Ha m -lmpe" us surface shall not exceed 50"6 F"'HW°° Ex'HW -Setback Requirements: 1 r _Ile_. .It -Front Setback=35' -Decks and perches with no screens=30' -Rear Yard Setback=20%of lot depth TT' -Side Yard Setback=15' e -Overall Area=46,095=sq.ft.(1.05 acres) -Existing Zoning=Single Family Residential(RI) I NOTES -Feld survey completed 04/01/14. I Rev. 05/08/14, add easements I hereby certify that this survey,plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under DRAWN BY ERVL"NLIA7201 04/10/14 the laws of the State of Minnesota. CHECK BY a SCANNASG LAND 1 05/08/14 ERVL'lll0!AAO� 2 D5/2D/t4 eny e ERv ERIC R. VICKARYOUS 3 till. O ��X124 Dote:Aorll 11th. 2014 Reg.No.44125 O\Land Protects 2008\14124rwz-\dwp\14124btdw0 5/29/2014 1244e4 PM CDT ND. DATE By c � � •c ��sw m ,r 4"j s` Q cc QCL � Fr �" V r'u� �..V y y s= a tl � > o C G;; .0, -.01 / ,� ,[," ffi W g e w E E« w« y 72 O H o E g LL C Vh�iti .+F �I.., Vi O E " a" o E N OA ^.8 $ N = ory''ryII 2 "s m m y a 0� N m o a p a �. v. v.V u .v, 0 N - o O E m b $ 0 E A m� ih 5 ..i mi .�+ .Ni d >°d m Q 9 10 — W N o C K W O LL �3 O �<g �w F �v"d o o a S E d o r So a � N o S n 7 0 p,a O U o N U Q p v O et B, E g:f w s Z �o 0 v F � v � v z q U a � N ^m T o Y c6 "+ Q , (n (n (n Cq� I� .�"'.+ 61 'L� C. C: D `d y s o '> y O L ~ � 111 ° 110 1 '0 y. cu E N o O bA '� bp M bA °o s $dSg� O S g n Z U ''t n` o a u S Q o a po c 5 Z aN m N EDEN 1010 0 y O > i O o a a w - SI10I\9NNIw do A.LIJ 10dtlHN J NIW 30 A.Li FI ; z ♦ ., � � $ �� y r 1 V ♦ r W m . i P ` a 1 ji MJ 0 0 N j O C � F � € Wo� y i as dtlffNNIW JO A.LIJ _ 1 _ � F Y 91 VQS NI flaox 30 A.LIJ _ c r a - ,. � o Y , a \ A 1 B�\\ I >v —�__ h —_ lVj,SANJ do Ai]J a _ IL q .;FE7F vr Lj U x a i., F U 113 _ y .^, Z _ _ a La j 3 „ o� d s /x,Lno wAld io A.LIJ« C m �- -� \ c HdnOWA'id\r ABtld SIROT Y d0 A.LIJ F 30 A11J c7 m a ORDINANCE NO. 519, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Rezoning from Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) 1001 Lilac Drive North Max Zelayaran, Applicant The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" is amended in Section 11.10, Subd. 2, by changing the zoning designation of the easternmost 129.69 feet of certain tracts of land from Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2). Section 2. The tracts of land affected by this ordinance are legally described as: Commencing at a point on the East line of Government Lot 1, Section 33, Township 118, Range 21, 835.9 feet South of Northeast corner of said Section 33, Township 118, Range 21; thence South 217.8 feet along East line of said Section 33; thence West at right angles to said East section line a distance of 333.0 feet; thence at right angles North 217.8 feet; thence at right angles East 333.0 feet to the point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Except that part of the above- described land shown as Parcel 14F on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-104. Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 19th day of August, 2014. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk city of � . gol&n MEMORANDUM valley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting August 19, 2014 Agenda Item 4. D. Public Hearing- Preliminary Plat Approval - Golden Valley Homes- 1001 Lilac Drive North Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Summary At the June 9, 2014, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted to recommend approval of a subdivision of the property located at 1001 Lilac Drive North (Golden Valley Homes). The proposal would create five lots from the existing 1.05 acre lot - one single family lot and two twin home lots which would utilize zero lot lines for further subdivision as allowed under Subdivision 2 of the Subdivision Code. One lot requires a variance from the corner lot width requirements outlined in Chapter 12 of the City Code. Staff believes the requested variance is acceptable in that it allows for two twin homes to be constructed in an area that is accommodating of additional density. This item was continued from the July 1, 2014, City Council meeting. At that time, the Council suggested revising the plan to construct two single family homes and only one twin home. Doing so would remove the need for a variance. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Planning Commission Minutes dated June 9, 2014 (5 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission dated June 9, 2014 (3 pages) • Memo from the Public Works Department dated June 2, 2014 (4 pages) • Site Plans (3 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for Golden Valley Homes, 1001 Lilac Drive North, subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. The "Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Conditions" shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3. A park dedication fee of$1,600 shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat. 4. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated June 2, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 5. A Subdivision Development Agreement may be required. 6. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. Further, the City Council approves a waiver from Section 12:20, Subd. 5(B) of City Code, finding that: • The proposed Lot 2 would measure 116.43 feet in width along the east front setback line. • A required 5 foot right-of-way dedication would reduce that width to 111.43 feet. • Section 12.20, Subdivision 5(B) of City Code requires that corner lots in the R-2 zoning district measure at least 120 feet in width along the front setback lines. • Reducing the corner lot width requirement by 8.57 feet allows for the construction of a twin home which is consistent with other uses in the area and would not be detrimental to the public welfare. Ills 1240 7231 tzs0 x231 Aitrn A / .eN. 6 1109 n a.. 1 l' 7 3 1236 r 1114 \l/ —lzzn 1221 1220 1221 1201 1201 1200 _ Subject Property: z 1Y0U 1201 1001 Lilac Drive North „Get11 51 11A + J 119 1140 1141 wr5 1 1131 � 1130 1101 1100 1A1100 1737 5620 ,z ..;.ya..unasay.St „?. 5540 L e 5600 1120 1121 112A 1120 1f21 It •: .� 5 03405320 53W D: 1100 52(10 ad 110 5645 - W7� • .� _� me 1000 0605 ” 1 Thudand Rd 5733 "' .: 25' i ,'`'—T-- .t 0. 4 5301 5221:4 104411 1040 ..��•""•-�_.._,., 4�. ��^� 33375535 10 _ 1031 11020 Z (¢yr, -.._....,.... f,z ,«. t T' �14 vl'e 4' .tom' . i � @0 9 1001 > 900 i ""4.,, 2 __._..�. ..0 8^ a 940 99g221�1 110 Looe 901 "�.... Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 4 The PUD plan meets the PUD Inten and Purpose provision and all other PUD rdinance provisions. r r Conditi s 1. The pl dated April 25, 2014 prep 'red by LHB submitted with the lication shall become a rt of this approval. 2. The recomm dations and requirements outlined in the memf om the Fire Department to rk Grimes, Comm nity Development Dir ,.cfor, dated May 19, 2014, shall become part this approval. 3. The recommendation >and requirem4nts outlined in t, a memo from the Public Works Department to Mark Gri ' s, Community Developt,ent Director, dated May 23, 2014, shall become a part of this proval. ' 4. The implementation of the fire, ccess restri 'fig hall be completed prior to Final PUD Plan approval. 5. The Applicant shall work with the Fi pepartment to reach an agreement regarding the timing for implementation of the Protection Plan prior to approval of the Final PUD Plan. 6. The Applicant shall construct /rfffacdl;filtr16,0 (rain gardens) as part of the walkway construction authorized un r the Fi 'al PUD an. 7. The Applicant shall insta stormwa er filtration amber within three years of the execution date of the F' `al PUD Plan', .. 8. The Applicant shall , emolish the vac `nt building loca` d on Parcel 5 and shall remove the sanit sewer up to the ` ain prior to appro° I of the Final PUD Plan. 9. The Applicant , all submit a revised arking plan that meets accessibility requiremen with respect to the numer and location of handicapped parking spaces to the sa ' action of the City's Buildin { Official prior to approvail`` f the Final PUD Plan. 10/All * The Fi Plat shall include "P.U.D. N . 114" in its title. 11age must meet the requiremen'' of the City's Sign Code (Se yon 4.20). 12proval is subject to all other sta , federal, and local ordinanceseguI tions, or h authority over this developme t. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Subdivision — 1001 Lilac Drive North — Golden Valley Homes — SU12-15 Applicant: Max Zelayaran Addresses: 1001 Lilac Drive North Purpose: To reconfigure the existing property which would allow for the construction of two new twin homes and one new single family home. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 5 4. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 1001 Lilac Drive North — Golden Valley Homes —ZO12-19 Applicant: Max Zelayaran Address: 1001 Lilac Drive North Purpose: To rezone a portion of the existing property from R-1 Single-Family residential to R-2 Moderate Density residential to allow for the construction of two twin homes. The Informal Public Hearing for Items 3 and 4 were combined as was the discussion. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's proposal to subdivide the currently vacant lot it into five separate lots. One R-1 Single Family Residential lot would remain and four lots would be rezoned to R-2 Moderate Density Residential to allow for the construction of four twin home units. All of the proposed new lots meet the area requirements of the Zoning Code; however, Lots 2 & 3 would be 116.43 feet wide instead of the required 120 feet. The City is also requiring an additional 5-foot dedication of right-of-way to bring Lindsay Street into compliance so the applicant is requesting an 8.57 foot variance to allow the width to be 111.43 feet. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposal as it is compatible with the two existing twin homes directly south across Lindsay Street and it is consistent with the density designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Kluchka asked if the property line between the two proposed R-2 lots could be moved further north in order to obtain additional lot width. Zimmerman stated that the lot to the north meets the width requirement and there isn't enough overall width to make both lots conform. Cera asked about the hardship for allowing Lot 2 to be smaller than required. Zimmerman stated that hardship doesn't have to be proven; the standard is to consider practical difficulties. Cera questioned the process and asked which action has to happen first, the subdivision or the rezoning. Zimmerman stated that the two can be considered concurrently. Segelbaum asked how many lots could be created if the property remained R-1 Single Family residential. Zimmerman said there could possibly be three single family lots created. He added that the applicant could also have one single family lot and 1 twin home lot. Grimes stated that the City Code requires each unit to have its own sewer and water. Also, in order for each twin home to have a separate tax I.D. number, there needs to be a lot line through the middle of the two units and a covenant agreement in place. Max Zelayaran, Applicant, stated he is proposing to have one single family home and two, two-family homes, but he is willing to be flexible and build two single family homes Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 6 and one two-family home. He stated that if he builds two twin homes there will be a chance for more families to live here. Kluchka asked the applicant if he can sell the size of house he is proposing right next to Highway 100. Zelayaran stated that there is a sound wall and that it is a very convenient and peaceful area. Waldhauser asked about the steep grade of the property. Zelayaran stated that the single family home will be set back further on the property and that the grade of the property isn't going to be a problem. Kluchka asked the applicant if he plans to build the houses and then sell them or to build custom homes, or to use the homes for rental properties. Zelayaran said that the homes will not be luxury homes. Baker asked the applicant if will sell the vacant lots or if he intends to build the houses. Zelayaran said he plans to build the single family home first and see what happens with the market after that. Cera asked the applicant if he had a neighborhood meeting. Zelayaran said no. Segelbaum asked about the price of the proposed homes. Zelayaran said the homes would be $180,000 to $200,000. Segelbaum asked the applicant how long he has owned the property. Zelayaran said he has owned the property for ten years. Segelbaum asked the applicant why he hasn't developed the property until now. Zelayaran said the economy was too bad. Kluchka asked the applicant when he wants to start construction. Zelayaran stated he'd like to start construction as soon as he gets approval. Randy Anderson, 5645 Lindsay Street, said this property used to be a fire station and an area where kids played. He said the neighborhood is starting to turn over and there are no parks nearby, so he thinks this property would be good for a park, not for homes. He said there is freeway noise and it is going to be loud. He said he understands development, but he is opposed to two sets of twin homes because they become rentals which are not always the best thing. He said he is also concerned about the grade of the lot and having cars backing out onto the frontage road. He said a neighborhood meeting would have been nice and that he would prefer a single family home and one twin home. Ronald Garant, 5540 Lindsay Street, asked how the drainage for this proposed development would work because it sits a lot higher than his property and he doesn't want to get flooded out. He said he doesn't have too much against the proposal, but it seems that the property isn't big enough for all that is being proposed, He reiterated that his main concern is the drainage. Michael Garant, 5540 Lindsay Street, said he is opposed to allowing two twin homes and he would rather see two single family homes and one twin home because there are already two twin homes across the street from this property that aren't being Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 7 maintained. Kluchka asked Garant if the existing twin homes on Lindsay are rental properties. Garant said yes. Leo Anderson, 5625 Lindsay Street, said Lindsay Street is supposed to be reconstructed in 2016 and questioned if this proposal fits with those plans especially if the corner is straightened out. He stated that cars coming from the west screech around this corner and the lot to the north of this property is owned by MnDOT and doesn't get mowed. David O'Donnell, 1107 Welcome Avenue, said he doesn't like this project. He said he doesn't mind single family homes, but this is creating a neighborhood of rentals and nobody is going to build their dream house next to a highway. He said he is also concerned about the traffic. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka questioned if this is the right place for R-2 zoning. Segelbaum stated that generally, changes in zoning should be done with longer range planning, with Comprehensive Plan updates or when a property can't be developed under its current zoning classification. He added that the area surrounding this proposal is mostly R-1. Zimmerman noted that R-1 and R-2 zoned properties are consistent with the low density Comprehensive Plan designation. Cera said he doesn't typically like "spot zoning" or rezoning property for a specific development, but questioned if building three homes in the $400,000 range would sell in this location. He stated that there are also many double bungalows that are owner occupied, not rentals. Kluchka agreed and stated that the City has stronger rental licensing laws than it has in the past. Grimes said he doesn't see this proposal as "spot zoning" because R-1 and R-2 properties are permitted in the low density category in the Comprehensive Plan. Waldhauser asked there have been staff discussions about straightening out Lindsay Street. Zimmerman said not to his knowledge. Baker asked if a neighborhood meeting was held. Zimmerman stated that this application pre-dated the City's new neighborhood meeting policy. Kluchka asked about the drainage concerns mentioned by the neighbors. Zimmerman explained that the City has requirements about not adversely altering drainage during development. He said that a grading plan will be required during the building permit process. Grimes referred to the City Engineer's staff report and stated that each lot will be required to have separate stormwater management permits, and that the developer must be sure that existing drainage patterns are maintained without negative impacts. Waldhauser said it is encouraging that the houses are in a more affordable range, but the traffic at the corner concerns her. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2014 Page 8 Segelbaum said his preference would be to have the properties remain R-1 unless the applicant can show that the property is just not selling with the current zoning designation. Cera said there are other R-2 properties in this neighborhood and that this proposal may be a viable option. Baker said he agrees with Commissioners Waldhauser and Cera that it is important to provide a less expensive housing option. He said he appreciates the neighbor's concerns that these could be rental properties, but the City has no control over that. He added that he would have liked to have seen better communication with the neighborhood. Grimes suggested that a turnaround driveway area be added so cars don't have to back onto Lilac Drive. Waldhauser asked how that requirement could be attached to the property if someone builds there in the future. Grimes said the City can't require a turnaround driveway area, but it can be a recommendation. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Cathy and motion carried 4 to 1 to recommend approval of the Rezoning and Subdivision with Variance requests subject to the following conditions. Commissioner Segelbaum voted no. 1. A Variance regarding lot width is permitted for Lot 2 allowing it to be 111.43 feet in width instead of the required 120 feet. 2. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 3. The "Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Conditions" shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. A park dedication fee of$1,600 shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat. 5. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated June 2, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 6. A Subdivision Development Agreement may be required. 7. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. Informal Public H ring — Preliminary PUD Plan Review— Carousel Automobiles (Po the Dealership) PUD #95, Amendment#3 licant: Twi ;;Cities Automotive Pte. Addres` .: 91 ,11 Wayzata, IV Purpose: �-flow for the construction of a new Porsche building. ZimmermaV6 erre to a ` it plan of the property and explained the applicant's request to ame 'their exi ging PUD allow for the construction of a new Porsche building in the rsting parkin lot located' _4 the west of their Audi building. The proposed new tiding would be o stories wit `` footprint of 24,240 square feet. The first floor would be used for show,bom space, sale ffices, service areas and a car wash. The second city of olden MEMORANDUM va %,', Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: June 9, 2014 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Subdivision of 1001 Lilac Drive North—Max Zelayaran, Applicant Summary of Request The Applicant, Max Zelayaran, is proposing to subdivide his vacant property located at 1001 Lilac Drive North to create five new lots. It is bounded to the south by Lindsay Street and to the east by Lilac Drive North. Highway 100 is located just east of Lilac Drive. Design Features of the Subdivision As part of his development plans,the Applicant intends to subdivide the existing 1.05 acre lot into three lots. The lot to the west would remain as a single family home; the two lots to the east would be rezoned and two twin homes would be constructed. These twin homes would be subdivided further with zero lot lines through the structures and properties, resulting in a total of five lots at this location. The single family home and one of the twin home lots would have access from Lindsay Street; the other twin home lot would have access from Lilac Drive. City Code requires that each new lot be a minimum of 10,000 square feet in the Single Family (R-1) Residential Zoning District. Lot 1 to the west would be 17,642 square feet. City Code also requires that each lot have a minimum of 80 feet of frontage at the front setback line and 80 feet of mean width. Lot 1 would have 81 feet of frontage at the front setback line and 81 feet of mean width. In the Moderate Density (R-2) Residential Zoning District, City Code requires that each new lot be a minimum of 11,000 square feet. Lots 2 and 3 would be 15,149 square feet and 13,014 square feet respectively. In the R-2 Zoning District, City Code also requires that each lot have a minimum of 100 feet of frontage at the front setback line.As proposed, Lot 2, a corner lot,would have 116.43 feet of frontage at one front setback line and 128.63 feet of frontage at the other. Lot 3 would have 100 feet of frontage. Under the City's Subdivision Code, corner lots must have an additional 20 feet of width. Lot 2 is a corner lot and as proposed would be 3.57 feet short of the required 120 feet along the east property line. The Applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement. Additionally,the Applicant is requesting to further subdivide Lots 2 and 3 in order to split the two proposed twin homes and provide individual ownership of each of the four units, as allowed under Subdivision 5 of the Subdivision Code. Each of the properties and structures would be split into two substantially equal sections and a "Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Conditions" has been submitted for each property for review. Qualifications Governing Approval as a Subdivision According to Section 12.12 of the City's Subdivision Regulations,the following are the regulations governing approval of subdivisions: 1. The Council may require such changes or revisions as it deems necessary for the health, safety, general welfare and convenience of the City. 2. The approval of a preliminary plat is tentative only, involving merely the general acceptability of the layout as submitted. 3. Prior to approval of the preliminary plat by the Council, approval by the City Engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction will be required of the engineering proposals pertaining to water supply, storm drainage, sewerage and sewage disposal, roadway widths and the surfacing of streets. 4. No plat will be approved for subdivision which covers an area subject to periodic flooding or which contains extremely poor drainage facilities and which would make adequate drainage of the streets and lots difficult or impossible, unless the subdivider agrees to make improvements which will, in the opinion of the City Engineer, make the area completely safe for occupancy, and provide adequate street and lot drainage. 5. No plat will be approved for subdivision that does not meet the requirements specified in Section 12.20, Minimum Subdivision Design Standards, and Section 12.30, Public Sites and Open Spaces. Variance Request The proposal requires variances from the following sections of City Code: • Section 12.20, Subd. 5 Lots City Code requires corner lots be platted at least 20 feet wider than the required minimum lot width. The Applicant is requesting 3.57 feet off of the required 120 feet to a width of 116.43 feet for Lot 2. Public Works, in their memo dated June 2, 2014, has indicated that an additional 5 feet of right-of- way will be required to be dedicated to the City along Lindsay Street in order to meet the width requirements for collector streets.This further reduces the proposed width of Lot 2 to 111.43 feet, requiring a variance of 8.57 feet off of the required 120 feet. The City may grant variances from the Subdivision Code if all of the following conditions outlined in Section 12.54 of the City Code exist: 1. There are special circumstances that would create unusual hardship and deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his land. Economic difficulty or inconvenience shall not constitute a hardship. 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 3. The granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood. Staff believes the requested variance is acceptable in that it allows for two twin homes to be constructed in an area that is accommodating of additional density. Although right-of-way would be required to be dedicated to the City, reducing the width of Lot 2, it is unlikely that traffic levels would rise to a level that would necessitate the expansion of Lindsay Street. The construction of the two twin homes would be consistent with the existing twin homes located on the south side of Lindsay Street and the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare. Staff Findings Staff has reviewed the request for the subdivision and finds it to be acceptable. The proposed subdivision would create five new lots consisting of one single family home and two twin homes. These lots meet all of the requirements for lots in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. Lot 2 fails to meet the additional lot width requirement for corner lots as required by the Subdivision Code, but Staff finds the Applicant's variance request to be acceptable. Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. The "Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Conditions" shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3. A park dedication fee of$1,600 shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat. 4. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated June 2, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 5. A Subdivision Development Agreement may be required. 6. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Memo from Public Works Department, dated June 2, 2014 (4 pages) Site Plans (3 pages) city of go1den1". -V. *#NMEMORANDUM valley Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: June 2, 2014 To: Idark Grimes, Director of Community Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Subject: Minor Subdivision Review—Golden Valley Homes— 1001 Lilac Drive North Public Works staff has reviewed plans for the minor subdivision of the property located at 1001 Lilac Drive North. The development is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Lilac Drive North and Lindsay Street. The comments contained in this review are based on plans submitted to the City on May 8, 2014. Site Plan and Access The Developer proposes to subdivide the subject property into three parcels. Lot 1 is a single family home located on the west side of the development, with access onto Lindsay Street. Lot 2 is a twin home located on the corner of Lilac and Lindsay, with access onto Lindsay Street. Lot 3 is a twin home located in the northeast portion of the development, with access onto Lilac Drive. The driveways for each set of twin homes will be combined, but the water and sewer services will be separate. The final design and location of the driveways will be determined at the time of permitting for home construction. The new driveways must meet City standards including the installation of concrete aprons. A City Right-of-Way Management Permit is required for the construction of each driveway. Preliminary Plat The property proposed for development is not part of a previous plat, and the City has no record of public easements located within the boundaries of the development. The Developer has submitted a preliminary plat called Golden Valley Homes and is proposing to dedicate public drainage and utility easements.The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires 10-foot drainage and utility easements on all plat boundaries and 12-foot easements centered on all interior lot lines. The final plat for this development must include easements on all property lines consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. G:\Developments-Private\Golden Valley Homes-1001 Lilac Dr N\Memos\Memo PW MinorSubdivision_Review.docx The existing right-of-way width of Lindsay Street is 60 feet. The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires 70 feet of street right-of-way width for collector streets. Lindsay Street is a municipal state aid street and a major collector in the City's roadway functional classification system. A total of 10 feet of right-of-way is needed, 5 feet on each side of Lindsay Street,to fulfill the width requirement.The final plat for Golden Valley Homes must show a dedication of 5 feet of additional right-of-way adjacent to Lindsay Street in order to meet this requirement. Utilities The City's water and sanitary sewer systems that provide service to these properties have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development.The Developer has submitted a preliminary grading and utility plan which demonstrates that water and sewer services can be extended into the properties to serve the proposed homes. Final details regarding the locations of these services will be determined at the time of permitting. The sanitary sewer service to the south half of Lot 3 crosses under the shared driveway and also under the north half of the duplex property. The location of the sewer service and maintenance responsibility must be outlined in the documents being prepared by the Developer for each duplex property. Alternatively, the Developer may draft and record a private sanitary sewer easement between owners of the south half and north half of lot 3. Before any permits are issued by the City, the Developer must submit to the City a copy of the document describing the easement/agreement and maintenance responsibility for the sewer service. City records show that the sanitary sewer main along Lindsay Street is located within a public easement in the boulevard south of the street.The Developer should consider moving the west sewer service connection for Lot 2 to the west in order to avoid the driveway at 5525 Lindsay Street. The plans show the excavation of both Lilac Drive and Lindsay Street in order construct the utility services. Right-of-Way Management Permits are required for each excavation to ensure that streets and boulevards are restored in accordance with City standards. The City has a Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) Reduction Ordinance. All sewer services in this development must be inspected by the City after construction, and must achieve compliance with the City's 1/1 Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the homes. Grading and Stormwater Management The proposed development is within the Sweeney Lake sub-watershed of the Bassett Creek Watershed. However, due to the size of the development, the project does not meet the threshold for review by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). Sweeney Lake is listed as an impaired water for nutrients(phosphorus) by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Review of this development by the City will include an evaluation for compliance with the Sweeney Lake Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan.The Developer is encouraged to incorporate permanent stormwater best management practices, such as rain gardens, sand filters, or vegetated swales, into the site design to help the City meet its phosphorus reduction goals for Sweeney Lake. GADevelopments-Private\Golden Valley Homes-1001 Lilac Dr N\Memos\Memo_PW MinorSubdivision_Review.docx The Developer has submitted a preliminary grading and utility plan for the development.The plan shows little change in the overall site grades. However,the development sits several feet higher than the adjacent properties to the west and north. Therefore,the Developer and contractor must ensure that the existing drainage patterns are maintained without negative impacts during and after construction. The Developer or contractor will be required to obtain separate City of Golden Valley Stormwater Management Permits for each lot at the time of permitting for home construction.A stormwater management plan that meets City standards is required as part of each Stormwater Management Permit submittal. City records show that the City has storm sewer facilities within Lilac Drive near the development, including a catch basin on the west side of Lilac Drive near the lot line between Lots 2 and 3. Staff recommends that the Developer install drain tile along Lilac Drive, connect it to the City's catch basin, and provide stubs to serve future sump pump discharge from Lots 2 and 3. Although there is no storm sewer within Lindsay Street in this area, a drain the could also be extended west to Lot 1 through the drainage and utility easement, if necessary. This development is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit. A copy of this permit must be provided to the City, prior to issuance of any permits to begin work on site. Tree Preservation This development is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance.The survey submitted by the Developer shows there are no trees on the property.The City Forester will visit the site and review the plans in more detail to determine whether Tree Preservation permits are required for each lot. Recommendation Based upon a review of the materials submitted by the Developer, Public Works staff recommends approval of the Minor Subdivision of 1001 Lilac Drive called Golden Valley Homes, subject to the comments contained in this review, summarized as follows: 1. The Developer must dedicate drainage and utility easements on all plat boundaries and property lines consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The Developer must dedicate 5 feet of additional right-of-way adjacent to Lindsay Street in order to meet the right-of-way width requirement for collector streets, as discussed in this review. 3. The Developer must submit to the City a copy of the document describing the easement/agreement and maintenance responsibility for the sewer service to the south duplex unit on Lot 3 as discussed in this review. 4. The Developer must consider moving the west sewer service connection for Lot 2 to the west in order to avoid the driveway at 5525 Lindsay Street. 5. All sewer services in this development must be inspected by the City after construction, and must achieve compliance with the City's 1/1 Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the homes. G:\Developments-Private\Golden Valley Homes-1001 Lilac Dr N\Memos\Memo_PW MinorSubdivision Review.docx 6. The Developer is encouraged to incorporate permanent stormwater best management practices, such as rain gardens, sand filters,or vegetated swales, into the site design,to assist the City in meeting its phosphorus reduction goals for Sweeney Lake. 7. Staff recommends the Developer install drain tile along Lilac Drive, connect it to the City's catch basin, and provide stubs to serve future sump pump discharge from the homes. 8. The City Forester will review the plan in more detail to determine if Tree Preservation permits are required for each lot. 9. The Developer must obtain Stormwater Management, Right-of-Way Management,Tree Preservation, and Sewer and Water permits, and any other permits that may be required for development of this site. Approval is also subject to the comments of the City Attorney, other City staff, and other agencies. Please feel free to call the Public Works Department if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Tom Burt, City Manager Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Mitch Hoeft, PE, Utilities Engineer Mark Ray, PE, Street Maintenance Supervisor Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester Kelley Janes, Utilities Supervisor Joe Fox, Water Resources Engineer John Crelly, Fire Chief Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Jerry Frevel, Building Official Sue Virnig, Finance Director G:\Developments-Private\Golden Valley Homes-1001 Lilac Dr N\Memos\Memo_PW Minorsubdivision_Review.docx BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY Property Address: 1001 lilac Drive North, Golden Valley, MN for- Max Zelayaran I � 1 r-------------- 6655 f� PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1> " I = � E Commencing at a point on the East ilne of Government Lot 1, Section 33, Township 118, Range 21, 835.9 feet South of Northeast corner of said Section 33, Township 118, Range 21; thence South 217.8 feet along East line of said Section 33; thence West at right angles to , *ee1° o said East section line a distance of 333.0 feet; thence of right angles Nath 217.8 feet; Ip thence of right angles East 333.0 feet to the point of beginning, according to the United Stories Government Survey thereof and situate In Hennepin County, Minnesota. 6v A`, • 1� _,( "' Z t Except that part of the above-described land shown as Parcel 14F on Minnesota Department -,r •' eezy; of Transportation Right of Way Plot No. 27-104. •_ 1 set x6•`e * +'" ,�' ""` z -Description per Certificate of Title 1043852.5.• MI' 8e4 Apow I , NORTH T•—• m1 4 1;�c1°*e66.z ;see° S89°411j57W ease 211.59 se6.z 6z ase x 1F - 1st 3s ------ e6ee 1 s°e' mrenl.oa,t� ee6? raysa 1MD0T �� 4geuy6 �`,., r. 6,6.9 yo'anah9nk rsa.lKeaaalep) 0v41h 121 mel.aa.le agyae Isn-eeseo , , 1 _/ • � (Ne.0.97) �. bY'i0771'. ;; + BENCHMARK _ GRAPHIC SCALE \� i BASIS FOR ELEVATION:NAVD 88(VIA REAL TIME GPS a-\-�' \`,w 1 MEASUREMENTS UTILIZING MINNESOTA ,;��\v� , %v\,-Y xe•e '+ h 1� ``,�M1 _ I x DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VRS NETWORK) \• e�\\ ee3e x601 xe0p9 ,`\•�' (—\\,•/` , ,_ *86'19 Xe69e ~• *e9e9 •` 1 -� 60 BASIS FOR BEARINGS:HENNEPIN COUNTY •`'`• - V 1.. x z CA SYSTEM. t •'e6 m M IQ i n 1N FEET) 4 I d -' i ] i ch 30 It. 0°0 0Bp,, r ° 5 e00e j' 5 \a66z. 64M1 Tao Mi,t Mlal'ae ._. 1ep6e *•iel 097.12 '` I LEGEND • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET +�g0jz 0gp0 a�• ;'- Y,•` a$ © DENOTES SANITY BOK \�,c® t V';o 5� ' O DENOTES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 68'6 c ® DENOTES STORM SEWER MANHOLE 1 ❑ DENOTES CATCH BASIN �+BlpPlf H pQ DENOTES GATE VALVE DENOTES FIRE HYDRANT , 6,? _�.. DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR \ °ems g ) ee,.e �4x •6*e�` *•a eat zc ��-O'.i,..Iv set• •—DENOTES OVERHEAD MAR •°l 96 x ow c• —>—DENOTES SANITARY SEWERQa —»--DENOTES STORM SEWER \ � —•—DENOTES EXISTING FENCE e� "` '13 z e�, \\ ben- ; .. .1011.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. \0,5°. f \\ "q•,x66" ? I ' DENOTES GRAVEL \ \, \ fees. ,` alt erwY 9.571 drry o6�z` p0,6 i DENOTES CONCRETE 6 �. . - 66°) ".e}Adl\ro?� 1+ ° i qA4• I :4 P IT e� .w \ e6e RYM000.47 ss65 es z + 121.36 uw.s71.o2 o- o• *1 uN - \\M•om TVS89° 8'57"W e�z' 16289 eoe ,;C�aC A4 JA Q 5132 Sm0 e p0c I so i_NDSAY S7REET � rroo os185+WE hm 874.1• `C.o\ `� '�I 1--1-11--1—��._1—_1�=A 1�1 0 •�J--vy � 4 896 NOTES se e�+ 8 ee+' eex6` ses> ee+? sm -Field survey completed 04/01/14. 4' ie�e 1 eez+ ease z0c°�.9 est ae ee1 0Bc} Tap Nut 00s�1761 p66o ` c----'R ---- ------— •spa.e, !87.71 8"VCP Sewer Moi BymO&7,69 ' i 8"VCP 4Sewer Moi, \7 67c31 I 1 1nr..e76.39 6y,.z SO I eez? e6a9 I p0j0 Ex.House E.H.E%Haues D.H.ive 1 `rte `•Ile\ i `J I 1��:�i �—,LI••J it 111, I hereby certify that this survey, plan a report woe prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am 0y Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ��tp�/�y1 DRAWN BY.ERV JOB N0: 1412461 DATE:04/10/14 ACME LAND oVfteG t lCNECK BY:nv SCANNED❑ �C 1 05/08/14 REVISE BOUNDARY ERV -� QN�f1d 17lyafldn: 11,, 2ERIC R.VICKARYOUSacreelan3 Date.AorY 11th,2014 Reg.No. 44125 Job#14124 NO. DA E DESCRIPTION BY CALand Projects 2W8\14I24mx\deaV4I24btAeQ 5/6/2014 124,10 PH CDT PRELIMINARY PLAT -OF- GOLDEN VALLEY HOMES for- Max Zelayaran I , --------- PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Commencing at a point of the East line of Government Lot 1, Section 33, Township 118, ' ;�x�} .16 E b Range 21, 835.9 feet South of Northeast comer of said Section 33, Township 118, Range 21; / thence South 217.8 feet along East line of said Section 33; thence West at right angles to said East section line a distance of 333.0 feet; thence at right angles North 217.8 feet; thence at right angles East 333.0 feet to the point of beginning, according to the United Yr -/ I r " States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Except that part of the above-described land shown as Parcel 14F on Minnesota Department r .� •' 41 o I of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-104. *Description per Certificate of Title 1043852.5.+ —x—•–� � NORTH ----------- ," S89°48'57"W 211.59 r /i r- 81.00 I u NNDOT 130.59 m -rw�itl #+ ;. 121.36 o DOT - 1 ) N' mawma,t m� t 1 ' ++ -/, -fa Molnllok tesea�(eotketga) e (nwtb 1.ar -s�L. (Ne.aaz)I to it 1\ BENCHMARK t?, 10 GRAPHIC SCALE BASIS FOR ELEVATION:NAVD 88(VIA REAL TIME GPS e.,;-,t `,.,`�, 8 ` ``x MEASUREMENTS UTILIZING MINNESOTA `+x�/ �'�x�_/ yi t DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VRS NETWORK) `x, e„`` ` ` i ..--; G -->" 1 'bo s .ro so ,:o x BASIS FOR BEARINGS:HENNEPIN COUNTY IN FEET COORDINATE SYSTEM. —K,— ', i +f t mch = 30 tt. zero tot ,c(pe. seven„es)-- M R2 Lot I G Twin Hem. N fi 114 \ 17.2373 sq.ft $ 3 1..,-......35.0 t- (0.40--) i (0.40--) Ap Nut H"t LEGEND © -t3;(h4'z-eq:n _887.12 . L (0.3o- - - - -ae.e> J 10 • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND o / - - - j, - , O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET / o m d 29.89 0 (" ,5 1;am 12 DENOTES UTIUTY BOX \ I t L - - - - - - - - O DENOTES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE ® elN 1E 10 Oo DENOTES STORM SEWER MANHOLE I - _pyo, o P r-d se.tb K tr•.e ❑ DENOTES CATCH BASIN X DENOTES GATE VALVE DENOTES FIRE HYDRANT DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR j f Ir R2 Lot R1 Lat 8 $ Twin Home on. DENOTES OVERHEAD WIRE \ III Iz $I $ p o r , CD Single Hcuse 1,5712 s It,r p > DENOTES SANITARY SEWER \ [1' II - 2 q' ' z »—DENOTES STORM SEWER -I (�.33 scree i —•—DENOTES EXISTING FENCE "3L 717 ��-- 101�12 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. � \\ d ` a .13 l DENOTES BITUMINOUS 0 DENOTES CONCRETE \fes \ "� V n ^+ A \ \ r 47 " N aon- t oh. -- o 2 - 28.88 q ode? ,otos di r h1 Ne94e371 209.1319" ------r 121.38 S8 857" 16 .89 5\8 9°5132'E - -- ----- s bPe Development Data: e, v s -Proposed Zoning RI lot(hot 1) es � � VTg. -RI Requirements: RYn-881.0(• .f•••` , Mmtmum Lot Area-10,000 sq fl. Im..874.1• r�9 '0 #5 '3 -Impervious surface shall not exceed 50% -Setback Requirement: -Front Setback=35' Decks and porches with no screens 30' -Rear Yard Setback-20%ofint depth °' _ " Tap Nut�H1Omt - Side Yard Setback-12.5 for structures 15'in height or less Yn-881.71 63 � Side Yard Setback 12.5'+05 for each additional 1 foot in v.-074.31 8"VCP Sewer Mo Rim-BB3.09 8"VCP Sewer Moml Inv.-B7S� height aver lt'feet high. -Proposed Zoning-R2(Lot's 2&3) -R2 Requirements: i Minimum Lot Area-11,000 sq.fi. I -Minimum Lot Width=100' -Impervious surface shall not exceed 50% Ex.House Ex.Heuse E:House ExHouae ^ -Setback Requirements: -Front Setback-35' -Decks and porches with no screens=30' -Rear Yard Setback=20%of lot depth -Side Yard Setback=l5' -Overall Area=46,095±sq.fl.('1.06 acres) t t -Existing Zoning-Single Family Residential(RI) NOTES -Field survey completed 04/01/74. Rev. 05/08/14, odd easements I hereby certify that this survey, plan or repot was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am DRAWN BY ERV JOB N0: 141240 DATE:04/10/14 a duly Registered Land Surveyor under J�Z,LAND CHECK BY ery SCANNED❑ theIaW9 of the StatB of Minnesota. 1 05/08/14 add easements ERV �+2 Ds/2s/1a uty romment lane,os/1s ERvL..e..R _867 acrelandsurve ail. 0 3 08/12/14 city comments ERV ERIC R. VICKARYOUS Job*14124 4 08/13/14 y comments ERV O\Lnntl Projects 2008M4124 -\dwg\14124bt.dwg 8/13/E014 9,44-08 RN CDT N0. DATE DESCRIPTION BY Date.Aoril 11th, 2014 Reg.No. 44125 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN & UTILITY PLAN -for- Max Zelayaran �OF- GOLDEN VALLEY HOMES 1 ,r �ses � ee E l PROPERTY DESCRIPTION r_b5 Commenein at o point of the East line of Government Lot 1, Section 33,Township 118, 4 ���� ' E g ypBjO I o Range 21, 835.9 feet South of Northeast comer of said Section 33, Township 118, Range 21; i:.`/ 1 *peao &F '�- thence South 217.8 feet along East line of said Seetton 33; thence West at right angles to said East section line a distance of 333.0 feet thence at right angles North 217.8 feet; thence at right angles East 333.0 feet to the point of beginning, according to the United � �� _ £ States Government Survey thereof and situate M Hennepin County, Minnesota. , Aa�v s Except that part of the above-described land shown as Parcel 14F on Minnesota Department gB�ly �1 xep+` *gyp *eas r, T�',ap°1' of TronsportaYton Right of Way Plat No. 27-104. a3" eN •Description per Certificate of Title 1043852.5.+ I aA �J 1 NORTH �p *8°ea; *0aa 889°4±57"W eeee 211.59 ppea s -P---- -{� .......:• ----*4etA- x 5 121.36 ��------ I ae,? 0ae'b 1 �° Il�,uelmtrppw-°•fi'Z - - - ra1nCM1691 l" 0.• ; 1 1/�- Bea --1,r NobBok ILaaf(badwtap) , ( �_ Ma Owl Mfr tt BENCHMARK LEGEND t"y ' �, , I - 1t \ GRAPHIC E > GRAP SCALE BASIS FOR ELEVATION:NAV 88(VIA REAL TIME GPS a DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND p-- _ `; � E 1, - I t .w +s 3a �m MEASUREMENTS UTILIZING MINNESOTA O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET a 5 -/t r `t` I 8 -� - 'fir t� ``^� DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VRS NETWORK) • �`•/ ,v�-r I xeeaa I �- t. � TOP 09-SNA _ © DENOTES UTILITY BOX `�� _ * » 0s DENOTES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE �v� � p°>• ;} x�?s * y n h FEET) BASIS FOR BEARINGS:HENNEPIN COUNTY r'a�/ ° °gp8 �» •14 -J COORDINATE SYSTEM. DENOTES STORM SEWER MANHOLE • x�/ *may.? --- ) inch= 30 it. ❑ DENOTES CATCH BASIN ,i�� „- TOP BLOCK*•80? I Q I GAR.FLR-887.4' a.)��,- y �.. pQ DENOTES GATE VALVE 4 x P ' LOW FlR�8B25 - - jCo."" ' DENOTES FIRE HYDRANT °0 I tc E SAN .. DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR as'N' -�•-DENOTES OVERHEAD WIRE ___. ._._ s..3._ M1 ( » I e° 4P Nut L --DENOTES SANITARY SEWER > �o ear° ��„ *peee I L _ � � _ -�+ - - - `-� -»--DENOTES STORM SEWER n,j? xee>' / xaeaa x xa-1 -a-DENOTES EXISTING FENCE " °°oat ,e%. 11 -'• K` o� x1011.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. I 1 ,d r - - - - - - - - - a77 :•'- - `� e pp�? - 8 DENOTES BITUMINOUS ,- °r°y:e DENOTES CONCRETE (WD UTILITY NOTES: --s-DENOTES PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SERVICE 12 as bssamant DENOTES PROPOSED WATER SERVICE c°a .�. 1► I I •-r I 7.WATER SERVICES SHALL BE 1"AND INSTALLED PER CITY UTILITY BFRMC6_-----xm 12-10=17.1 a bwwnant TOP BLOQ(-889.1 I iJ C r I DETAILS GV-WM-030&GV-WM-031 GAR.PIR.�8B8.0(dn 1 a.) p N ® DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION. 10P W .B �I ae,DOP BLOOL�e87.1 I I GAI IR.-MIO p9a.* `I• m, ./ 2.SANITARY SERVICES SHALL BE 4"AND INSTALLED PER CITY E 81111 87Ua�876.40 pe>?eaE aARFLR..886.0(dl 1 n.)' > 1 O 2 DETAILS GV-SS-030&GV•SS440 / DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE. ( »LCAPN874.73 cRa°" OO I LOW FLR�879.0 �� �e * I': ,��, v� � 0.>a 3.ALL UTILITY CONSTRUCTION MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH pap\ s pB �f °"0 THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY AND THE ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION Tyv u.,\ is^aAE� e I 2 OF MINNESOTA STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Development Data: -Proposed Lomng•R]Int(Lot 1) \ ~"` (' \\ ee>+ 1 ea -R1 Requirements: e .; \ -Mm;mum Lot Area=10,000 sq.fl. °tete? \�(�. ,• \ �*sa, , RPP Rcnu„nls E sPEan.1 oR -Impervious surface shall not exceed 50"/o \ /? \ \ � pps S" W'a, I , B ei, Z fit " V REPORT Was PREP--cMEORIMDERMYD S. -Setback Requlremeats: \� 1 \ I `• ^ Y - ` �"+ - •9,, 1 N aENGMEN EU UNDER TILE IAWSOF T,1E b�TATE.1 IN1150TA gilp -Front Setback=35' \ i ° eeo� •'. 5t _ - - - t -Decks and porches with no screens=30' o? '.d' tc '' �* o M °n on 4 4 pQ } •Rear Yard Setback 20%of lot depth Rh1=860.47 aeon ''a\ �Ja onQ _ - 121.36-- ----- p c - Side Yard Setback-12.5'for structures]5'm height or less ti1 -� e \ era• 8'57' 89 51 2'F® pea c - Side Yard Setback-12.5'+0.5'for each additional I font in \M+° p�tp c t 884 E 3 ( MATTHEW R PAVEK P.E. height over 15'feet high. - - xas` •..4gt _ Al 1. n5mm14 trcsw.H63 R2(Lot's 2&3) 'c ? sProposed Zoning .Ir IST R2 Requiremens: *; 11.IX0 sq-ft.Lot Area1--674 Civusite -Mmimum Lot Width=100' �•\c rte_ -Impervious surface shall not exceed 50"/o p 1 ,xl_-, �I B CIP W�_er 2.11 t.` y 1 7 . i - C\ �--" 5 Y-, B&Sa � * s? USa I 48 R 0 V IP •Setback Requirements: -Front Setback=35' a tc - .t > 9pm� I 4931 W.35TH ST.SUITE 200 -Decks and porches with no screens-30' �\ aa+ p0+6 I °01" p816r°�a p°3 >"op> , tet < eK �� ST.LOUIS PARK,MN 55416 °y tc _ TCP Not H>dmt e`s :d767M>a 54 tc -Rear Yard Setback=20"/0 of lot depth ppt? ---�-_ <- --- --<�-- \ -=s�s•6s c CrvIkSK°GrouP�m -Side Yard Setback=l5' 7> e'VCP Sewer Mai Iuk- 3AB ? +- Il ppp •ap5? .o\ I Man Pavex Pat Server �e%4A1 I 8"VCP Sew r Main P. 763-213-3944 952-250.2003 -Overall Area=46.095±sq.fl.(1.06 acres) "? Yrv.=e7S3i east URJ1Y c •Existing Zoning=Single Family Residential(RI) I A \ ` u �? M• SAN .10 X888.8 v °^ a pp.?E BAN•MNMB7B•38 E SMI SRIB�B78.0 '" ° pea, pe• (VnBFY) E SMI•MAIIN-M 92 GRADING NOTES: eo?? $3b k'as'� 1 FsHouea FxNoua 1.SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL LAYOUT. ExHousa Ex.Nauae II m 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE GEOTECHNICAL TECHCAL REPORT FOR ANY `E r I t o 1 �I A ADDITIONAL SITE PREPARATION INFORMATION,SOIL CORRECTION,TYPE OF BACKFILL OR REQUIREMENTS. 3.EXCAVATION AND EMBANKMENT ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE T C n GEOTECHNICAL'GRADNG ANREPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. �� `I;i; i i`• 4.GRADING AND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL r s���J ► POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM(NPDES)PERMIT REQUIREMENTS&PERMIT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. 5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF GRADE STAKES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION TO ESTABLISH PROPER GRADES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL FIELD CHECK OF FINISHED GRADES ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ► ARCHITECT PRIOR TO TOP-SOIL AND SODDING ACTIVITIES. NOTES 7.EXCESS FILL MATERIAL.SHALL BE REMOVED AND LEGALLY DISPOSED OF BY THE CONTRACTOR -Field survey completed 04/01/14. OFFSITE. 8.PROPOSED SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 3:1 UNLESS INDICATED OTHERMISE ON THE DRAWINGS. I I hereby certify that this survey,plan 9.CONTRACTOR SHALL STRIP,STOCKPILE AND RE-SPREAD SUFFICENT TOP SOIL TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM or report was prepared by me or under 4"COMPACTED DEPTH TO DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED OR SODDED. my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. DRAWN BY:ERV JOB 10: 1412461 DATE:04/10/14 ACRE LAND SURVEYING CHECK BY: ery $CANNED❑ Blal'YYV 71MYI C7�VIl�C TOIL 1 ERIC R.VICKARYOUS wnk*W763-459 26acreaneu �4 3 Dote:May Bth.2014 Reg.No.44125 N0. DAiE DESCRIPRON 6r 0\Lard Projects 2006\14I24mx-\dwg\I4124b1,dwC 5/8/2014 124x-1130 PH CDT -OF-PRELIMINARY PLAT GOLDEN VALLEY HOMES -for- Max Zelayaran 0lionLa A PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONBA Commencing at a point of the East line of Government Lot 1, Section 33, Township 118, 4"\`� ( E . Range 21, 835.9 feet South of Northeast corner of said Section 33, Township 118, Range 21; / >_ thence South 217.8 feet along East line of said Section 33; thence West at right angles to V said East section line a distance of 333.0 feet; thence at right angles North 217.8 feet; thence at right angles East 333.0 feet to the point of beginning, according to the United r-r' -/ I cea States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. `w' ` Except that part of the above-described land shown as Parcel 14F on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-104. *Description per Certificate of Title 1043852.5.- 1 s. __ I NORTH S89048'57"W 211.59 81.00 o Moor r- r ��- - - - 1O -F—d-MNOaj _-10 h.WA*hoa.+(badntga' (nor1A 1.00') '� monument aopON 60'.. 1 1 4 t SE __..__ (Na.a9s9 .. 1` BENCHMARK r_ �„ .� a Q' 6 10 10 11 GRAPHIC SCALE BASIS FOR ELEVATION:NAVD 88(VIA REAL TIME GPS s<;t l' s;�`�` f 'y j MEASUREMENTS UTILIZING MINNESOTA s �/ `.! x - §80� ``�L DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VRS NETWORK) .` i. c-.`\, c 3 l BASIS FOR BEARINGS:HENNEPIN COUNTY ` �;✓ 1. %' $ a Rt Lot " x ( IN FEET) COORDINATE SYSTEM, t m Shgle Hous 1 inch= 30 ft. F CD -'35.0 r., $ 12,Oa03eI.& cre1 N 1 & >• (0.28 as) 17.237:aq.tt. 8; Ito 1 (0.40 acres) _.._._ Tap Nut Xtpant LEGEND Q I— — — — — — — — --ae7 • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND $ / O m - T. 0 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET 10 © DENOTES UTILITY BOX \ F 67 .-'- DENOTES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE Q II E 6 BOE Yard tbaak line SD Q0 DENOTES STORM SEWER MANHOLEI 2&95 ❑ DENOTES.CATCH BASIN \� X DENOTES GATE VALVE - 0 DENOTES FIRE HYDRANT DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR \ p 1p Rt Lot g,' $) S° g Twin lime ^W DENOTES OVERHEAD HARE \ CD i Shgle Hous ( of 2 1 508*eq.fL o z > DENOTES SANITARY SEWER \ i c (P•38 oars) f „fit » DENOTES STORM SEWER �� �, i i e -3s-1 S T . ' ' S 0 —•—DENOTES EXISTING FENCE \ /" \\ �/ 1�-es---b6. -s''._"-- I �c� a'..'.7 I t .13 _ 1011 2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. DENOTES BITUMINOUS 0 DENOTES CONCRETE \\' ~ \ e Lf�n 6 L _ - - - - " _ - - - J 10 t t21.36 S8 8'57" 1612.89 e � A � Development Data: e obi °sn9�c i '-% 41� 4 t -Proposed Zoning-RI lot(Lot Il -RI Requirements: I-874i0.er -Mimmum Lot Area 10,000 sq.N. -Impenlous surface shall not exceed 50"/0 -Setback Reguiremenh: -Front Setback-3a aP .T'"�s ";s.'.. € r „_,„, o,., . ,.,,•?;, v ,. ` Decks and porches with no screens=30' N Y °'o ''�Tep Nut Hydrant ii'Jdffi -Rear Yard Setback-20%oflotdepth tur _ L<__ _______ ________ -Side Yard Setback-12 5'for structures 15'in height or less M'�•r 8'VCP Sewer Mo ` v.�974.31 Ren.tl&1.69 8'VCP Sewer Main -Side Yard Setback=12.5+0.5 for each additional I foot in hr�e75.� f _ height over 15'feerbigh. I -Proposed Zoning-R2(Lot's 2&3) -R2 Requirements: -Minimum Lot Area=11,000 sq.R. -Minimum Lot Width=100' -Impenions surface shall not exceed 50N Ex Houee E.Hous Ex.Hous -Hou-, -Setback Requirements: -Front Setback=35' , 1• 1 r�' 1. xY .i -Decks and porches with no screens=30' -Rear Yard Setback=20%of lot depth -Side Yard Setback=l5' r-` �' 1�7 11 /1�\� -Overall Area=46,095±sgJI.(1.06 acres) -Existing Zoning=Single Family Residential(RI) NOTES -Field survey completed 04/01/14. Rev. 05/08/14, add easements I hereby certify that this survey,plan or report was prepared by me or,under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under DRAWN BY.ERV JOB N0: 1412461 DATE:04/10/14 the laws of the State of Minnesota. ACRE LAND SURVEYING; .. II s, CHECK BY e SCANNED EJ $arYtlQ TlliMl�INa1r0 i 05/08/14 odd ea men is ERV area and beyond 05/29/14 sty comment lett,,05/16 ER, ERIC R.VICKARYGUS 783.45'8-2807 aerelandsurve`j(ag all. o 3 Da/1x/14 city ERV Job#14124 G\Land Projects 2008\14I24mx-\dw9\I4I24lat.dwg 8/12/2014 12-55-05 PM CDT NO DATE DESCRIPTION BY Date:AOrll 11th.2014 Reg.No.44125 City of go1den1!k-v4PN MEMORANDUM va.-ley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting August 19, 2014 Agenda Item 4. E. Public Hearing- Preliminary Plat Approval - Fretham Twenty-Two -4XXX Harold Avenue Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Summary At the July 28, 2014, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted to recommend approval of a minor subdivision of the property located at 4XXX Harold Avenue (Fretham Twenty- Two). The proposal would create two lots from the existing lot, each meeting the necessary lot area and lot width requirements as outlined in Chapter 12 of the City Code. The lot is currently vacant. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes dated July 28, 2014 (2 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission dated July 28, 2014 (3 pages) • Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, dated July 7, 2014 (2 pages) • Site Plans (3 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for Fretham Twenty-Two, 4XXX Harold Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated July 7, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 3. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. 6001- Golden 00 Golden Valley Rd r++'8695 100 9010 8950 State rtwY No:55 state�twY No:55 8815 McMOT131 Otsoq ^�r 439V 440 8951 8945 2 a 433 Q > 9031 433 432 8811 Z 423 n > 424 + 424 m 201 421 _ O 204 416 347 j 410 $928&,w gg20 >w2 415 Subject Property 408 345 Wally st 201 339 400' 203 a 8933 8925'8917 8913 8909 8901 325 LA i46 145 91451 Harold Ave 302 2T201 9145c 303 9145f Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 7 17. All signage mu ekes ents of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 18. This approval is suher state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with ritydevelopment. 4. Informal Public Hearing —Minor Subdivision — 4XXX Harold Avenue — Fretham Twenty-Two— SU22-03 Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC Address: 4XXX Harold Avenue Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained that this proposal is the second part of a three lot subdivision. The first half was at 400 Decatur Avenue North. He stated that both of the lots in this proposal meet the minimum lot requirements in the Single Family R-1 zoning district. Lot 1 would be 10, 151 square feet in size, with 81 feet of width at the front setback line, and Lot 2 would be 10,002 square feet, with 80 feet of width at the front setback line. Segelbaum asked if survey's submitted by applicants are verified for accuracy. Zimmerman stated that staff reviews surveys that are submitted, but rely on surveyors to submit accurate numbers. Segelbaum asked if this proposal meets the average width test recently discussed by the Planning Commission. Zimmerman stated that he did not consider the average width of the proposed new lots because the City Council recently amended the Single Family R-1 zoning district to state that lot width is measured at the front setback line. Grimes added that under today's Zoning Code, it meets all the requirements. Don Jensen, Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant, said it was important to show the building envelope on his plans and the practical results. He stated that the pie-shaped lots in this proposal work because the garages fit in the front, and there will still be strong front yard, and back yard space. Grimes added this proposal won't impact neighboring properties. Blum asked what will happen to the berm on the north side of Harold Avenue. Jensen said most of it would be removed for drainage and driveways, but that they will re-work it as much as possible. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Fretham Twenty-Two Minor Subdivision subject to the following findings and conditions. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 8 Findings: 1. Both lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. 2. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. 3. The addition of the new lots will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. Conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated July 7, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. Continued Discussion Regardpg Lot Depth and Shape Zimm man noted that this is part of th on-going discussion about lot width, depth and shape. explained that the Zoning C de defines lot depth as the mean horizontal distance b een the front (street) line'and the rear lot line. He stated that lots are not required to b certain depth; howev ", the rear yard setback require ent in the R-1 and R-2 zoning istricts is determine 'using the lot depth (20% of 19-depth). He stated that Golden Valle Subdivision Cod ` uses the shortest distaff etween the front and rear lot lines when c culating lot dep'h. He added that, sim i.taF to lot width, lot depth is difficult to calculate for nusually sh ed lots. He discussed other commu 'ties' to depth requirer" ents, and noted that approximately half of the surrounding comm ities a researched use the average depth, and the other half use the shortest dista a etween the front and rear lot lines. He stated that for cities using the average depth c` ,rule"ion, they define the rear yard setback as a set distance, typically 25 feet, rather th percentage. Using this method removes the complication of calculating the av f ge pth. Zimmerman next discus sedaorr t s al`e. He sh2 wed the Commissioners several examples of past subdivis�dn propo als, and e '\ree ur different tests he did on each of the examples.7tie first the est requiresum lot width to be maintained for a distance of 30%6f the lot, the econd testlot area from the total square footage that does ' have the mini um requirede third test requires a minimum width at the mid 'int of the lot, and he fourth tean "irregularity test" of P2/A = X with cutoff of 22 being t irregular. Segelbau asked if the current Su division Code permits variari' s. Grimes said the Subdivi on Code states that the re uirements of the Zoning Code eed to be met when subdi iding property. Kluchka asked if a recommendation can be made stating that the Planning Commission would like to have discretion, and not just rely on math, when reviewing subdivision ZiyU , ti golden MEMORANDUM valley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: July 28, 2014 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Minor Subdivision of 4XXX Harold Avenue—Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant Summary of Request Lake West Development, LLC, is proposing to subdivide the property located at 4XXX Harold Avenue into two separate lots. This is the second split of the original lot at 400 Decatur Avenue North; there are no homes on this lot. City Code requires that each new lot be a minimum of 10,000 square feet in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. Lot 1 to the west would be 10,151 square feet and the lot to the east, Lot 2, would be 10,002 square feet. City Code also requires that each lot have a minimum of 80 feet of width at the front setback line. Lot 1 to the west would have 81 feet of width. Lot 2 to the east would have 80 feet of width. The dimensions of both of the newly created lots provide a sufficient building envelope for development. Qualification as a Minor Subdivision The proposed two lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the property located at 4XXX Harold Avenue is an existing platted lot of record, the proposed subdivision will produce fewer than four lots, and it will not create need for public improvements. The applicant has submitted the required information to the City that allows for the subdivision to be evaluated as a minor subdivision. Staff Review of Minor Subdivision Staff has evaluated the proposed lot subdivision request as a minor subdivision to create two lots in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. The Applicant has submitted a survey of the existing lot prior to the proposed subdivision, as well as a preliminary plat displaying the two lots after the subdivision. Both lots will have access off of Harold Avenue. City Engineer Jeff Oliver has submitted a memorandum dated June 16, 2014, regarding recommendations from the Public Works Department concerning this request. Requirements set forth in Mr. Oliver's memo are to be included in the recommended action of this subdivision. Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Subdivision According to Section 12.50 of the City's Subdivision Regulations, the following are the regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions with staff comments related to this request: 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. Both lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not buildable. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utility systems by the addition of the new lots. The addition of the new lots will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the City. As discussed in the Public Works memo, existing drainage and utility easements must be vacated and new easements must be dedicated and shown on the final plat. 5. If public agencies other than the City have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the minor subdivision,the agencies will be given the opportunities to comment. No other public agencies have jurisdiction over the streets adjacent to the site. 6. The City may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney for dedication of certain easements. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 7. The minor subdivision may be subject to park dedication requirements. No park dedication fee is required for this subdivision. 8. The conditions spelled out shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision. Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions. All conditions have been met. Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated April 23, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 3. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Memo from Public Works Department, dated June 16, 2014 (2 pages) Site Plans (3 pages) city 0f0 golden EORAND alley Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: June 16, 2014 To: Wark Grimes, Community Development Director From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Subject: Subdivision Review for Fretham 25th Addition Public Works staff has reviewed plans for the proposed minor subdivision of property located at 400 Decatur Avenue North. The Developer proposes to subdivide Lot 2 of Fretham 21St into two single-family parcels. The comments contained in this review are based upon plans submitted to the City on May 19, 2014. Public Works staff recommends approval of the proposed minor subdivision of property located at 400 Decatur Avenue, called Fretham 25th Addition, subject to the following comments: 1. Existing drainage and utility easements within the boundaries of the development must be vacated. 2. The final plat for this development must include the dedication of new easements, consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 3. The sanitary sewer service for the existing house at 400 Decatur Avenue must be relocated to accommodate this development. Depending on the final location of the sewer service, a private easement between the owners of 400 Decatur Avenue and Lots 1 and 2 of Fretham 2511 Addition may need to be executed and recorded at Hennepin County. A copy of the recorded private easement would need to be provided to the City prior to final plat approval. 4. Staff recommends that the Developer or Contractor directional bore the water services to the properties to minimize impacts to traffic and the street pavement on Harold Avenue. A Right-of-Way Permit is required for any excavations or obstructions within City right-of- way. The Developer or Contractor will also be required to obtain the appropriate sewer and water permits from the City for the removal and installation of utility services. 5. The properties must obtain compliance with the City's Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the homes. G:\Developments-Private\Fretham 25th Addition\Subdivision Review.docx 6. New driveways must meet City standards including the installation of a concrete apron. A City Right-of-Way Permit is required for the construction of each driveway. 7. The new lots will be custom-graded at the time of home construction, and therefore a City Stormwater Management Permit will be required before the start of construction. A stormwater management plan that meets City standards is required as part of the permit submittal. 8. This development is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Because each lot will be custom-graded,the project is considered a Single-lot Development in which a separate Tree Preservation Permit will be required for each lot prior to home construction. 9. The developer and/or contractor must obtain the appropriate permits prior to development. Approval is also subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney and other City staff. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Tom Burt, City Manager John Crelly, Fire Chief Eric Seaburg, Engineer Joe Fox, Water Resources Engineer Kelley Janes, Utility Maintenance Supervisor Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Jerry Frevel, Building Official Sue Virnig, Director of Finance G:\Developments-Private\Fretham 25th Addition\Subdivision Review.dou 2 0STING CONDITIONS OF FRETHAM 25TH ADDITION FOR: LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT E OWNERS: FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOC. DRAINAGE AND UMUTY EASEMENTS SHOWN THUS: 14221 DALLAS PKWY STE 11201 DALLAS TX, 75254-2916 j v ------------------------------- , m e u Li ------ � �6 Q rP 588'56"07"E 170.0 30 630 I e - ---- --J------ L---------- NO SCALE ° APPLICANT Q I BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY Jolene SChmelZer I U I W �a LINES AND BEING 6 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING ALL Lake West Development 1 I OTHER LOT UNES.UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLAT. I I 14525 Highway 7 Suite 335 Minnetonka, MN 55345 LEGAL DESCRIPTION io ene®westdev.Com / Rim:80 6B9.B a 952-653-2193 / vea.a Let R•aok 1.MOM 21ST ADD WK H-.*Gantx Mhnretn Hours - SURVEYOR / LAND PLANNER / p ea4.o ACRE LAND SURVEYING, INC. o ` ea.v'$ 9140 BALTIMORE STREET NER;m 890.0 ` Leas SUITE 100 1-485,5 / �ELM6 ep,.J I BLAINE, MN 55449 WALLY ° (763) 238-6278 -0.l JOSHUA P. SCHNEIDER, PLS (763) 238-6278 CELL /\� 9�� le,o� AVE ��� / x890.6 \ y Do"t"/ -' eso., # / / 1' ai:z c°.g Oro 699.8 I 6" tC \ /-r 567 0O9e eao.4 LEGEND g a \ mMr I ea3.5 • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND + e91.J O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET �--_----_-��� \ \ x T t` '89's , TO BE SET 2 700 ❑ DENOTES CATCH BASIN ''\ q\ 695 J I+ \\ ' 6¢0eee6 g N aot t.z DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. �/: / 48 I DESIGNED JPS ® DENOTES SANITARY SEWER \ \ B91B / O ® DENOTES DRAINAGE MANHOLE �� em.z 0W CHEO HDv \�\ s. ' /" ^t \ a'E172D JPS DENOTES HYDARNT FND PINCH 0.6 WEST # DENOTES LIGHT POLE ` \ 't' � Gw NORTH \ \ <; 9 ^ \ 666., OMP NORTH ,o DENOTES GUY WIRE / �OI^1 / 66 t E'o- DENO =48 DENOTES TRETES E POLE - esz.o �` cw DENOTES COTTONWOOD \�;,yj\ ' / // -� I� GR•�� DENOTES CONCRETE ( IN FEET) Ex \ ( �\ / ,r/ o k d I inch= 20 ft. ., H / / I BASED ON CITY AS-BUILTS Daae l�\\ \ J\ - xeee.e APP1EZB I I n E t o \ 12.a .net \ oh i r4 c e 6sae e7 �` joss :i a n-i o 'v1 R-I ZONING STANDARDS: MIN.LOT SIZE: 10,000 SF `Q O \ } 891 v Q MAX.BUILDING COVERAGE 30% MAX.IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 50% 1°m°m \\ 'a .em 4 MIN.WIDTH(AT F5B) 80'(100-CORNER LOT) FRONTSETBACK 35' ^:.w°� ..........� �,9 ............. SIDE o SETBACK VARIES/SEE ORDINANCE o w G..-.•`J' ..\ / ` REAR SETBACK 20%OF LOT DEPTH N \ '9 aea.4 6a d O U) Z Q y �.m a` cwaz ti; LLJ itn B: ( Oi Q GENERAL NOTES °6B.)J a,a� \\ 016 Z p Z Q_ Z_ 1. Parcel ID Number. 31-118-21-31-0011 5•Sewe..Easement \ l- I Q eee.e c-3 Per 0 N 567847- _ 2. Address of the surveyed premises: XXX Harold Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55422. 'C� \ �` �' /r °c. `° �I I 0 _ \//� 1 Rim 888.1 3. Bearings shown hereon are based on an assumed datum. Proposed Lot dimensions to nearest g27,Y5 -mow *;. �o eee.a aee.. e.z mv:876.5(WpVERIFY foot. - - - xeBB.a �} Seca-Y / �.L._I. 1�6876.1 Q '^ LLJ -- - - - - - - - - - - U 4. Boundary area of the surveyed premises: -' - -� - ............ -..n 4 eee�-sF�'� VERIFY _ - - + / �I J Total Area: 20,152 sq. ft. (0.46 acres), - ""'-� ® (er �n eezJ Q 891 R m.8F4.8 .........°B9" S88°56'07"E San Sewer P City) 142.75 FND RLS 15221 - Z 5. Subject Property is Zoned R-1. ae-� / ...........9 889. F- 6. The surveyed premises adjoins Harold Ave. ..Bs2 - 5885607E '-•BO..... - ' v a Ln f- LLJ 70" ...} 6B8]x tt 888. - 7. Utilities shown hereon are observed. Excavations were not made during the process of this .. - J � t°,9,H LLJ [/ -J survey to locate underground utilities and/or structures. The location of underground City of -- StOth Line of NE1/4. SWT/4 _ - I� O Golden Valley are based in part on the proposed utility plans by SEH doted February 25th, 2013 .BBrw S e�a.z .t �� ` <� .... '^ TcOCB TC°CBV and may vary from locations shown hereon. Additional underground utilities and/or structures Tc 6aTCe�'! [J may be encountered. Contact Gopher State One Call Notification Center at (651) 454-0002 for verification of utility type and field location, prior to excavation. B. The field survey of this site was completed on Jan 3rd, 2014. in the middle of the Minnesota HAROLD AVENUE Rood Easement Per Doc.No.3722118 snow/winter season. There may be Improvements/features in addition to those shown hereon that were not located due to snow/ice cover. DA7E'6PREPAR4Tla 9. Adjoiner information obtained from Hennepin County Website accessed on 1-24-14. 5-19-14 - - - - - - PROJECT - - - - - - - - - - - Na 13853 SIEET An 1 /3 C: and Project.2008 13e53MlnSUb dwq 13B53PREPLAT 25.dwq Moy 20,2014 4:05pm GRADING PLAN OF FRETHAM 25th ADDITION _ FOR: LAKEWEST I = SITE DATA DEVELOPMENT I TOTAL SITE AREA 20,153 sq. ft. LOT 1 AREA— 10,151 sq. ft. DRAINAGE AND UTLIIY EASEMENTS SHOWN THUS: LLJ E LOT 2 AREA 10,002 sq. ft. e c , > m - Q W m S88'56'07"E 170.0 8-7 7 _ o n U e 0 of 30030 ( a NO SCALE - Q Tree Removal BEING 10 FEET IN WID1H AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAV o LINES AND BEING 6 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING ALL > I - LLJ m I OTHER LOT LINES,UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLAT. I 1a Lot 1= Remove 65" Cottonwood and 36'x3 Cottonwood Lot 2- Remove 42" Cottonwood and 28" Apple m IF U v ! 1 I DEN07ES SIGNIFICANT OR SPECIMEN LEGAL DESCRD'T10NRiV 880.& °cB9° TREE TO BE REMOVED Let Z Block 1.FRETNAU 21ST AD0MOK Hewwpin C—t.%NMeeota. / �V m Ex. i-Mal House !� e9a.o 895.1 /`v TOB ea. B9z% � °99. R 8111sa.IW2d I 890.0 / \ .ee,] Kwan Ain AMwem I WALLY 685.5 890,// ELM6 I J Jc�,S AVE OyQ0/ A, x°°0.8 Y/ / Ic LEGEND / ti �....... € • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND O DENBE OTES IRON MONUMENT SET 891] H + ^ KW? ❑ DENOTES BASIN -----— �\ 9/\ ey< fid` f ~ / 1' / \ /� NtSgo?D9 eanB g .101I.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. \� \tl fobs3g8.,w BESIGNED Fs ® DENOTES SANITARY SEWER \ . I® DENOTES DRAINAGE MANHOLE \ \ / G 3/ =eae.x I \ DRAVN MDN DENOTES HYDARNT J\ ` 4f _.P�' \ / '1 I as % CAVORED JPS \ \ i \ FN D PWICH 0.6 WEST DENOTES LIGHT POLE \ \� f < 04 NORni OF Eva_,DENOTES GUY WARE NORTH \ \ eOes \ /q eo I I \� txWAP PosnON _ E'�w DENOTES POWER POLE _ 892.o �\ \\ )y / D�' I o /Proposed \` eBB.i p�i�O? ini J\ /�" 1�/ - /i Oa ow DENOTES TREE _ v / / / n I /Proposed Silt ow DENOTES COTTONWOOD LLLL�JJJJ \ 1 \ / ,./ I � Fwnae low, DENOTES CONCRETE ( IN FEET) = Ex, - BASED ON CITY „vv�eze 1Y AS-BUIL15 I inch=201t. - .+ Hauw \\\y \\ �J / I I I I , n O o Z \� / I eEt� DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR BpB.e \\ S\\ �t{i - - I 1 WRwnow h.e '•• ^.DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR \ C i / DENOTES PROPOSED DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE. o.] a• nTSw to°r' 92. DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION. 'fie • \ I ►-- 9.. DENOTES PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SERVICE l J\ \\°o.x Proposed 4 N \\ �\ egjI0,151 sq. fL, / Pace” Full Basement ( sae ag 9i g o DENOTES PROPOSED WATER SEWER SERVICE • C o I \ 0.23 acres Lot 2 0,23 noes I I w -0 ❑ ❑ ❑ DENOTES PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL Q .J . ..�..:\ / 10,002 sq. / DENOTES SETBACK LINE - e Q ••��\\ , eea 1 a 1 \ .pO °\ Full BoseRmenY / I 1; I❑il Z O J y em6 Twe IO In EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING=R1 p \ \\ .. / cr z `t-. _ R-1 ZONING STANDARDS: N�? so F- L LI MIN.LOTSIZE: 10,000 SF a,D� \\` B1 0' Q Z MAX BUILDING COVERAGE 30% oO \ \ I °8°� Z Z MAX.IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 50% MIN.WIDTH(AT FSB) 80'(100'CORNER LOT) Proposed S It V; R res Q Q FRONTSETBACK 35' Fanta ,� \�5'\� e.e cw]e�] ` I ___I SIDE SETBACK VARIES/SEE ORDINANCE \ °� $�¢ °� Rm:886.1 Q_ REAR SETBACK 20%OF LOT DEPTH _,„_ ae S —� v:876.5(W)• 1 827.25 - - .e J eea.al _I / v:876.1 - v Ld —.— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —i .9 888.5 — —.— — _j % 0 Ln J - - + / Z N _j Q > > a > y .. as e7] / 897 Rim: ee9. S.8Se 6'07"E Proposed 142.7 FND RLS 75221 Qa "v: r� Q { B6S 7 ........ ........ - - LL GENERAL NOTES 892S8� '07"E: �. �9 d Proposed Inlet = Z`6 9 0 ...�Bep.. v Protection w 1. Bearing's shown an based n assumed datum. PPZoeed Inlet _ `_.. _ _ p _. 888 w 0 2. Contractor to wally,house location,driweay sewer and basement depth&No soli boring.haw n e9z been dans at this tkne to verily depth o/groundwater or sall stability ee ea.z < "".. � J �< �« « < f O 3. Proposed poling to be completed at tins o/construction of hour and garage. *coca 4. Elevation and location o/existing"Ys"ore wilknoted based n City o/Golden Valley plans and eea.7 Tc o W should be checked prior to coneft Non of house. TCO a l'rapa..d Lot dm knslan.to nearest foofoot.aI HAROLD AVENUE I- - III—I—+—I III ILII—� � III- -i DATE Ur PREPARATION 5-19-14 PR12"T AG 13853 SHEET N2 2/3 C: d Projects 2000\1 3953MInSUI,deg 13853PREPLAT 25.deg May 20,2014 4:07pm PRELIMINARY PLAT OF FRETHAM 25th ADDITION FOR: LAKEWEST SITE DATA DEVELOPMENT TOTAL SITE AREA 20,153 sq. ft. -• E^ LOT 1 AREA10,002 sq. ft. W 10,151 sq. ft. 2 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY AREA—TY EASEMENTS SHOWN THUS: I a it > v ------------------------ ` e ---------------------• e Q w I S88'56'07"E 170.0 ° 30 .630 I a o e --------- ------ ------- ---------- F- I Tree Removal tRp� NO SCALE _ Q BEING 10 FEET M WIDTH AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY 't� I W ma Lot 1- Remove 65'Cottonwood and 36'x3 Cottonwood LINES AND BEING 6 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING ALL 1 OTHER LAT LINES,UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLAT. Lot 2= Remove 42'Cottonwood and 28' Apple y. ee �- - -�� - � � 4 I ;w�ryy DENOTES SIGNIFICANT OR SPECIMEN TREE TO BE REMOVED e Rim:889. LEGAL DESCRIPTION irv:aeo.a Tc°9"° Proposed / VI Lot 2,Block 1,FRETHAM 21ST ADDITION,Hennepin Courtly,Minnesota. -----—- / °f/ 6so., Ex / House 1 aeao eitr,' eaz. 891.E JQ e9.9 Bale to s11/e41eto0b7 R890.0 / �>Lea1.1 eat.J xwela Jew,Aedewen `m: WALLY 888.5 , �/\ x esoa ELM6\ \ <8a0.9110 r AVE / / J .� OyQC•/ /< xaso.6 \ ti °�ori/ 6' ..P iso.t LEGEND • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET TO BE SET ❑ DENOTES CATCH BASIN .1011.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. •1.3/ X48„� DESIGNED JPs © DENOTES SANITARY SEWER \ eat.e / tytT' \*�+ �' ® DENOTES DRAINAGE MANHOLE \1� I CAVOBRA W HON DENOTES HYDARNT ''\ \ \ / + I Bs ptEYxT.'D JPS O DENOTES LIGHT POLE \\ ''\ 1 Zd\, \,�(\\y FND PINCH H WEST 'R"--DENOTES GUY WIRE NORTH _ �\ \ t� / `.. i I eee., COW P�77IION E�o \ DENOTES POWER POLE QO - _ ea2.° \ \ �o�” 1 DENOTES TREE _ \ o" / // y� / 1 R I\ , eee'. cw DENOTES COTTONWOOD \` \ �' C r x DENOTES CONCRETE ( IN FEET) C.,•` Ex. ` NY \ �\ // +/ c S§ d 1 inch= 20it. .. House \\y / I _ • BASED ON CITY AS-BUILTS �\ �\ J / I „"rttza 1 e Er r \ / e V\DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURppy Y DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR / DENOTES PROPOSED DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE. s2. DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION. DENOTES PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SERVICE '� 'o o.1 \\ \eso.x Sid / / a,. a u\ \\ oast sq. rL. // m a see.. '� ( DENOTES PROPOSED WATER SEWER SERVICE a Ry s°°c \ °j 0.23 acres Lot r _ `/ LC-, / / 0.23 ez W 1 I w - ti ❑ ❑ ❑ DENOTES PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL Y °,moo. Y 9 1/ l °o m_ '\\ `� j 10,002 sq. rt. - DENOTES SETBACK LINE �,% $ ON 00 ~ N EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING R1 "off J e W �N a // , cw.z - 0 O R-1 ZONING STANDARDS: i1n�� \°'\ {°� / (. o I S 0 W MIN.LOTSIZE: 10,000SF aoP ```���\\ d`f !1a MAX.BUILDING COVERAGE 30% O \ i I '(°°B s I I Q Q Z MAX.IMPERVIOUSSURFACE 50% �ea.6 seas I Z ```��� 5'Sew-r Easement MIN.WIDTH(ATFSB) BO'(100'CORNER LOT) J`r \ \ . Q FRONT SETBACK 35' \ { a` 9\ aea.e ew 3 Per Doc. o.567847- -- it SIDES ETBACK VARIES/SEE ORDINANCE +° \ Q I "�' I / R1m:888.1 r ry REAR SETBACK 20%OF LOT DEPTH —w,e a, e.z //I�Irv.878S(W)VERIFY 827.25 eea.e- J L - _ �/ / Irv.876.1 ~ Llf — — — — — — a e°°—s — v — —see *'.�"— —I Q 10 J — — — — — — — — — — —— — — —ice—.— _ _ ore— / 04 % 59 - - -eee.J x- VERIFY 8{.- - - - - �. / Z N _J Q Rim:889.6 tea' S88°56107"E son sewer(Per City) FWD RLS 15221 mv:e6s.� 142.75 / J Q GENERAL NOTES 588'56'07"E 970 LL) = Z W U eaz, 0 M 1. Bearing's own are bowed on assumed dotum. wtaw 2. Contractor to 1Ty house location,drlwway,eaw.r and basement depth&No sob boring.hove Ld been dansat thht tins to verify depth of groundwater w sob stability. eea.4 < eea.z < �< —« �< -< —�< • eea.7 LI- 0 3. Piapassd grading to be completed at tkne of comitmetion of house and garage. COCK Tc T—e e�e.9 I 4. Oevatlon and location of existing'Yi are estimated based on City of Golden Valley plans and e� Modd be Medved pHor to constructlan of halm 5, Proposed Lot dkn.nNons to msareat foot. t:HAROLD AVENUE Rood Easement Per Doc.No.3722128 YI v SQ III 1 II1I II1�11I I I ' 6"0'P DATE Dn PREPARATTAV 5-19-14 PRO"T An 13853 SrE'ET An 3/3 C: nd Prolscte 2008 13853MInSUb dwg 13853PREPLAT 25.dwg May 20,2014 4:07pm C1 ty 0� gym'' MEMORANDUM valley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) .2 NO'NOWNSWANSW :... . ,�. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting August 19, 2014 Agenda Item 4. F. Public Hearing - Amendments to the General Land Use Plan Map - 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South - Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Summary The Applicant, Lake West Development, LLC, intends to construct 30 detached townhome units across 3.3 acres as part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) located at 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. In order for the Preliminary Design Plan to be considered, the City Council must first consider amendments to both the General Land Use Plan Map and the Zoning Map. Without these amendments, the proposed use would not be consistent with the guiding or zoning of the properties. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at their July 14 and July 28 meetings and recommended approval. General Land Use Plan Map Amendment As part of the redevelopment plans, the Applicant intends to construct detached townhomes at a density of 9.1 units per acres. The property at 305 Pennsylvania Avenue South is currently guided Low Density Residential, which accommodates densities of less than 5 units per acres. The property at 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South is currently guided Mixed Use, which includes a mix of residential, commercial, institutional, and business-oriented land uses. Under the current proposal, the General Land Use Plan Map would be amended so that both properties would be guided as Medium-Low Density Residential, which accommodates densities of 5 to 11.9 units per acre. Any proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment must be sent to the Metropolitan Council for their review and comment. No final approval for the Laurel Ponds PUD may be given by the City Council until they have heard from the Metropolitan Council regarding the amendment. The City may continue to review the Laurel Ponds PUD as long as final action is not taken prior to Metropolitan Council review of the proposed amendment. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes dated July 14, 2014 (4 pages) • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes dated July 28, 2014 (7 pages) • Comprehensive Plan Table 3.2: Definition of Land Use Categories (1 page) • General Land Use Plan Map (1 page) • Resolution (1 page) Recommendation Motion to adopt Resolution for Amendment to the General Land Use Plan Map for 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. vJ�s:tnAve -..�� wa. r, .r ,. �—__ —� �j ( ju l:ortF�'ar_� I 4 <' CAj o a o Subject Properties: F - 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Ave. S. Y Ridyew aY Rd r C.1-1W Rd Quebec Ave 5 a / West Ring Pond Ring PON '-� E85t r _ r. Laurel Ave ! c Jj j • rt • - �f 1 Market 5l �s Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 12 Conditions: %J The plans prepared by kas wilson architects and submitted with the application on 13, 2014, shall beco,' e a part af-this approval. 2. The re e�mendations art regy�pements outlined in the memo from the Fire Departmen� Mark Grim s ommunity Development Director, dated July 6, 2014, shall become a ,art of t ' `approval. 3. The recommend ati a;'d requirements outlined in the memo from the Public Works Departmen.H6 k Grimes, Community Development Director, dated July 8, 2014, shall bp�cdme a p is approval. 4. The Appliptt t shall sub: it a lig `ting plan that meets the requirements of the City's Outdoq. fighting Code ection 11.Tal. 5. Allage must meet t e requirements`of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 6. T s approval is subject, o all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, r laws with authority o r this development. w 5. Informal Public Hearing - General Land Use Plan Map Amendment— 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South — CPAM-54 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. and from Mixed Use to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 345 Pennsylvania Ave. S. 6. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South — Z018-04 Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC Addresses: 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To rezone the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-3) and to rezone the property at 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South from 1-394 Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential (R-3) 7. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan Review — Laurel Ponds, PUD #117 Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC Address: 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 13 Purpose: To allow for a 30-unit, detached townhome development The Informal Public Hearings for Items 5, 6 and 7 were combined as was the discussion. Zimmerman explained the applicant's request to construct 30 detached townhomes at 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. He stated that as part of the PUD proposal, the properties will need to be re-guided on the General Land Use Plan Map to Medium Low Density, and rezoned to Medium Density Residential (R-3). He noted that the R-3 zoning district allows for 5 to 11.9 units per acre, and the proposal is for 9.1 units per acre. Zimmerman referred to the site plan and explained that there will be six rows of homes, each with five single family homes accessed via Pennsylvania Avenue. He stated that one private street to the south would dead end with emergency vehicle access via the Workabilities property, and two other entry points to the north would be connected with a private loop street. He referred to the parking proposal and noted that internal parking will be limited to one side of the street except along the east loop, and there are proposed guest parking bays along Pennsylvania Avenue, or along the east loop connection, with the possibility of an overflow parking agreement with Workabilities. Zimmerman stated that the proposed homes would be approximately 2,500 square feet in size, and would be approximately 10 feet apart from each other. He stated that the applicant is also proposing to reduce the existing 55-foot wide, drainage and open space easement along Laurel Avenue to 30 feet, and would like to construct a new stormwater pond within that easement. Zimmerman stated that there are a number of issues that will require additional discussion with the applicant including: streetlights on Pennsylvania Avenue, setbacks from the single family homes to the north, setbacks from the internal circulation, private versus public streets, access, easements, parking, utility ownership and maintenance, hydrants, watermain and sanitary sewer and the existing retaining wall. He stated that due to the number of issues that need to be addressed, staff is recommending that this public hearing be tabled to a future Planning Commission meeting. Segelbaum noted that detached townhomes are not listed in the R-3 zoning district and questioned if using the PUD process is a vehicle to allow them in that district. Zimmerman stated that detached townhomes aren't addressed as a use in any zoning district. Baker asked who would own the land. Zimmerman stated that there would be dues for maintenance, snow removal, mowing, etc., but the homes would have the feel of a single family property. Grimes added that he thinks there is a desire for this type of product, and that the City wants to provide a variety of housing options. Boudreau-Landis asked about the setbacks of the proposed homes along Pennsylvania Avenue as opposed to the homes to the north. Zimmerman stated that the proposed Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 14 new homes along Pennsylvania Avenue would have a 13-foot front yard setback, and that the homes to north have a 35-foot front yard setback. Kluchka referred to the traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue and said he did not see sidewalks, or pedestrian friendly options on the plans. Zimmerman stated that a sidewalk is shown on the east side of the property, and that staff is recommending it be continued to Laurel Avenue. Kluchka said he would like to see that shown on the next set of plans. Don Jensen, Lake West Development, LLC, stated that many of the issues were addressed in the narrative he submitted. He referred to the driveway system and explained how they would be different than private or public streets. He discussed the drainage patterns on the site, and said his drainage plan will accomplish what the City is looking for, and there will only a 2% increase in impervious surface. He showed the Commissioners renderings of the proposed housing types and discussed how traffic and emergency vehicles would navigate the site. He referred to the park dedication fees and stated that it would be a good idea to use the money to continue a sidewalk to the north. He referred to his tree preservation plan and noted that most of the trees on the corner of Pennsylvania and Laurel Avenues would be preserved. He said he believes he can address all of the staff's concerns, but his most important issue is the easement area, and if that easement can't be reduced, it might be a deal killer. Chuck asked the applicant if he has considered any other proposals that show a greater setback along Pennsylvania Avenue. Jensen said he was not discouraged by staff regarding the front setback areas, and he wants to have room for porches and overhangs. He added that rezoning the properties to R-3 only came about when the single family home to north was added to the project. Waldhauser said she is more concerned about the setbacks on the north and east that are supposed to be 30 feet, but will only be 15 feet. She asked if there will be some homes with a smaller footprint. Baker asked about the price range of the houses. Jensen said it depends how many units get approved, but he thinks the homes will be in the $300,000 to $400,000 range which is consistent with the neighboring homes in the vicinity. Edward Ratner, 115 Oregon Avenue South, said he is very much an advocate for adding sidewalks. He said it is hard to picture people walking around this site, and it is not designed for people to walk within the development. He asked how safe the drainage pond would be, and about the risk of it overflowing. He said there is an opportunity to have these homes be accessible, multi-generational homes, and it would be great to add some green space or a playground area. He referred to energy efficiency and stated that it would be a good expectation to have 220 volt service in the garages. Caryl Eschweiler, 420 Pennsylvania Avenue South, said she loves this neighborhood and, this property in principal is a good interface between the commercial uses. She said there are a lot of pedestrians in the area, and she thinks sidewalks are imperative, and should be an important element. She said she is concerned about Quebec Avenue Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 15 being a shortcut, and the City might want a stop sign at Quebec and Pennsylvania Avenues. She said she is concerned about the amount of rental housing in the area, and said there is getting to be a lot of parking on the streets. She said she is concerned about, and wants a better understanding of, the construction process and what will get built when, because there could be an extended period of construction. She said she wants to see a plan of how interruptions to the neighborhood will be handled. She added that she is impressed with how the applicant has been communicating, and that this proposal is probably a good choice compared to other things that could go on the property. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka said he heard a lot about the importance of sidewalks and about the parking on Pennsylvania Avenue. He asked how different the zoning requirements will be using the PUD process compared to the R-1 single family requirements. He suggested adding a condition about fences, and said he loves the concept of multi-generational housing and a play space, or gathering area because with this much density there is going to be a demand. He said he would also like to see a neighborhood construction agreement. Cera said it seems like there is a lot going on this property without enough parking or any green space. He said if people are paying association fees the will expect more. Baker said that this is so new and precedent setting that he doesn't want to rush the process because there is an opportunity to look forward to how the City uses developments to take advantage of geothermal or other kinds of shared efficiencies. He said those types of things would make him more excited about this project than he is now. He questioned if this project will appeal to people with kids or dogs. Segelbaum said without parking, and without green space, he thinks they are asking for trouble. Boudreau-Landis agreed, and said he strongly agrees about requiring a common green space or shared amenities. Jensen stated that liability insurance is an issue with pools and playgrounds. He added that the sledding hill is an active play space, and the parks nearby helped form some of the decisions in the plans. Waldhauser questioned how much variation the developer could do without losing money. She said $300,000 is low these days, but that is for a house on a standard size lot, so she doesn't consider these homes to be affordable. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to table these public hearings to the July 28, 2014, Planning Commission agenda. --Short Recess-- Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 A regular meeting of t 'e Planning Co mission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, ouncil Chambers, 7 00 Goldp ley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, July 014. Chair ,� luchklied the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present w lannmg nissioners Baker, Blum, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauserr `'so p" sent was Community Development Director Mark Grimes, City Plannex<- son Zim erman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners B eau-Landis a d Cera were absent. 1. Continued Item — Informal Public Hearing — General Land Use Plan Map Amendment— 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South — CPAM-54 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. and from Mixed Use to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 345 Pennsylvania Ave. S. 2. Continued Item — Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South — Z01 B-04 Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC Addresses: 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To rezone the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-3) and to rezone the property at 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South from 1-394 Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential (R-3) 3. Continued Item — Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan Review — Laurel Ponds, PUD #117 Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC Address: 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To allow for a 30-unit, detached townhome development Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 2 The Informal Public Hearings for Items 1, 2 and 3 were combined as was the discussion. Zimmerman reminded the Commissioners that these public hearings were tabled at their last Planning Commission meeting. He explained the applicant's proposal to construct 30 detached townhomes on the properties located at 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. As a part of the proposal both of the properties need to be re-guided on the General Land Use Plan Map to the Medium Low Residential designation and rezoned to Medium Density (R-3) Residential. Zimmerman reviewed some of the issues discussed at the July 14 Planning Commission meeting including: the installation of a sidewalk along Pennsylvania Avenue, the inclusion of additional green space, a reduction in the number of driveways accessing Pennsylvania Avenue, the relocation, or clarification of the water and sanitary sewer lines, access to the Workabilities site to the east, and the use of an existing City easement along the south end of the property. He explained that the existing, 55-foot wide easement was established in 1978 as part of the Laurel Avenue Greenbelt, and that it also extends along the Workabilities site. He added that the easement agreement states that no structures or improvements of any type shall be permitted. Zimmerman discussed some of the outstanding concerns and issues including: the reduction in density, or the consolidation of some of the units in order to obtain additional green space, and some distance between homes, the rear and side yard setbacks for the proposed northernmost homes, the setbacks from the internal roadway for the easternmost homes, the construction of public versus private streets, and the creation of a development schedule and construction phasing plan. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the General Land Use Plan Map Amendment, the Zoning Map Amendment and the Preliminary PUD Plan, subject to the conditions outlined by Planning, Engineering, and Fire. Kluchka asked if parking is allowed on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue. Zimmerman said yes, and added that allowing parking on both sides of the street will slow traffic. He said that staff doesn't see a great benefit in having the proposed bump-out parking areas. Waldhauser asked if the bump-out parking spaces would be for the Laurel Ponds use only. Zimmerman said he thinks that is the intent. Zimmerman referred to the proposed access to the Workabilities site and stated that it could be open during construction, and for emergencies, but through traffic and snow storage would not be allowed, and it would need to be maintained year-round. Zimmerman referred to the existing drainage, open space and walkway easement along the south end of the property. He said the applicant is not inclined to take out lots in the center of the project, but is more inclined to create a "beefed-up" green area at the corner of Pennsylvania and Laurel Avenues. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 3 Kluchka referred to the 15-foot setback requirement for the proposed parking spaces on the east side of the site, and asked if that applies to both the Laurel Ponds property and the Workabilities property. Zimmerman said it does apply, however, the Laurel Ponds property could vary from the requirement because it is a PUD. The Workabilities property would need the variance because it is not a part of the PUD. Zimmerman referred to the southern portion of the property and discussed the concerns about the lack of a turnaround area at the Workabilities access site. He stated that anyone using that southernmost roadway would have to use a private driveway in order to turn around. He suggested that with some design changes, or perhaps attaching some of the proposed units, there might be better results in regard to the turnaround area. Zimmerman referred to the proposed private roadways and explained that the PUD ordinance says that streets shall be public unless granted a waiver. He said staff is concerned about allowing private streets unless all the maintenance and access issues are very clear. Kluchka suggested that the language in the condition regarding the sidewalk along Pennsylvania Avenue be changed from "shall consider" installing a sidewalk to "will install" a sidewalk. He also suggested that the language regarding the prohibiting of fences be changed to state that fences "shall be prohibited." Segelbaum asked how the park dedication fees will be used. Zimmerman stated that park dedication funds go into a general park fund, and aren't earmarked for specific projects. Segelbaum asked how this proposal deviates from the requirements in the R-3 zoning district. Zimmerman stated that the applicant is proposing a smaller setback along Pennsylvania Avenue, and the lot sizes are smaller. He added that the Zoning Code doesn't have language regarding detached townhomes. Waldhauser said she is most concerned about the effects on adjoining residential properties. Segelbaum asked if there is precedent of reducing easements to allow for development. Grimes stated that the City has, in the past, vacated easements that are no longer needed. Blum asked how many properties along Laurel Avenue have this easement. Zimmerman said the 55-foot wide easement is on this property, the Workabilities property to the south, and continues for quite a way on Laurel Avenue for the green belt. Don Jensen, Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant, referred to the questions regarding the use of the easement area. He stated that the City has done nothing with this area since 1978 and he hasn't been able to find any documents, or plans regarding the use of the easement area. He referred to the discussion about having a green area as part of his proposal, and his conclusion is that there is no need for park space on this site because there are existing connections to other, nearby parks. He showed the Commissioners elevations of the proposed houses and stated that plans could maybe be redesigned to address the lack of a turnaround area on the southern portion of the site. He discussed the use of the easement, and explained how they could design the stormwater pond and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 4 the landscaped corner of Laurel and Pennsylvania Avenues all within a 45-foot area. He discussed the concerns about private roads and stated that the development will not work with public streets instead of private drives. Waldhauser asked if there could be parking on the internal roads. Jensen said parking would be allowed on one side of the road. Waldhauser asked how the surface water would flow through the site. Jensen referred to a grading plan of the site and explained how the water runs off the site. He added that there will be drain tile installed as well. Waldhauser asked if more trees could be planted going east and west on the site. Jensen said yes. Segelbaum asked Jensen why he needs to have private streets to make the development work. Jensen said all medium and high density projects have private drives. He stated that connecting the units with private drives is the proper way to do it, because public streets would wipe out the developable area, and wouldn't connect to anywhere else. Segelbaum referred to the landscaping plan for the southwest corner and asked Jensen if he would be installing the landscaping, or if the City would. Jensen said that they would install the landscaping, but he would like to talk to the Parks Department about the City installing additional items such as signage, kiosks, trellises, or things that might match the City's existing street furniture or theme. He added that he would also be extending the sidewalk along Pennsylvania Avenue from their site to Laurel Avenue, but not over to Western Avenue. Segelbaum said he is concerned about the existing homes directly across the street on Pennsylvania Avenue if the proposed new homes are only set back 13 feet from property line. Jensen stated that the neighbors in attendance at the neighborhood meetings did not express concern about that. He added that the proposed new homes will be 13 feet from the property line, but approximately 20 feet from the curb. Kluchka said he would feel more comfortable with the project if the parking bays on Pennsylvania Avenue were removed. Baker noted that the applicant has said the City could install additional landscape features on the southwest corner. He questioned if the applicant would be willing to install those additional landscape features. Waldhauser said she would like some of the houses to be smaller in size. She referred to the easement area and said she thinks reducing the size of the easement area and installing additional landscaping would be a trade-off for the lack of green space within the development. Segelbaum agreed that what is being proposed might be the best opportunity to get additional green space. Kluchka said he doesn't think "beefing up" the southwest corner is enough of a trade-off, and he would like to see better quality in the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 5 landscape design and maybe a walkway around the pond. Baker said he wants to be sure there is quality landscaping installed as well, and he would like to see a more detailed landscape plan before the Planning Commission recommends approval. Kluchka suggested that a condition stating that the easement reduction request will be considered, pending an enhanced landscaping plan, subject to Planning Commission review and City Council approval, at the time of the Final PUD Plan submittal. Waldhauser suggested a condition be added stating that final approval will be contingent on quality design and materials used. Grimes stated that the homes will be built in stages, so it would be difficult to enforce the design of each home. Waldhauser suggested guidelines. Kluchka suggested that a list of building materials be approved. Kluchka suggested a condition be added stating that the sidewalk shall continue along the east side of the property all the way to Laurel Avenue. Jensen asked that the words "landscaping framework" be used instead of specifying the landscaping materials. Waldhauser reiterated that she would like there to be greater diversity in the size and price of the units in return for consideration of the reduction of the easement area, setbacks, and allowing private streets. Kluchka stated that the market will generate diversity as well. Baker said he wants this kind of discussion when the Comprehensive Plan is next updated because these types of discussions are lacking on this Commission. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-3) and to rezone the property at 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South from 1-394 Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential (R-3) MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of changing the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. and from Mixed Use to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 345 Pennsylvania Ave. S. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan for Laurel Ponds, PUD #117 subject to the following findings and conditions. Findings: 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 6 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Conditions: 1 . The plans prepared by EVS, dated 6/13/14 submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated July 10, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated July 7, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan as part of the Final PUD Plan set. 5. All principal buildings shall conform to the rear and side property setbacks when adjacent to a single family zoning district as outlined in Section 11.55, Subd. 3(C)(1). 6. No buildings shall be located less than fifteen feet from the back of the curb line for roads that are part of the internal road system as outlined in Section 11.55, Subd. 3(C)(2). 7. Unless a wavier is granted by the City, any streets constructed within the development shall be public streets as required in Section 11.55, Subd. 6(A)(6). 8. The Applicant shall install sidewalks along Pennsylvania Avenue running the length of the property and on the east side of the property south to Laurel Avenue. 9. The easement reduction request from 55 feet to 45 feet will be considered pending review of an enhanced landscaping plan. 10. The Applicant shall prohibit the installation of fences within the development. 11. The Applicant is encouraged to explore a range of housing types and designs. 12. Building materials shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. 13. Permits to construct parking bays on the property at 7400 Laurel Avenue shall be obtained by that property owner and shall not be located closer than fifteen feet to the side property line, as required in Section 11.47, Subd. 6(B), unless a variance is obtained. 14. Any cross parking agreements that are created shall be submitted to the City for review and shall be recorded with the Final Plat. 15. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 117" in its title. 16. The City Attorney shall determine if a park dedication fee is required for this project prior to Final Plan approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 7 17. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 18. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. InPublic Hearing — Minor ubdivision — 4XXX Harold Avenue — Fretham Twenty-Two — SU22-03 pplicant: Lake West Develop -t, LLC Ad ess: 4XXX Harold Avenin Purpos To reconfigure the isting single family residential lot in o two new single family reside tial lots. , Zimmerman referre to a site plan and explained that this proposal is 9, second part of a three lot subdivision. e first half was,bt 400 Decatur Avenue North-' He stated that both of the lots in this proposaleet the minimum lot requirements in the Single Family R-1 zoning district. Lot 1 would be 1bi151 squarefeet in size, with 81 feet of width at the front setback line, and Lot 2 would be 101002 squarO feet, with 80 feetffwvidth at the front setback line. Segelbaum asked if survey's s'"bmitted by applicants`are verified for accuracy. Zimmerman stated that staff reviews surveys at ire submitted, but rely on surveyors to submit accurate numbers. Segelbaum asked if this proposal rn`ts the�a!!llverage.widtl test recently discussed by the Planning Commission. Zimmerman std `d that he did not consider the average width of the proposed new lots because the City_, cil recently amended the Single Family R-1 zoning district to state that lot width-.is-mea u�ed at the front setback line. Grimes added that under today's Zoning rCo ; if meets a 1be,'tequirements. Do ffisen,TLake West Developmen LLC, Applicant, said it was important to show the wilding envelope on his plans and the practica Tesults. He stated that the pie-shaped lots 1. in this proposal work because the garages fit in the front, and there will still be strong front yard, and back yard space. Grimes aided this proposal won't impact neighboring properties. } Blum asked what'will happen to the 'erm on the north side of Harold Avenue. Jensen said most of it would be removed for drainage and driveways, but that they will re-work it as much as possible. /Kluchkapened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, losed the public hearing. y Baker, seconded by Seg6'Ibaum and motion carried unanimously to nd approval of the Fretham'Twenty-Two Minor Subdivisior4subjectto the indings and conditions. w 3-8 Chapter 3: Land Use Table 3.2: Definition Of Land Use Categories Residential, Low-Density Single-family detached homes are the predominant low-density residential use, with small clusters of (0.1 to 5 homes per gross two-family attached homes mixed in at scattered locations as appropriate. Other types of residential acre of land area) structures in planned unit developments (PUDs)may also be appropriate as long as the overall density of development falls within the acceptable range. Metro Council equivalent is"single family." Residential, Medium- Medium-density residential uses include two-family attached homes in clusters of more than 10 units, or Density (from 5 to 11.99 townhomes, or other types of housing in PUDs where the average density of development falls within the homes per gross acre of land acceptable range. Metro Council equivalent is part of"multi-family." area) Residential, Medium- Townhomes, apartment buildings, and condominiums are the permitted medium-high-density residential High-Density (12 to 19.9 uses. Other types of housing in PUDs are also appropriate in these areas if they are developed to meet homes per gross acre of land the minimum density threshold. Metro Council equivalent is part of"multi-family." area) Residential, High- Apartment buildings and condominiums are the predominant high-density residential uses. Other types of Density (20 to 30 homes housing in PUDs are also appropriate in these areas if they are developed to meet the minimum density per gross acre of land area) threshold. Metro Council equivalent is part of"multi-family." This limited use category features general office buildings. Medical or laboratory facilities where work is Commercial Office performed in a predominantly office setting are also acceptable uses. Office areas may include mixed-use office/residential PUDs. Metro Council equivalent is part of"commercial." Commercial uses include retail sales/services, restaurants, hotels/motels, and for-profit entertainment/ Commercial Retail/ recreation facilities, as well as anything allowed in an office area. Mixed-use commercial/residential Service PUDs are also a possibility. Metro Council equivalent is "commercial,"except that does NOT classify any residential care facilities as commercial uses. This category includes warehousing and storage, assembly and light manufacturing, truck/van terminals, Light Industrial utility installations, offices, and large-scale specialty retail operations such as lumber yards, greenhous- es, and vehicle sales/rental lots. Metro Council equivalent is part of"industrial." Industrial This category includes anything that could go into a light industrial area, as well as railroad uses, animal care facilities, and heavy manufacturing. Metro Council equivalent is part of"industrial." This category includes a mix of residential, commercial, institutional, and business-oriented land uses. Mixed Use This area was established to encourage a compact urban area that will serve as a gateway to the city. Transit-oriented development is expected to spur high-density development that is encouraged to include a mix of uses.Approximatley 25 percent of this area is expected to include residential development. Open Space (public and These uses include golf courses, ball fields, playgrounds, parks, nature areas, and storm water ponding private) areas. Metro Council equivalent is "parks and recreation,"except the Metro Council does not specify ponding areas or nature areas. Schools and Religious These include education facilities at all levels, the cemetery, places of worship for all denominations, Facilities and miscellaneous religious installations. Metro Council equivalent is part of"public, semi-public." Public Facilities, Administrative or service installations(except those otherwise classified)at all levels of government fall Miscellaneous into this category. Metro Council equivalent is part of"public, semi-public." Semi-Public Facilities, Residential treatment or care facilities, hospitals and surgical centers, private clubs, and other not-for- Miscellaneous profit facilities(except those otherwise classified)fall into this category. Metro Council equivalent is part of"public, semi-public,"except for residential treatment or care. Wetland Properties in this category are generally those listed in the National Wetland Inventory. By definition,all wet- land areas are considered to be"in use."Metro Council equivalent is"wetland development constraint." Floodplain This category includes all areas with a land elevation below the 100-year flood level. By definition, all flood- way areas are considered to be"in use."Metro Council equivalent is"floodplain development constraint." Sweeney/Twin Lake, Wirth Lake, DNR unnamed basin#27-36 (in Wirth Park, along the creek north of Open Water Highway 55), and Bassett Creek are classified as open water areas. By definition, all open water is consid- ered to be "in use."Metro Council equivalent is"open water." This category includes all land reserved for street or highway uses and for certain transit facilities, Right-of-Way, Road whether by easement or by fee title. By definition, all such right-of-way is considered to be "in use." Metro Council equivalent is "roadways, option 2." Right-of-Way, Railroad This category includes all land reserved for railroad uses, whether by easement or by fee title. By defini- tion, all such right-of-way is considered to be "in use.' There is no Metro Council equivalent. - t S IL g Wm E d a u _ 2a gLL U) 0 o 0 n c `o O O O U ` o h mm < _N of a a LL r 8 0 a � Q 3 > cpi ca p � m a 2 � p - p z � a? •� mE m � .« V) N li m �' ti W. �� C 3i v 'co M s n X � o u c LU S1 IOdVHNNIIV 10 x.71JIO I` 1NN3 •• - e°+ i' y m b °aa� m , w ' SllOJ VaNNllV:IO T 1.13 ,.r I'IVCISNIfluod ro °, N - , tx J e h + Maw,� a �m r � XAll � �M y ,� x <., - •e S �� x„E1 �_'S � � x � a i, exx�xae+v �„ �� e .�\ mo 5 \. RE SOMM, 7fimm w � _ a \\_ k w Nod co Ln 06 e f. x t. x. 5 x•.t 5 wr i W Aam w x O C m . .. - _._ ..... .. ,._ ... �•.�.•---._.7. aD.nuxwwwxa_----------------- d 111norlill10 x1.IJ C N x t ^`x'4 +11^07+.,i XrV l SI7107'.LS Resolution 14-69 August 19, 2014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S GENERAL LAND USE PLAN MAP RE-DESIGNATING THE PROPERTIES AT 305 AND 345 PENNSYLVANIA AVE S FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE TO MEDIUM-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the City Council has met at the time and place specified in a notice duly published with respect to the subject matter hereof and has heard all interested persons, and it appearing in the interest of the public that the General Land Use Plan Map as heretofore adopted and enacted by the City of Golden Valley be amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden Valley, that pursuant to the provision of Chapter 11.90, Subd. 7 of the City Code for the City of Golden Valley, and subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council for conformity with regional systems plan as provided in state law, the General Land Use Plan Map for the City of Golden Valley is hereby amended by changing the property at 305 Pennsylvania Avenue South from Low Density Residential to Medium-Low Density Residential and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South from Mixed Use to Medium-Low Density Residential. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. City 0 golden MEMORANDUM valley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting August 19, 2014 Agenda Item 4. G. Public Hearing- Ordinance No. 527 -Amendments to the Zoning Map - 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South - Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Summary The Applicant, Lake West Development, LLC, intends to construct 30 detached townhome units across 3.3 acres as part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) located at 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. In order for the Preliminary Design Plan to be considered, the City Council must first consider amendments to both the General Land Use Plan Map and the Zoning Map. Without these amendments, the proposed use would not be consistent with the guiding or zoning of the properties. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at their July 14 and July 28 meetings and recommended approval. Zoning Map Amendment The property at 305 Pennsylvania Avenue South is currently zoned Single Family Residential (R-1), which provides for single family dwellings on lots of 10,000 square feet with 80 feet of width at the minimum front setback line. The property at 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South is currently zoned 1- 394 Mixed use, which requires a mix of uses (residential, commercial, office, other) on the site. Under the current proposal, the Zoning Map would be amended so that both of the properties would be zoned as Medium Density Residential (R-3), which provides for medium density housing of up to 10 units per acre. Based on the density of the proposed PUD of 9.1 units per acre, Medium Density Residential zoning would be the most appropriate designation for the two properties. The PUD process will allow for greater flexibility in designing the site layout and accommodating various setbacks. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Zoning Map Amendment, rezoning 305 Pennsylvania Avenue South from Single Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District to Medium Density Residential (R-3) Zoning District and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South from 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District to Medium Density Residential (R-3) Zoning District. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes dated July 14, 2014 (4 pages) • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes dated July 28, 2014 (7 pages) • Medium Density Residential (R-3) Zoning District Section of City Code (4 pages) • Official Zoning Map (1 page) • Ordinance No. 527 (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 527, Rezoning 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. western,Ave o _ 9 ]Rd , v Yn +i fig. k: Subject Properties: z 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Ave. S. t RrdgawaY Rd :i' f Colonia �. Quebec AveS< west MV AAA - t Easter�'td. s Laurel Ave a # a AL tY p m m t o 'o r� S Y C r .. bn a, Mmkat St �►y Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 12 Conditions: he plans prepared by kass won architects and sr ed with the application on Jun 2014, shall become part of this app.: val. 2. The recom ations and re irements_G `if1 ned in the memo from the Fire Department to Ma imes, lom�i Development Director, dated July 6, 2014, shall become a part of t r zeal. 3. The recommendations and f u ents outlined in the memo from the Public Works Department to Mafk� imes, unity Development Director, dated July 8, 2014, shall become e--'art of ,his approval. 4. The Applicant 1., 'II submit a ghting plan that mee a requirements of the City's Outdoor Li ; i'ng Code (Secti n 11.73). 5. All sig a must meet the re irements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 6. Thi 'proval is subject to all ther state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, aws with authority over thi development. 5. Informal Public Hearing - General Land Use Plan Map Amendment— 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South — CPAM-54 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. and from Mixed Use to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 345 Pennsylvania Ave. S. 6. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South—Z018-04 Applicant Lake West`Development, LLC Addresses: 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To rezone the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-3) and to rezone the property at 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South from 1-394 Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential (R-3) 7. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan Review— Laurel Ponds, PUD #117 Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC Address: 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 13 Purpose: To allow for a 30-unit, detached townhome development The Informal Public Hearings for Items 5, 6 and 7 were combined as was the discussion. Zimmerman explained the applicant's request to construct 30 detached townhomes at 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. He stated that as part of the PUD proposal, the properties will need to be re-guided on the General Land Use Plan Map to Medium Low Density, and rezoned to Medium Density Residential (R-3). He noted that the R-3 zoning district allows for 5 to 11.9 units per acre, and the proposal is for 9.1 units per acre. Zimmerman referred to the site plan and explained that there will be six rows of homes, each with five single family homes accessed via Pennsylvania Avenue. He stated that one private street to the south would dead end with emergency vehicle access via the Workabilities property, and two other entry points to the north would be connected with a private loop street. He referred to the parking proposal and noted that internal parking will be limited to one side of the street except along the east loop, and there are proposed guest parking bays along Pennsylvania Avenue, or along the east loop connection, with the possibility of an overflow parking agreement with Workabilities. Zimmerman stated that the proposed homes would be approximately 2,500 square feet in size, and would be approximately 10 feet apart from each other. He stated that the applicant is also proposing to reduce the existing 55-foot wide, drainage and open space easement along Laurel Avenue to 30 feet, and would like to construct a new stormwater pond within that easement. Zimmerman stated that there are a number of issues that will require additional discussion with the applicant including: streetlights on Pennsylvania Avenue, setbacks from the single family homes to the north, setbacks from the internal circulation, private versus public streets, access, easements, parking, utility ownership and maintenance, hydrants, watermain and sanitary sewer and the existing retaining wall. He stated that due to the number of issues that need to be addressed, staff is recommending that this public hearing be tabled to a future Planning Commission meeting. Segelbaum noted that detached townhomes are not listed in the R-3 zoning district and questioned if using the PUD process is a vehicle to allow them in that district. Zimmerman stated that detached townhomes aren't addressed as a use in any zoning district. Baker asked who would own the land. Zimmerman stated that there would be dues for maintenance, snow removal, mowing, etc., but the homes would have the feel of a single family property. Grimes added that he thinks there is a desire for this type of product, and that the City wants to provide a variety of housing options. Boudreau-Landis asked about the setbacks of the proposed homes along Pennsylvania Avenue as opposed to the homes to the north. Zimmerman stated that the proposed Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 14 new homes along Pennsylvania Avenue would have a 13-foot front yard setback, and that the homes to north have a 35-foot front yard setback. Kluchka referred to the traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue and said he did not see sidewalks, or pedestrian friendly options on the plans. Zimmerman stated that a sidewalk is shown on the east side of the property, and that staff is recommending it be continued to Laurel Avenue. Kluchka said he would like to see that shown on the next set of plans. Don Jensen, Lake West Development, LLC, stated that many of the issues were addressed in the narrative he submitted. He referred to the driveway system and explained how they would be different than private or public streets. He discussed the drainage patterns on the site, and said his drainage plan will accomplish what the City is looking for, and there will only a 2% increase in impervious surface. He showed the Commissioners renderings of the proposed housing types and discussed how traffic and emergency vehicles would navigate the site. He referred to the park dedication fees and stated that it would be a good idea to use the money to continue a sidewalk to the north. He referred to his tree preservation plan and noted that most of the trees on the corner of Pennsylvania and Laurel Avenues would be preserved. He said he believes he can address all of the staff's concerns, but his most important issue is the easement area, and if that easement can't be reduced, it might be a deal killer. Chuck asked the applicant if he has considered any other proposals that show a greater setback along Pennsylvania Avenue. Jensen said he was not discouraged by staff regarding the front setback areas, and he wants to have room for porches and overhangs. He added that rezoning the properties to R-3 only came about when the single family home to north was added to the project. Waldhauser said she is more concerned about the setbacks on the north and east that are supposed to be 30 feet, but will only be 15 feet. She asked if there will be some homes with a smaller footprint. Baker asked about the price range of the houses. Jensen said it depends how many units get approved, but he thinks the homes will be in the $300,000 to $400,000 range which is consistent with the neighboring homes in the vicinity. Edward Ratner, 115 Oregon Avenue South, said he is very much an advocate for adding sidewalks. He said it is hard to picture people walking around this site, and it is not designed for people to walk within the development. He asked how safe the drainage pond would be, and about the risk of it overflowing. He said there is an opportunity to have these homes be accessible, multi-generational homes, and it would be great to add some green space or a playground area. He referred to energy efficiency and stated that it would be a good expectation to have 220 volt service in the garages. Caryl Eschweiler, 420 Pennsylvania Avenue South, said she loves this neighborhood and, this property in principal is a good interface between the commercial uses. She said there are a lot of pedestrians in the area, and she thinks sidewalks are imperative, and should be an important element. She said she is concerned about Quebec Avenue Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 15 being a shortcut, and the City might want a stop sign at Quebec and Pennsylvania Avenues. She said she is concerned about the amount of rental housing in the area, and said there is getting to be a lot of parking on the streets. She said she is concerned about, and wants a better understanding of, the construction process and what will get built when, because there could be an extended period of construction. She said she wants to see a plan of how interruptions to the neighborhood will be handled. She added that she is impressed with how the applicant has been communicating, and that this proposal is probably a good choice compared to other things that could go on the property. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka said he heard a lot about the importance of sidewalks and about the parking on Pennsylvania Avenue. He asked how different the zoning requirements will be using the PUD process compared to the R-1 single family requirements. He suggested adding a condition about fences, and said he loves the concept of multi-generational housing and a play space, or gathering area because with this much density there is going to be a demand. He said he would also like to see a neighborhood construction agreement. Cera said it seems like there is a lot going on this property without enough parking or any green space. He said if people are paying association fees the will expect more. Baker said that this is so new and precedent setting that he doesn't want to rush the process because there is an opportunity to look forward to how the City uses developments to take advantage of geothermal or other kinds of shared efficiencies. He said those types of things would make him more excited about this project than he is now. He questioned if this project will appeal to people with kids or dogs. Segelbaum said without parking, and without green space, he thinks they are asking for trouble. Boudreau-Landis agreed, and said he strongly agrees about requiring a common green space or shared amenities. Jensen stated that liability insurance is an issue with pools and playgrounds. He added that the sledding hill is an active play space, and the parks nearby helped form some of the decisions in the plans. Waldhauser questioned how much variation the developer could do without losing money. She said $300,000 is low these days, but that is for a house on a standard size lot, so she doesn't consider these homes to be affordable. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to table these public hearings to the July 28, 2014, Planning Commission agenda. --Short Recess-- Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 A regular meeting oft Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, CON'CON<Chambers, 78 0 Golde,. Iley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, July 28, 4. Chair uch V6611ed the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present w:. .i a Commissioners Baker, Blum, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauser =filo pr'sent was munity Development Director Mark Grimes, City Planner A, - on Zim rman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman_ Commissioners Bou au-Landis an Cera were absent. 1. Continued Item — Informal Public Hearing —General Land Use Plan Map Amendment— 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South — CPAM-54 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. and from Mixed Use to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 345 Pennsylvania Ave. S. 2. Continued Item — Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South —ZO18-04 Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC Addresses: 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To rezone the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-3) and to rezone the property at 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South from 1-394 Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential (R-3) 3. Continued Item — Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan Review— Laurel Ponds, PUD #117 Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC Address: 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To allow for a 30-unit, detached townhome development Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 2 The Informal Public Hearings for Items 1, 2 and 3 were combined as was the discussion. Zimmerman reminded the Commissioners that these public hearings were tabled at their last Planning Commission meeting. He explained the applicant's proposal to construct 30 detached townhomes on the properties located at 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. As a part of the proposal both of the properties need to be re-guided on the General Land Use Plan Map to the Medium Low Residential designation and rezoned to Medium Density (R-3) Residential. Zimmerman reviewed some of the issues discussed at the July 14 Planning Commission meeting including: the installation of a sidewalk along Pennsylvania Avenue, the inclusion of additional green space, a reduction in the number of driveways accessing' Pennsylvania Avenue, the relocation, or clarification of the water and sanitary sewer lines, access to the Workabilities site to the east, and the use of an existing City easement along the south end of the property. He explained that the existing, 55-foot wide easement was established in 1978 as part of the Laurel Avenue Greenbelt, and that it also extends along the Workabilities site. He added that the easement agreement states that no structures or improvements of any type shall be permitted. Zimmerman discussed some of the outstanding concerns and issues including: the reduction in density, or the consolidation of some of the units in order to obtain additional green space, and some distance between homes, the rear and side yard setbacks for the proposed northernmost homes, the setbacks from the internal roadway for the easternmost homes, the construction of public versus private streets, and the creation of a development schedule and construction phasing plan. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the General Land Use Plan Map Amendment, the Zoning Map Amendment and the Preliminary PUD Plan, subject to the conditions outlined by Planning, Engineering, and Fire. Kluchka asked if parking is allowed on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue. Zimmerman said yes, and added that allowing parking on both sides of the street will slow traffic. He said that staff doesn't see a great benefit in having the proposed bump-out parking areas. Waldhauser asked if the bump-out parking spaces would be for the Laurel Ponds use only. Zimmerman said he thinks that is the intent. Zimmerman referred to the proposed access to the Workabilities site and stated that it could be open during construction, and for emergencies, but through traffic and snow storage would not be allowed, and it would need to be maintained year-round. Zimmerman referred to the existing drainage, open space and walkway easement along the south end of the property. He said the applicant is not inclined to take out lots in the center of the project, but is more inclined to create a "beefed-up" green area at the corner of Pennsylvania and Laurel Avenues. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 3 Kluchka referred to the 15-foot setback requirement for the proposed parking spaces on the east side of the site, and asked if that applies to both the Laurel Ponds property and the Workabilities property. Zimmerman said it does apply, however, the Laurel Ponds property could vary from the requirement because it is a PUD. The Workabilities property would need the variance because it is not a part of the PUD. Zimmerman referred to the southern portion of the property and discussed the concerns about the lack of a turnaround area at the Workabilities access site. He stated that anyone using that southernmost roadway would have to use a private driveway in order to turn around. He suggested that with some design changes, or perhaps attaching some of the proposed units, there might be better results in regard to the turnaround area. Zimmerman referred to the proposed private roadways and explained that the PUD ordinance says that streets shall be public unless granted a waiver. He said staff is concerned about allowing private streets unless all the maintenance and access issues are very clear. Kluchka suggested that the language in the condition regarding the sidewalk along Pennsylvania Avenue be changed from "shall consider" installing a sidewalk to "will install" a sidewalk. He also suggested that the language regarding the prohibiting of fences be changed to state that fences "shall be prohibited. Segelbaum asked how the park dedication fees will be used. Zimmerman stated that park dedication funds go into a general park fund, and aren't earmarked for specific projects. Segelbaum asked how this proposal deviates from the requirements in the R-3 zoning district. Zimmerman stated that the applicant is proposing a smaller setback along Pennsylvania Avenue, and the lot sizes are smaller. He added that the Zoning Code doesn't have language regarding detached townhomes. Waldhauser said she is most concerned about the effects on adjoining residential properties. Segelbaum asked if there is precedent of reducing easements to allow for development. Grimes stated that the City has, in the past, vacated easements that are no longer needed. Blum asked how many properties along Laurel Avenue have this easement. Zimmerman said the 55-foot wide easement is on this property, the Workabilities property to the south, and continues for quite a way on Laurel Avenue for the green belt. Don Jensen, Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant, referred to the questions regarding the use of the easement area. He stated that the City has done nothing with this area since 1978 and he hasn't been able to find any documents, or plans regarding the use of the easement area. He referred to the discussion about having a green area as part of his proposal, and his conclusion is that there is no need for park space on this site because there are existing connections to other, nearby parks. He showed the Commissioners elevations of the proposed houses and stated that plans could maybe be redesigned to address the lack of a turnaround area on the southern portion of the site. He discussed the use of the easement, and explained how they could design the stormwater pond and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 4 the landscaped corner of Laurel and Pennsylvania Avenues all within a 45-foot area. He discussed the concerns about private roads and stated that the development will not work with public streets instead of private drives. Waldhauser asked if there could be parking on the internal roads. Jensen said parking would be allowed on one side of the road. Waldhauser asked how the surface water would flow through the site. Jensen referred to a grading plan of the site and explained how the water runs off the site. He added that there will be drain tile installed as well. Waldhauser asked if more trees could be planted going east and west on the site. Jensen said yes. Segelbaum asked Jensen why he needs to have private streets to make the development work. Jensen said all medium and high density projects have private drives. He stated that connecting the units with private drives is the proper way to do it, because public streets would wipe out the developable area, and wouldn't connect to anywhere else. Segelbaum referred to the landscaping plan for the southwest corner and asked Jensen if he would be installing the landscaping, or if the City would. Jensen said that they would install the landscaping, but he would like to talk to the Parks Department about the City installing additional items such as signage, kiosks, trellises, or things that might match the City's existing street furniture or theme. He added that he would also be extending the sidewalk along Pennsylvania Avenue from their site to Laurel Avenue, but not over to Western Avenue. Segelbaum said he is concerned about the existing homes directly across the street on Pennsylvania Avenue if the proposed new homes are only set back 13 feet from property line. Jensen stated that the neighbors in attendance at the neighborhood meetings did not express concern about that. He added that the proposed new homes will be 13 feet from the property line, but approximately 20 feet from the curb. Kluchka said he would feel more comfortable with the project if the parking bays on Pennsylvania Avenue were removed. Baker noted that the applicant has said the City could install additional landscape features on the southwest corner. He questioned if the applicant would be willing to install those additional landscape features. Waldhauser said she would like some of the houses to be smaller in size. She referred to the easement area and said she thinks reducing the size of the easement area and installing additional landscaping would be a trade-off for the lack of green space within the development. Segelbaum agreed that what is being proposed might be the best opportunity to get additional green space. Kluchka said he doesn't think "beefing up" the southwest corner is enough of a trade-off, and he would like to see better quality in the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 5 landscape design and maybe a walkway around the pond. Baker said he wants to be sure there is quality landscaping installed as well, and he would like to see a more detailed landscape plan before the Planning Commission recommends approval. Kluchka suggested that a condition stating that the easement reduction request will be considered, pending an enhanced landscaping plan, subject to Planning Commission review and City Council approval, at the time of the Final PUD Plan submittal. Waldhauser suggested a condition be added stating that final approval will be contingent on quality design and materials used. Grimes stated that the homes will be built in stages, so it would be difficult to enforce the design of each home. Waldhauser suggested guidelines. Kluchka suggested that a list of building materials be approved. Kluchka suggested a condition be added stating that the sidewalk shall continue along the east side of the property all the way to Laurel Avenue. Jensen asked that the words "landscaping framework" be used instead of specifying the landscaping materials. Waldhauser reiterated that she would like there to be greater diversity in the size and price of the units in return for consideration of the reduction of the easement area, setbacks, and allowing private streets. Kluchka stated that the market will generate diversity as well. Baker said he wants this kind of discussion when the Comprehensive Plan is next updated because these types of discussions are lacking on this Commission. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-3) and to rezone the property at 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South from 1-394 Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential (R-3) MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of changing the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. and from Mixed Use to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 345 Pennsylvania Ave. S. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan for Laurel Ponds, PUD #117 subject to the following findings and conditions. Findings: 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 6 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by EVS, dated 6/13/14 submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated July 10, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated July 7, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan as part of the Final PUD Plan set. 5. All principal buildings shall conform to the rear and side property setbacks when adjacent to a single family zoning district as outlined in Section 11.55, Subd. 3(C)(1). 6. No buildings shall be located less than fifteen feet from the back of the curb line for roads that are part of the internal road system as outlined in Section 11.55, Subd. 3(C)(2). 7. Unless a wavier is granted by the City, any streets constructed within the development shall be public streets as required in Section 11.55, Subd. 6(A)(6). 8. The Applicant shall install sidewalks along Pennsylvania Avenue running the length of the property and on the east side of the property south to Laurel Avenue. 9. The easement reduction request from 55 feet to 45 feet will be considered pending review of an enhanced landscaping plan. 10. The Applicant shall prohibit the installation of fences within the development. 11. The Applicant is encouraged to explore a range of housing types and designs. 12. Building materials shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. 13. Permits to construct parking bays on the property at 7400 Laurel Avenue shall be obtainedby that property owner and shall not be located closer than fifteen feet to the side property line, as required in Section 11.47, Subd. 6(B), unless a variance is obtained. 14. Any cross parking agreements that are created shall be submitted to the City for review and shall be recorded with the Final Plat. 15. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 117" in its title. 16. The City Attorney shall determine if a park dedication fee is required for this project prior to Final Plan approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 7 17. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 18. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Informal Public Headg — Minor Subdivision — 4XXX Harold Avenue — Fretham Twenty-Two SU22-03 Applicant: Lake West evelopment, LLC ddress: 4XXX Haro d Avenue P pose: To reconfig re the existing single family residential lot into two new single famil residential lots. Zimmerman ferred to a site an and explained that this,,�roposal is the second part of a three lot sub ision. The first If was at 400 Decatur A`wenue North. He stated that both of the lots in this oposal meet t minimum lot requir'e'ments in the Single Family R-1 zoning district. Lot 1 wo . d be 10, 151 quare feet in size,4with 81 feet of width at the front setback line, and Lot 2 wo d be 10,00 square feet, wi 80 feet of width at the front setback line. Segelbaum asked if rvey's s bmitted by. pplicants'are verified for accuracy. Zimmerman stated that staff revie survey that are, 'ubmitted, but rely on surveyors to submit accurate numbers. Segelbaum asked if this pro os I eets the average width test recently discussed by the Planning Commission. Zimm n stated that he did not consider the average width of the proposed new lots because th ity Council recently amended the Single Family R-1 zoning district to state that lot width' sured at the front setback line. Grimes added that under today's Zoning Code, it meets a,P t't requirements. Don Jensen, Lake We Develo men'. LLC, Applicant, said it was important to show the building envelope o is plans aid they ractical results. He stated that the pie-shaped lots in this proposal wo; because th', garag fit in the front, and there will still be strong front yard, and back y d space. Gn es adde his proposal won't impact neighboring properties. Blum asked hat will happen to he berm on t ' north side of Harold Avenue. Jensen said most of it uld be removed for 'rainage and d ' eways, but that they will re-work it as much as ossible. Kluch,a opened the public heari . Seeing and hear':g no one wishing to comment, Kluc. ka closed the public hearin VIED by Baker, seconded by egelbaum and motion rried unanimously to r commend approval of the Freth m Twenty-Two Minor S division subject to the ollowing findings and conditions. § 11.23 Section 11.23: Medium Density Residential Zoning District (R-3) Subdivision 1. Purpose The purpose of the Medium Density Residential Zoning District (R-3) is to provide for medium density housing (up to ten (10) units per acre with potential for twelve (12) units per acre with density bonuses) along with directly related and complementary uses. Senior and physical disability housing is permitted to a density in excess of twelve (12) units per acre or up to five (5) stories or sixty (60) feet in height with a Conditional Use Permit. Source: Ordinance No. 459, 2nd Series Effective Date: 08-12-11 Subdivision 2. District Established Properties shall be established within the R-3 Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.23, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.23 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the R-3 Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter. Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses The following uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-3 Zoning District: A. Townhouses B. Two-family dwellings Source: Ordinance No. 372, 2nd Series Effective Date: 07-13-07 C. Multiple-family dwellings of up to ten (10) units or less per acre with potential of (12) units per acre with density bonuses Source: Ordinance No. 459, 2nd Series Effective Date: 08-12-11 D. Foster Family Homes E. Essential Services, Class I F. No more than one (1) kitchen area and one (1) kitchenette shall be permitted in each dwelling unit. Source: Ordinance No. 372, 2nd Series Effective Date: 07-13-07 Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 4 § 11.23 Subdivision 4. Accessory Structures and Uses The following accessory structures and no others shall be permitted in R-3 Zoning Districts: A. Enclosed parking structures similar in construction and materials to the principal structure B. Storage structures similar in construction and materials to the principal structure not exceeding five hundred (500) square feet in area. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-3 Zoning District to exceed a height of one (1) story, which is ten (10) feet from the floor to the top horizontal member of a frame building to which the rafters are fastened, known as the top plate. C. Private indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, including but not limited to swimming pools and tennis courts D. Underground parking structures E. Other Accessory Structures, as defined in Section 11.03. F. Setback requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for all enclosed parking structures and other accessory uses in the R-3 Zoning District. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Side and Rear Yard Setback. The required minimum side and rear setback for enclosed parking structures and garbage enclosures shall be thirty (30) feet when abutting any R-1 Zoning District and twenty (20) feet in all other instances. The required minimum side and rear setback for other accessory uses shall be fifteen (15) feet. G. Separation Between Structures. Accessory structures shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure and no less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. Source: Ordinance No. 459, 2nd Series Effective Date: 08-12-11 Subdivision S. Conditional Uses The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: A. Residential facilities serving twenty-five (25) or more persons. Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 4 § 11.23 B. Group Foster Homes Source: Ordinance No. 372, 2nd Series Effective Date: 07-13-07 C. Senior and physical disability housing to a density in excess of twelve (12) units per acre or up to five (5) stories or sixty (60) feet in height Source: Ordinance No. 459, 2nd Series Effective Date: 08-12-11 D. Retail sales, Class I and II restaurant establishments, and professional offices within principal structures containing twenty (20) or more dwelling units when located upon any minor or major arterial street. Any such sales establishment or office shall be located only on the ground floor and have direct access to the street. Source: Ordinance No. 372, 2nd Series Effective Date: 07-13-07 *Re-lettering Source (E): Ordinance No. 459, 2nd Series Effective Date: 08-12-11 Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots In the R-3 Zoning District a lot of a minimum area of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet shall be required for any principal structure. A minimum lot width of one hundred (100) feet at the front setback line shall be required. Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility All structures in the R-3 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code. Subdivision 8. Easements No structures in the R-3 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. Subdivision 9. Maximum Coverage by Building and Impervious Surfaces Structures, including accessory structures, shall not occupy more than forty percent (40%) of the lot area. Total impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot area. Subdivision 10. Principal Structures Principal structures in the R-3 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-3 Zoning District. Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 4 § 11.23 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. An open front porch for each building, with no screens, may be built on the ground level to within seventeen (17) feet of a front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Side and Rear Yard Setback. When directly abutting any R-1 Zoning District, the required side and rear yard setback shall be thirty (30) feet. In all other instances, the required side and rear yard setback shall be twenty (20) feet. B. Maximum Density. Dwelling units shall not be built at a rate greater than ten (10) units per acre, unless they meet the provisions of Subdivision 12. Source: Ordinance No. 372, 2nd Series Effective Date: 07-13-07 C. Height. No building shall exceed four (4) stories or forty-eight (48) feet in height, whichever is less. Senior and physical disability housing with a Conditional Use Permit shall not exceed five (5) stories or sixty (60) feet in height. Source: Ordinance No. 459, 2nd Series Effective Date: 08-12-11 Subdivision 11. Density Bonus Multiple Family dwellings providing sidewalks as required by the City shall be granted one (1) of the following density bonuses. A. Underground Parking. The provision of one (1) or more underground parking space per dwelling unit shall increase the maximum allowable density by two (2) units per acre. B. Public Transit. Scheduled public transit route within one thousand (1000) feet of the primary entrance accessed by public sidewalk shall result in an increase in the maximum allowable density by one (1) unit per acre and reduce required parking to one and one half (1.5) spaces per dwelling. C. Recreation. Indoor or outdoor recreation facilities such as swimming pools, porches, tennis courts, or other facilities requiring a substantial investment equaling at minimum five percent (5%) of the construction cost of the principal structure shall increase the maximum allowable density by two (2) units per acre. Source: Ordinance No. 372, 2nd Series Effective Date: 07-13-07 *Renumbering Source (11): Ordinance No. 459, 2nd Series Effective Date: 08-12-I1 Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 4 VJ Fm • y s 4-j � U cO y> •sE g C $ r> V' x p ui C c (� $em• J Em Eo mhnnnttri ^� c �✓ s a _a O a s" .✓. �. .�." �w �, O N ¢'P� ' $ EE A chi O E �✓ Q A Q A �] v as d �i �-,' o o w �A V) ++ ++ ++ OF LL s .D ,� .G ,r1 .a Q e4 s A .F' d g' c =,��, W 'SOO N 0 J v b r3 Ss �� N G E.J.. a' q= °e $ a �1 r o 0 2 E • /1 '(� (/I '(6 cn u� cn cn �n i.1 �, ; r m^ �o d ' �.m °n c Z °' "Es Q N cn In ° $'R �' g= y r E ?, � N $€ _ �p O cn cn cn ° ; aFw € d Ua N �d ° 4 < c > v a > \ 0", 59HN p a�: Q Z w zcti o _ \ \\� \ W w8A C �'`c « O wL 0 O P`o a a a SIl OdVHNNIW 10 AJAJ 30 AlJ ............ Z-lOdYEINNIW � xg m � o o� W S� _ o F4 > V - O - Sl"IOd VHNNIW 30.k.LIJ ,."n •"x"""µ--------2 � o +'ea r 1 ,x, ale ry 4 � •- �, � ,'.� u& a C x 8 b G��� r .p°`t•� : wed E Su w � -ra `I - w p s a fi s 3 ` i tl.,�r x �.x. s ; -------------�. w, ae lk 'e \lY✓ • R V � , , e vvrTMlt._- _ mxnN_ _" • n„ amansvns �.. � F _ , R , ”` H 1VISAUZ)d0 xd.IJ �B17 ad lip O 3 � a I eo.a.n..x • m b s .^+" - „ `moi '"i}; n:"j.�•'d.• - " v .... � N � 11 1 I .v .er t J:\\`�) JC. w s � + a H _ x s 7 „ ■� w a,.x . s , ,. pz �fC ��t 1 �' a .z R T b° u e.. • i,n a � � N ',��0 �.' Q o �.. o Ln w 06 Int ` 1 :L rv:e O 5�4 a i I n rat..� J >E T .. ... ter . .- I I / Hifi OlNild 30 C1IJH 0 9 SII .tnowzld xavd s : cnol IS "gym U Y 22o fp �1 40,i.L]J 30 71 UD ORDINANCE NO. 527, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Rezoning 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South from Single Family Residential (R-1) and 1-394 Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential (R-3) Lake West Development LLC, Applicant The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" is amended in Section 11.10, Subd. 2, by changing the zoning designation of certain tracts of land from Single Family Residential (R-1) and 1-394 Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential (R-3). Section 2. The tracts of land affected by this ordinance are legally described as: Parcel A: That part of the NE '/4 of the NW '/4 of Section 5, Township 117 Range 21 Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the East Line of said NE '/4 of the NW '/4 distant 778.58 feet South of the NE corner thereof; thence West parallel with the North line of said NE '/4 of the NW 1/4 to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 250.3 feet East of the West line of said NE '/4 of the NW '/4 as measured along a line parallel with the North line of said NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4, said point being the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence North parallel with the West line of the NE '/4 of the NW '/4 a distance of 84.72 feet; thence West parallel with the North line of said NE '/4 of the NW '/4 a distance of 250.3 feet to the West line of said Quarter-Quarter; thence South along the West line of said Quarter-Quarter a distance of 407.915 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said Quarter-Quarter a distance of 250.3 feet; thence North Parallel with the West line of said Quarter-Quarter a distance of 323.195 feet to the actual point of beginning. Except the Westerly 30 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel B: That part of the NE '/4 of the NW '/4 of Section 5, Township 117 Range 21 Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the East Line of said NE % of the NW 1/4, distant 778.58 feet South of the NE corner thereof; thence West parallel with the North line of said NE '/4 of the NW 1/4 to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 250.3 feet East of the West line of the NE '/4 of the NW 1/4 as measured along a line parallel with the North line of said NE '/4 of the NW '/4; thence South parallel with said West line of the NE '/4 of the NW '/4 a distance of 323.195 to the actual point of beginning of the land to be herein described; thence South on said parallel line 199.10 feet, more or less, to the South line of said NE '/4 of the NW '/4; thence West along said South line to the West line of said NE '/4 of the NW 1/4-1 thence North along said West line to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with the North line of the NE '/4 of the NW '/4 from the actual point of beginning; thence East to the actual point of beginning. Except the Westerly 30 feet and the Southerly 50 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota Parcel C: The West 250.3 feet of the South 100.0 feet of the North 693.86 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter. Except the Westerly 30 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 19th day of August 19, 2014. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk C 0 goNctl MEMORANDV IM valley Plannin De artment 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Oak Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting August 19, 2014 "60 Days" Deadline: August 15, 2014 "60 Days" Extension: October 14, 2014 Agenda Item 4. H. Public Hearing- Preliminary PUD Plan for Laurel Ponds PUD No. 117 - 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South - Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Summary Lake West Development, LLC, is seeking approval of a Planning Unit Development (PUD) Permit to construct 30 detached townhome units across 3.3 acres at 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. The property at 305 Pennsylvania currently contains a single family home; the property at 345 Pennsylvania currently contains an office building and two large parking lots. The site is bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue to the west and Laurel Avenue to the south. Single family homes are located to the north and west; commercial properties are located to the south and east. Separately, the Applicant seeks to reguide the properties to Medium-Low Density Residential and to rezone the properties to Medium Density (R-3) Residential. The proposed PUD would allow the Applicant to consolidate the two properties and construct 30 detached townhomes in two phases. The proposal consists of six east-west rows, each with five single family homes that proceed up the hillside from Laurel Avenue. Rows 1 and 2, at the bottom of the hill, are separated by a 24' wide two-way private street with access onto Pennsylvania. Rows 3 and 4 as well as Rows 5 and 6 are separated by similar private streets that loop and connect along the east side of the property above an existing retaining wall. Sidewalks are proposed along both Pennsylvania and along the east side of the property to provide additional pedestrian access between the top and the bottom of the development. The development is being marketed with detached townhomes. A Homeowners Association is planned that would cover snow removal on the private streets as well as lawn care. There is an existing 55' wide drainage, open space, and walkway easement along Laurel Avenue. The Applicant is proposing that the City vacate the northernmost 10' of that easement to allow the land to be utilized for the first row of homes. The remaining 45' would be partially landscaped as a public gathering space and a new stormwater pond would be constructed within the City's easement. Two neighborhood meetings were held in advance of the public hearing at the Planning Commission; the first did not include the single family parcel to the north as part of the proposal but the second did. Overall, neighbors were generally supportive of the proposal though some did voice concerns about the impact of traffic on Pennsylvania and the higher density of the development. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at their July 14 and July 28 meetings and recommended conditional approval. City Code establishes standards for PUDs, which are laid out in the Staff report to the Planning Commission. In addition, City Code establishes findings that must be made by the City when creating a PUD. These findings are included in the City Council's recommended action. Attachments • Location Map (1 page) • Applicant's Narrative (22 pages) • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes dated July 14, 2014 (4 pages) • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes dated July 28, 2014 (7 pages) • Memos to Planning Commission dated July 14, 2014 (5 pages) • Memos to Planning Commission dated July 28, 2014 (4 pages) • Memo from the Public Works Department dated July 10, 2014 (8 pages) • Memo from the Fire Department dated July 7, 2014 (1 page) • Letter from WorkAbilities, Inc. dated July 8, 2014 (1 page) • Color Site Rendering (1 page) • Site Plans dated June 13, 2014 (13 pages) • Letter from the Applicant dated July 24, 2014 (3 pages) • Access Points and Parking Plan dated July 24, 2014 (1 page) • Ponding and Open Space Design Plan dated July 24, 2014 (1 page) • Revised Color Site Rendering dated July 22, 2014 (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to approve the Preliminary Plan for Laurel Ponds PUD No. 117 subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans prepared by EVS, dated 6/13/14 submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated July 10, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated July 7, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan as part of the Final PUD Plan set. 5. All principal buildings shall conform to the rear and side property setbacks when adjacent to a single family zoning district as outlined in Section 11.55, Subd. 3(C)(1). 6. No buildings shall be located less than fifteen feet from the back of the curb line for roads that are part of the internal road system as outlined in Section 11.55, Subd. 3(C)(2). 7. Unless a wavier is granted by the City, any streets constructed within the development shall be public streets as required in Section 11.55, Subd. 6(A)(6). 8. The Applicant shall install sidewalks along Pennsylvania Avenue running the length of the property and on the east side of the property south to Laurel Avenue. 9. The easement reduction request from 55 feet to 45 feet will be considered pending review of an enhanced landscaping plan. 10. The Applicant shall prohibit the installation of fences within the development. 11. The Applicant is encouraged to explore a range of housing types and designs. 12. Building materials shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. 13. Permits to construct parking bays on the property at 7400 Laurel Avenue shall be obtained by that property owner and shall not be located closer than fifteen feet to the side property line, as required in Section 11.47, Subd. 6(B), unless a variance is obtained. 14. Any cross parking agreements that are created shall be submitted to the City for review and shall be recorded with the Final Plat. 15. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 117" in its title. 16. The City Attorney shall determine if a park dedication fee is required for this project prior to Final Plan approval. 17. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 18. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. In addition the Council makes the following findings pursuant to City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 5(E): 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. w� ti ..�.n Ave �`'v�h:.il6 .F` I I J 1 .. tt JJJJ ... .__ ' bons Palk o Q� Q N 2 (F N Q Subject Properties: r 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Ave. S. x a 1 Rtdyew aY Rd • �,�r+r�-�, Colonial Rd m -�f 0 ebeCAve S a' • WestftgPord /) C East Ring Pond Laurel Ave a 11 N • N of a' • D Q • m E: NJ o K • o' t t ~ t ! Mxk•t St ,t a6.. t k, DEVELOFMENT CO . , LLC Mayor Harris & Members of the Council June 13, 2014 Manager Burt Community Development Director Grimes c/o Jason Zimmerman City Planner City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Laurel Ponds PUD, Golden Valley, MN Lake West Development, LLC is pleased to present the following plans after 3 months of diligent work by our consultants and your staff to make a plan that works, that is received by both the home building community and the future residents that will occupy this multi family neighborhood of Detached Townhomes. We fully expect that there are some details to resolve, add to the plans, and work through during the hearing process and detail review. We will review many aspects in this initial narrative and in subsequent amendments that become necessary to address key areas . THE RATIONALE FOR THE ENTIRE PUD ZONING IS AS FOLLOWS: MULTI FAMILY DESIGNS TODAY IN MANY PARTS OF THE TWIN CITIES AND REGIONS ACROSS THE COUNTY, UTILITiZE PRIVATE STREETS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE FOR A SMALL SUBSET OF THE BUYING PUBLIC. THE ABILITY TO DETACH FROM TWIN HOME PARTY WALLS CREATES THE ABILITY TO VARY FLOOR PLANS AND ARCHITECTURE, COLORS AND BUYER PROFILE. THE PREVIOUS PATTERN OF ATTACHED PRODUCTS IN TWINS, TRIPLES AND BEYOND TENDED TO CREATE VERY SIMILAR FLOOR PLANS, USER PROFILES AND COLOR PALETTE. WE DO NOT SACRIFICE LIVABILITY FOR DENSITY AND SAFETY. THE DESIGN IS BY DEFINITION NOT THE SAME AS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED NEIGHBORHOODS AT LOW AND LOWER DENSITIES. IT IS SIMILAR IN THAT THE FORM HAS DETACHED HOMES, THE ANALYSIS 1S OFTEN IN COMPARISON TO TWINS OR OTHER ATTACHED NEIGHBORHOODS. Allowing a housing plan to cascade down the hill from flat grade entries to a walkout elevation, then flat, then walkout, then flat, and finally to walkout by ponding Is smart land use and urban design, continuing trends begun at Wlnnetka and Highway 55 In ponding design. 1+525 Highav,ay '7, >ui1.-v 336 Minnrtvnka. MN 55:545 • Phone.: 9'.52-.9,50-3000 • F_ix: 952-653 219P? History for site This site was the initial headquarters for Mark Hurd and currently covers 46.5 % of the site with impervious surfaces, with only storm water pooling near Laurel Avenue and roof drains dumping by pipe onto the Workabilities property. Purchased by Speak The Word Church, the property is serving a purpose but has been off the tax rolls for some time. The site is capable of redevelopment intensity due to the 1-394 MU guiding and zoning. Previous proposals were not well received by the neighborhood and did not make it out of planning processes. The current plan in its sketch plan form was well received at a neighborhood meeting on May 1, 2014. Discussion of private streets, user mix, lack of public streets, ponding for water control and visual amenity were all discussed. At no time were there conversations about new public streets. We explained that the private street construction would be the same thickness and on the same type of subsurface as City Streets and that the utilities would be partially available for City maintenance. The Neighborhood meeting only had a land plan shown on the Church site. One of the last questions was whether the neighborhood could support a plan such as this, and the answer out loud was yes. Subsequent to the neighborhood meeting the land owner of a '/z acre parcel at 305 Pennsylvania and Lakewest arrived at an agreement to include the home in the proposal to Golden Valley. As such we will be having another Neighborhood meeting June 26th to update neighbors and discuss the plan revision. The City Council in work session was updated as to the change and that since there was a need to have the guide plan match the site plan, what would be a direction to take? Based on a quick review and use of the sketch plans to again show a design of homes on private roads we heard from the Council that should the project be approved, the staff would simultaneously proceed to reguide the property from 1- 394 mixed use to Medium Density Housing. The following items are part of the PUD requirements. It should be noted that this submission is accompanied by the following consulting documents. In addition, we fully expect that additional building elevations will be developed for the site by home builders for your future residents that are similar but slightly different from those submitted by the design team. • Has a neighborhood meeting been held? Yes on May 1, and June 23. Neighbors immediately adjacent will also be reached out to directly for their individual concerns. Workabilities Inc., the neighbor immediately to the east has been appraised of the project goals often. We are in discussions to assist and resolve the following issues. 0 1- Cross parking of up to 20 stalls for overflow guest parking and special event at times that are not the same as their normal business hours; o Review retaining wall design and ability to be rebuilt on their property to again deal with holding up slopes on our property; o Cross access to the driveway from Laurel into our site and from our site to theirs from Pennsylvania; o Tree removal that drops limbs onto their property when we clear trees. We hope there is concurrence shortly to allow for official responses. Correspondence to date indicates a willingness to work together in order to be neighbors for the long term. We have concurred that under no circumstances should future residents of our neighborhood be in a position to demand changes in their operations or who they serve in their mission. • Describe landscaping: Developed by consultant Kathy O'Connell, the site has enhanced street tree patterns throughout. The existing site has 46 trees in total, several of them Cottonwoods and Ash and a maple arbor at the original entrance to Mark Hurd. The new plan at least 42 new street trees and a substantial quantity of shrubs and perennials plants. The ability to add more trees in the rear yard spaces is planned as well as along the easterly boundary as the conversation with Workabilities on wall design is finalized. Expect to see 14 more trees added as we increase the base design to be at 2 trees per dwelling unit minimum. o The overhead power lines on Pennsylvania create a significant impairment to large tall trees as the line type is 3 Phase, which is costly and more difficult to bury. o The twelve trees on the Pennsylvania frontage will be replaced by 27 new ornamental and over-story as the power lines allow. o Shrubs along the entire eastern border create a green wall that pushes the residents eyes over the building to the east to skylines beyond. Blending lilacs and evergreen create a dense woody screen in winter and summer. o In between buildings and as part of the foundation design implemented after homes are completed, substantial quantities of perennials that tolerate shade provide flowering\, but also snow will be planted. This limits the need for sunny areas and turf to be used in shady areas with steeper walkout grades. • Describe buffering: Four key types of buffering are provided by the design. o Pennsylvania replaces a commercial look with a single family look which transitions the existing neighborhood to the multi- family and industrial beyond. The housing type facing Pennsylvania has a similar architecture, has no more home sites onto the street than exist today in the R-1 zone. The use of some garage doors and access onto Pennsylvania mimics the existing neighborhood in locations that make sense, primarily at the top of the hill. o Plantings of a mix of deciduous and evergreen design create a visual and physical barrier to workabilities roof. This pushes eyes up, creates privacy, safety and flowering. At the top of the hill, a short seat wall retaining wall provides a place to transition down to the neighborhood sliding hill and passive green space, shrubs are less so that there is viewing and a greater openness intentionally. o The very northerly edge is preserved as is and retaining walls are currently shown that keep the various natural plants and trees intact at least 5 feet into the site. The retaining walls allow for maximum screening to remain for the two homes about 10 lower on each side. We do not believe that any of the new residents will actually be able to wee their neighbors as the view angles would be difficult to use on more than a casual basis. o Laurel Ave is planned to now provide the water quality to high touch plantings that are similar to the more urban design ideas started near D'Amico, Starbucks and the balance of the commercial town center retail zone. We believe that benches and fountains if allowed by water quality standards would also be appropriate. • Describe snow storage Snow is currently piled on site and pushed towards Workabilities in several locations. It is potentially part of the snow loading that created added stress to the retaining wall area. By moving the effective snow storage area higher up the hill toward the more structural wall and the natural embankment, storage is simpler, adds to a common play feature and is minimized. The amount of drives and garage aprons area is very similar to the current level of parking lot, so total storage is merely reorganized. Plowing is by private contract through the Home Owners Association, freeing up residents to do other things with their time. Excess snow fall years are handled by the ability to place snow off site or onto the WQ Pond basin to more effectively handle impurities in the snow closest to their origin. • Describe garbage removal Similar to any individual home and subject to all the City rules about storage inside the home unless it is pickup dat. It will be a design element of the garage size to accommodate the containers. Should residents desire mid size rather than small size, they need to talk with the home builder about accommodating their storage needs, no different than the preferred washer and dryer size. • Describe street maintenance Built to City standards, the rules of a CIC community, (the association) require a schedule of maintenance for seat coating, overlay, and upkeep no longer than recommended practices for City streets and a CIP program. Funds are set aside in reserve, like a rainy day fund to offset larger capital investments. Regulated in part due to some previous associations shortfalls, new neighborhoods have greater disclosure and buying power due to allowable borrowing opportunities and assessment options, like a 7-year assessment. o Annual snow plowing is contracted privately, or in the case that Golden Valley chooses to offer it to local business entities because they also have vehicle fleet diversity, then a win win may arrive. Merely because this association has private streets should not automatically exclude them from City services they otherwise pay for. o Unlike streets with cul de sacs that may cause the city to use multiple pieces of machinery, all roads in our plan allow for straight through movement. Unlike streets with excessive width that require multiple passes to clear and a resulting large volume for the shoulder, right sizing private roads for their volume allows for less total pavement to be cleared in the winter. One does not need to have a wider street to deal with snow, merely the correct sized apparatus. o During street building and home building, common base course depth is selected to avoid damage before final lifts are placed. The soils report is attached which shows that good glacial material is on site and suitable for good road building. o Sidewalks and garage aprons are handled by snow blowers and shovels, no different than any home or business in golden valley. One can choose to use time or pay others to do the work. • Describe yard maintenance:This is similar to snow plowing but better. Due to buying power of a small neighborhood, yard service costs per dwelling unit are kept down. Designing planting beds that minimize mowing leads to less rutting by commercial companies with larger equipment. The City has not commented yet as to whether they will continue to mow along Laurel and the trail on any more regularity. Our contracts would mow that area when they are there, even if the City schedule were there the next day. If a homeowner wishes for a larger gardening space or responsibility, hobby, they can participate in the garden committee and have larger spaces. • Setbacks —what are they and why? Setbacks are typical for multifamily designs. We have selected 10 feet minimum between buildings and would seek to use a 3.5' and 6.5' relationship to the property line in siting final housing plans for permit. This allows maximum building designs for overhangs, the side wall bump outs options, and window boxes. This is an improvement from zero feet to 2" in apartment or attached housing design that occurs in a party wall o Distance from the structures to the side lot line at the north are 15' buffered by the strong hill side to neighboring homes. o Distance from the homes to the east is also 15' with similar screening o Distance for setbacks to PL along the easterly property line to the buildings of lots 6 and 15 is 21' o Distance to parking drive isles is 5' at the top of the site from property line. o Distance to Pennsylvania from structures is 13' with allowable encroachment for stoops, etc. o Distance from the property line to Workabilities is 16.5' and 10 feet from parking. o Distance from Laurel Ave ROW is 45' with a 5' change to the ponding easement currently on site, not used for ponding. We can add more storage, more rate control and access for future maintenance in 30' • Street width — is it adequate for emergency vehicles and parking for the homes? Yes, designed to accommodate the current fire department apparatus, all turning movements work. This is not a place for high speed and it is designed accordingly. o Each home has 4 stalls, 2 in and 2 out, meeting SF criteria o The development has 24 foot wide private streets which allow for parking on one side, a change from earliest designs which were narrower. If the City believes that a 22' wide road can accommodate the same functions, we would design accordingly and add the distance to each driveway apron. o As drawn, there are 3 homes with 3 car garage potential fronting on Pennsylvania Ave, with greater storage . Like all homes west of our site, parking on the public streets is allowed. At the request of public works, a proposal to create 6 guest stalls as a defined area is on the plans. These would be exempt from winter parking restrictions, still need to honor snow emergency issues, but could be plowed and used as guest parking in the winter. Lastly, we have entered final positive negotiations with workabilities to add stalls near our ponding, maintained by us, and a cross parking easement over 20 stalls they have already built for the truly special events such as graduations, wedding celebrations and the like. o In total, there are 7 stalls on site, 5 more at the bottom of the site, 6 on Pennsylvania all year, 6 summertime on Pennsylvania, 20 cross parking and 11 parallel along the 24' wide street in places between driveway aprons. o The total parking for 30 DU is 175 or a ratio of 5.5 to 5.8 per DU, not typically thought of as a shortage. How many are usually at your Home? • Ponds — how are ponds buffered? Ponds are not buffered except by plantings and are featured. Upon approval, Final Plans will be more detailed and hopefully more aesthetic. • Describe pedestrian access, if allowed, sidewalks along Pennsylvania allow for neighborhood movement to the trail on Laurel, if desired by the City. A sidewalk along the east side of our neighborhood connects the upper loop to the lower housing level and potential overflow guest parking or options to use the ponding feature and Laurel trail so that walking over wet turf is not required. As more final design is arrived at by project approvals of Stage one, this design will be reviewed to make better by stairs or other features. • How is the site accessed by traffic? By 3 curb cuts onto Pennsylvania and one cross access driveway from Laurel and Workabilities, no different than today into parking lots and entry parking. One driveway at the top of the hill is replaced by the potential for three driveways. • Is this life-cycle or affordable housing? Life Cycle for a variety of buyer profiles due to smaller maintenance obligations, proximity to 394 and nearby parks. • What is the lot coverage of hard surfaces? Labeled and described on the drawings 51.9% for buildings and paved surfaces, substantially less than potential full development of commercial and with all water quality on site, not in storage tanks as many redevelopment projects are. • What is the density per acre? 9.5 DU acre, less than the 10-12 allowed by the medium density district this will become upon approval. • What are traffic counts? 30 DU at 8.5 per DU is a projected 255 trips a day. Due to proximity to work and the 394-corridor park and ride, the City guide plan speaks to less trip generation for those living close enough for choices. This neighborhood is in the area where trip generation can be influenced by both work and play transportation choices. The city may upon approval seek to model and count trip generation behavior from here to see how the theory measures up. • Architectural elements for the homes, including computer generated photos if possible, should be supplied Furnished as design development drawings and builder supplied options. More builders will provide copies as the project unfolds to be equal to or better. Timing: the development will be started with your approvals later this summer into fall. We only predict to have enough time to construct the WQ pond and lower road before winter of 2014. We would be able to start homes along Pennsylvania and the lower road by late fall, but may choose to delay depending on frost. We would look to the interest rate markets and modest conditions of approval to allow housing to build out at a pace of 2 units per month, to allow for a final completion and landscaping by the end of summer 2016 with the final lift of paving. The following items are all companion to our submittal. Civil Plans by EVS Landscape Arch. Plans by Kathy O'Connell Design development Arch by William Wells Existing building photos of LDK, a strategic building partner Soils by Paul Haugo Geotechnical Legal by Felhaber-Larson in compliance with MN standards MCIOA We look forward to your questions, your comments, and your supportive reports and motions to approve. Respectfully, r, Donald Jensen Land Development Director Attachments: CIC Checklist for future HOA; Neighbor notice#1, Pond design notes; Soils data; Arch. Photos and plan Cc:Curt Fretham cj r, Mark S.Radke ' i i Sa'!"jcci CIC CHECKLIST.DOC June 3 2014 at 3-08 PIVI Donald Jensen Don, I have attached a CIC checklist per our discussion on Friday. Please let me know if you have comments or questions. Thanks, Mark Mark S. Radke MR.K.-ti 0 2-2wufl,01, 22-0). MN Djre(t�h7 I Main-612632I i Flax 612 16W: ikc6i!,lhahx,r,--;n r f'1191 E" arso -in,'. Confidentiality Notice: This is a confidential communication from a law firm to the intended recipient. If you have received it by mistake, please delete it and notify the sender. Thank you. CIC CHECKLIST Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, P.A. 220 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-4504 Mark S. Radke, Esq. Telephone: (612) 373-8409 Facsimile: (612) 338-4608 I. Development Team _ t A. Developer Contact_ LkL-dd` F' t t G' B. Surveyor_ �V :> _ C. Architect ' 1��l�D. Title Company E. Marketing Contact F. Lender G. Other 11. Project Site A. Attach copy of plat B. Attach copy of site plan 111. Declarant A. Name and Address of Declarant(s)_ L4�T -d f �- r IV. Disclosure Information(515B.4-1/02) / A. Project Name taw--e B. Association.Name I 1 G XX x C. Declarant/Address_ /z,4S2 5— D. "D. Number of Units/Type of CIC E. General Description of CIC 1. Legal Description (underlying property) (attach if lengthy) _ 2. Type/Number of Buildings / [ted Tow ki kA 88443.1 3. Unit Sizes 1-0 1 4. Garage Type tr 5. Other Parking azv q em :5A-8 6. Balconies/Decks/Patios/Porches Ie5, e'd i�ilvv I I U 7. Recreational Facilities A Ee�t& 6g5l, 8. Building Construction/Materials .- 9. Roofs 14AY j 10.( Foundations . lab 11. Utilities (common o individual metering?) a. Heat b. Electrical C. Sewer/Water d. Other 12. Street Ownership PKI VATe- 13. Access/Other Easements 14. Other Common Amenities F. Schedule of Commencement/Completion &, G. Warranties/Disclaimer H. Escrow of Earnest Money (with whom) 1. Budget and Balance�heqt 98443.1 1. If Flexible (Phased) I. Legal Description of Additional Real Estate attach if lengthy) 2. Number of Phases -- `- _ 3. Number of Additional Units 4. Style Compatibility/Changes 5. Schedule K. Insulation (new construction)V. CIC Plat (if applicable) A. Approval Status/Schedule B. Special Issues/Requirements C. Easements -_(any needed) D. Development Agreement with City (attach copy) VI. Legal Documents A. Declaration 1. Use and Occupancy Restrictions J a. Age b. Pets c. Leasing _ _ A1 ,rte d. Business Use--_----- 1 � 66e �il7L e. Other 2. Allocations of voting/convnon expenses (and undivided interests if a condominium) (equally or different allocation) 3. Special Easements or Rights 4. FNMA/VA/FHA Provisions (needed?) 5. Maintenance Obligations H (what will Association maintain?) ll� 6��aiwm eW6,( he Wile 6. Other Unique Provisions cx 88443.1 B. Articles of Incorporation/Formation I. Incorporator Cir;fes:fG�3 -- . 2. Registered Office 3. Directors (3) 4. Officers (3) C. Purchase Agreement 1. Earnest Money and Interest 2. Payment Schedule _ 3. Options/Change Orders 88443.1 _ �IIIIiIIUIII{lilllll I� "1�1 '\ -• �Illlll�l.11 ' TT. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII��►�'-=.. � '�'�''{�1 ..�•����• � -► ► � ILII ,;• .•E :�� IIIIL,llllllllll ' ; o� ILII • � of • IRI Q.Q oi pell 00 c. swo Vi '•Jr�'''� ;i� QQ .: III nlll�1t191111u ��i,1�I�I •.�,—�--:/ ENE, .......... I1i1111 1=1_� �, '!'�:����'��iny� -1111111111�• j� ___ fill_ - 1111111 1_ �I���Illlllllllllill �����I! �Ir , , , �- • a:rJ4:iai7o7a� s-y c i"��'irt. : `.•iia�i�b i�s!_�-'5�'".�.'�•.� '�-� � .- . ..-_. i�i�+=- "- _ - `_' d31b8vH,, 3H1 F NOSNIHO?J y0lII 'SEf30IIf1H�M uo•nrznl JL4 2-R y d-R i yQP I R I R I I } I I ¢ Y I I I I d�DE g b I I 41 `T—T- Ii b I I YC 8 k 1 1 I fn����` mai I� J L__� 1 Req I Ik d I i2 XA' L I w We 7D SY, ! b IL - '� I I I I aITR� d�C� I I I 1 s I I I I I 1 1 I I t 1 d�C I I 1 I � I I f 1 jig[ � I I ! 1 � _________________I I E[ hi ;3 gS y[ fit IV 9 a Y 06 C ,-_-- � [lfS # ! � k 8 E • hYf� oB�Y �i5 �j y' �� Y it _ uctl n =rte 3 ,L3WUVK. 3HIJ( NOSNIB021 0� ��H�� vK osa get i= a d �t,MR Fp k $1� e " YaFE Y �9 a is e rn to d A Y [�; � t'3 ¢ rs J s ix,K-C JCC r V111 LL 1 �a cru 11 Y - its n • n C JM a-.S b SSM4 JOOY �rtl X 1 b _{ _____ww✓O--••---C p 9t � b b % S � �• i r b b ;�a.0 I ' N ^ � �rs.lu Y'lfAO to �+!i a-.s � b 4p�• ' Jas 1 X = 1 � 3 b • ;MP3 LKf4 E 1 b 4A 1� •b I wvlo b . a -- 9 ;t IV all "1 f[ i sa b r 70 i n .X . r X P yti gl -1 1 aY. ---------- -------------- ------------ :HH: ___"-__ }Ib:.i{ ---- -- -- ------ I---Jn,y----I -----ti--- I - � 3 R F ' ,r Jff1 F r; 4 i iiI3:416i§�$eii�rtt �t y'�}iq��1. j 5 1F1►6ikCi6}s1Ft1 aS Sd ' 4 mow lid Py i 1 k l` AZ fir,,.,,,:ti _, t j ,$ • [$ � 4 ..�; gg 7 s c, Jim Herbert RE:345 Pennsylvania Ave. Lakewest Development-Golden Valley May 7,2014 at 11:35 PM Dave Nash Don Jensen(donaldj@lwestdev.com) Adam Parker Rita Weaver r. Oliver,Jeff(JOliver@goldenvalleymn.gov) Fox..Joe(JFox@goldenvalleymn.gov) Hi Dave: Thanks for contacting us regarding this development project in the Bassett Creek Watershed. We understand the proposed project involves a 3.48 mixed use parcel and results in a 2,234 SF increase in impervious surface. We have the following comments regarding Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) requirements: 1. For any project that will result in more than 200 cubic yards of cut or fill or more than 10,000 square feet of grading, an erosion control plan and application form must be prepared and submitted to the BCWMC for review and approval. The application fee is based on the parcel size. 2. Specific BCWMC requirements, general submittal guidelines and design requirements for several approved BMPs are provided in the document "Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals," This document and the application form may be downloaded from the BCWMC's website at www.bassettcreekwmo.org, 3. The proposed disturbed area is less than 5 acres; therefore the project is exernpt from the BCWMC's Water Quality Management: Policy for new development (i.e., the site is not required to meet Level 1 treatment requirements). 4. The proposed increase in impervious area is greater than 2,000 sq. ft. (based on parcels 1.0 acre to 5.0 acres); therefore, the site must meet the non-degradation requirements of Policy 4.2,2.4 of the BCWMC's Watershed Management Plan for redevelopment, which requires implementation of BMPs to prevent an increase in phosphorus loading frorn the site. As an alternative, the entire parcel may be developed/redeveloped in accordance to Level 1 requirements. 5. The Sweeney Lake Total Phosphorus TMDL study was completed June 21, 2011. In accordance to the TMDL study, it is recommended that infiltration and filtration BMPs be incorporated to reduce runoff conveying pollutant loads throughout the watershed. 6. In any case, the BCWMC recommends BMPs to reduce the volume and improve the water quality of storm water runoff, where feasible. 7. You must also coordinate with city staff regarding city requirements. Please contact me or Rita Weaver (rweaver(@barr.com) regarding additional questions or to clarify these requirement. - Jim Jim Herbert, PE Vice President Senior Civil Engineer Minneapolis office: 952.832.2.784 cell: 612.834.1060 jherbert:J:barr.com www.boi-r.com resourceful. a - ��.a°s From: Wllllam Wells wellsandcompany@yahoo com B Subject: Site into-345 Pennsylvania Ave S Date. April 30,2014 at 9:24 AM To: Donald Jensen donaldj@Iwestdevcom Cc: dnash@evs-eng.com Greetings, site analysis for the newly proposed development at 345 Pennsylvania Ave S. Total Site, measure at property lines: 558' x 220' = 122,700 sqft 25 Houses, Total Foundation Footprint : 37,000 sqft Driveway and Roads, Total coverage: 22,300 sqft Total Impervious Lot Coverage: 59,300 sqft ( 48% of site) Wetland, Grass and landscaping: 63,400 sqft ( 52% of site) please see attached AutoCad file showing the site plan Thanks -William Wells From: Dave Nash dnash@evs-eng com 8 Subject: FW:Site info-345 Pennsylvania Ave S Date: May 5,2014 at 1:29 PM To: Adam Parker aparker@evs-eng com Cc: Don Jensen(donaidj@lwestdev.com) donaldj@lwestdev,corn Adam. call me when you get this—Dan Sjoblom calculated the existing impervious area for the site to be 57,006 SF. According to information from the architect—the impervious area developed is 59,300 SF. So in theory—the increase due to development is 2234 SF of impervious. I need to discuss ponding and treatment options ASAP—please call my cell when you can. Dave Nash, PE EVS, Inc. I Director of Residential Development www.-evs-eng.com Direct: (952)646-0253 1 Cell: (612)242-0530 EVS IS MOVING Our new address is effective 6/1/2014 10025 Valley View Road, Suite 140 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Hennepin County C15-Printable Map 4/30/14,4-41 Ph1 �.. ,�� "4a-a� :��.. 5€, c - .. �'�e s.- � � 5 4.. .a. ; ;�F.•+. to x�a x xx f VAt � ` ✓ { x P ` a !r A. Parcel 05-117-21-21-0075 A-T B: Abstract Map Scale: 1 100 ft. N ID. Print Date:4/30/2014 Owner Workabilities Inc Market $0 Name: Total: �l Parcel 7400 Laurel Ave Tax $0.00 - ►'�/fds �l� `�`I' Address: Golden Valley, MN 55426 Total: (Payable: 2014) Property Commercial-Preferred Sale $1,600,000 Type: Price: This map is a compilation of data from various Home- Sale sources and is furnished"AS IS"with no stead' Non-Homestead Date: 12/2004 representation or warranty expressed or http !/gi5,rn.kipnnepin.rn.n,iiclPropert�,!print!def-2ult.aspx?C=4,nrnr J ,T.hybririx.D-ti e& )D_O&,F!D_0511721210075&V!S=0 n n n n n n n n n n n Page 1 of 2 DEVELOF'MENT CO. , LLC Dear Neighbor, You're invited to a neighborhood meeting (open house) on May 1 st, 2014 from 7:00-8:30pm.We will be presenting a preliminary proposal for the redevelopment of the property located at 345 Pennsylvania Ave S. in Golden Valley. We are proposing to develop this project as a detached town home PUD (planned unit development) of the entire parcel. Your presence and input is greatly appreciated. We will be meeting in the Council Conference Room located on the 2nd floor. Coffee, soft drinks and cookies will be provided. Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 If you should have any questions prior to the open house, please feel free to contact Tia at (952) 653-1349. I look forward to meeting you! �� bs Best I Re ards g u Subject Property: ',', Donald Jensen 345PennsvlwniaAve S !� a� Land Development Director ¢�,* �:% t7f r-. �LnMIMr Orwn6Ni fF i W Lake West Dev. Co., LLC A • � , 14525 Highway 7 Minnetonka, MN 55345 14525 Highway 7, Suite 335 • Minnetonka, MN 55345 • }'hone: 952-930-3000 • Fax: 952-653-2198 I —� •Db1iY}, RfiTfdu �yy l WALL sswr ST-1 J * 4 E WAIM JJ I WHI DewHOW ST-2 d , ( 1 1, r ST-11 ctC�i {{ i l c,erc ST-3 Q J ( J �ST-101 ST-4 ®, ST-8 ST-5 1 I i I T /Yt m $T-6 � �T =~ POND r� tAUR�_AVENA /w � l = Approximate Soil Boring Location Haugo GeoTechnical Soil Boring Location Sketch Figure#: 1 Services. Proposed Residential Development DBy: BFB Daate:te: 5?2/14 13570 Grove Drive #278 345 Pennsylvania Avenue Scale: None Made Grove. MN Project#: 14-237 Golden Valley, Minnesota � Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 12 Conditions: The plans prepared by kas wilson architects and subm ted with the application on un�e 13, 2014, shall beco e a part of this apply--oval. 2. Ther mmendations an requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Departmen ark Grim , Comrrr�uriity Development Director, dated July 6, 2014, shall become a pa -of thi appy al. 3. The recommendations a` equirements outlined in the memo from the Public Works Departmentto-.Ma Gr es, Community Development Director, dated July 8, 2014, shall becom, a pa of this appro�a.l_ 4. The Applicantiba' ll sub t a lighting plan that me is the requirements of the City's Outdoorr,Lighting Code ( ection 11.73). 5. All s* age must meet threquirements of the City's �Signode (Section 4.20). 6./�s approval is subject all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, laws with authority ov r this development. 5. Informal Public Hearing - General Land Use Plan Map Amendment— 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South — CPAM-54 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. and from Mixed Use to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 345 Pennsylvania Ave. S. 6. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South —Z01 8-04 Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC Addresses: 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To rezone the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-3) and to rezone the property at 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South from 1-394 Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential (R-3) 7. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan Review— Laurel Ponds, PUD #117 Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC Address: 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 13 Purpose: To allow for a 30-unit, detached townhome development The Informal Public Hearings for Items 5, 6 and 7 were combined as was the discussion. Zimmerman explained the applicant's request to construct 30 detached townhomes at 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. He stated that as part of the PUD proposal, the properties will need to be re-guided on the General Land Use Plan Map to Medium Low Density, and rezoned to Medium Density Residential (R-3). He noted that the R-3 zoning district allows for 5 to 11.9 units per acre, and the proposal is for 9.1 units per acre. Zimmerman referred to the site plan and explained that there will be six rows of homes, each with five single family homes accessed via Pennsylvania Avenue. He stated that one private street to the south would dead end with emergency vehicle access via the Workabilities property, and two other entry points to the north would be connected with a private loop street. He referred to the parking proposal and noted that internal parking will be limited to one side of the street except along the east loop, and there are proposed guest parking bays along Pennsylvania Avenue, or along the east loop connection, with the possibility of an overflow parking agreement with Workabilities. Zimmerman stated that the proposed homes would be approximately 2,500 square feet in size, and would be approximately 10 feet apart from each other. He stated that the applicant is also proposing to reduce the existing 55-foot wide, drainage and open space easement along Laurel Avenue to 30 feet, and would like to construct a new stormwater pond within that easement. Zimmerman stated that there are a number of issues that will require additional discussion with the applicant including: streetlights on Pennsylvania Avenue, setbacks from the single family homes to the north, setbacks from the internal circulation, private versus public streets, access, easements, parking, utility ownership and maintenance, hydrants, watermain and sanitary sewer and the existing retaining wall. He stated that due to the number of issues that need to be addressed, staff is recommending that this public hearing be tabled to a future Planning Commission meeting. Segelbaum noted that detached townhomes are not listed in the R-3 zoning district and questioned if using the PUD process is a vehicle to allow them in that district. Zimmerman stated that detached townhomes aren't addressed as a use in any zoning district. Baker asked who would own the land. Zimmerman stated that there would be dues for maintenance, snow removal, mowing, etc., but the homes would have the feel of a single family property. Grimes added that he thinks there is a desire for this type of product, and that the City wants to provide a variety of housing options. Boudreau-Landis asked about the setbacks of the proposed homes along Pennsylvania Avenue as opposed to the homes to the north. Zimmerman stated that the proposed Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 14 new homes along Pennsylvania Avenue would have a 13-foot front yard setback, and that the homes to north have a 35-foot front yard setback. Kluchka referred to the traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue and said he did not see sidewalks, or pedestrian friendly options on the plans. Zimmerman stated that a sidewalk is shown on the east side of the property, and that staff is recommending it be continued to Laurel Avenue. Kluchka said he would like to see that shown on the next set of plans. Don Jensen, Lake West Development, LLC, stated that many of the issues were addressed in the narrative he submitted. He referred to the driveway system and explained how they would be different than private or public streets. He discussed the drainage patterns on the site, and said his drainage plan will accomplish what the City is looking for, and there will only a 2% increase in impervious surface. He showed the Commissioners renderings of the proposed housing types and discussed how traffic and emergency vehicles would navigate the site. He referred to the park dedication fees and stated that it would be a good idea to use the money to continue a sidewalk to the north. He referred to his tree preservation plan and noted that most of the trees on the corner of Pennsylvania and Laurel Avenues would be preserved. He said he believes he can address all of the staff's concerns, but his most important issue is the easement area, and if that easement can't be reduced, it might be a deal killer. Chuck asked the applicant if he has considered any other proposals that show a greater setback along Pennsylvania Avenue. Jensen said he was not discouraged by staff regarding the front setback areas, and he wants to have room for porches and overhangs. He added that rezoning the properties to R-3 only came about when the single family home to north was added to the project. Waldhauser said she is more concerned about the setbacks on the north and east that are supposed to be 30 feet, but will only be 15 feet. She asked if there will be some homes with a smaller footprint. Baker asked about the price range of the houses. Jensen said it depends how many units get approved, but he thinks the homes will be in the $300,000 to $400,000 range which is consistent with the neighboring homes in the vicinity. Edward Ratner, 115 Oregon Avenue South, said he is very much an advocate for adding sidewalks. He said it is hard to picture people walking around this site, and it is not designed for people to walk within the development. He asked how safe the drainage pond would be, and about the risk of it overflowing. He said there is an opportunity to have these homes be accessible, multi-generational homes, and it would be great to add some green space or a playground area. He referred to energy efficiency and stated that it would be a good expectation to have 220 volt service in the garages. Caryl Eschweiler, 420 Pennsylvania Avenue South, said she loves this neighborhood and, this property in principal is a good interface between the commercial uses. She said there are a lot of pedestrians in the area, and she thinks sidewalks are imperative, and should be an important element. She said she is concerned about Quebec Avenue Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 15 being a shortcut, and the City might want a stop sign at Quebec and Pennsylvania Avenues. She said she is concerned about the amount of rental housing in the area, and said there is getting to be a lot of parking on the streets. She said she is concerned about, and wants a better understanding of, the construction process and what will get built when, because there could be an extended period of construction. She said she wants to see a plan of how interruptions to the neighborhood will be handled. She added that she is impressed with how the applicant has been communicating, and that this proposal is probably a good choice compared to other things that could go on the property. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka said he heard a lot about the importance of sidewalks and about the parking on Pennsylvania Avenue. He asked how different the zoning requirements will be using the PUD process compared to the R-1 single family requirements. He suggested adding a condition about fences, and said he loves the concept of multi-generational housing and a play space, or gathering area because with this much density there is going to be a demand. He said he would also like to see a neighborhood construction agreement. Cera said it seems like there is a lot going on this property without enough parking or any green space. He said if people are paying association fees the will expect more. Baker said that this is so new and precedent setting that he doesn't want to rush the process because there is an opportunity to look forward to how the City uses developments to take advantage of geothermal or other kinds of shared efficiencies. He said those types of things would make him more excited about this project than he is now. He questioned if this project will appeal to people with kids or dogs. Segelbaum said without parking, and without green space, he thinks they are asking for trouble. Boudreau-Landis agreed, and said he strongly agrees about requiring a common green space or shared amenities. Jensen stated that liability insurance is an issue with pools and playgrounds. He added that the sledding hill is an active play space, and the parks nearby helped form some of the decisions in the plans. Waldhauser questioned how much variation the developer could do without losing money. She said $300,000 is low these days, but that is for a house on a standard size lot, so she doesn't consider these homes to be affordable. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to table these public hearings to the July 28, 2014, Planning Commission agenda. --Short Recess-- Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 ular meeting of thet`41_� ommis.sitin was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Counci tubers, 780allpy`Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, July 28, 2014. the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present'on werp� ams rs Baker, Blum, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. , o presemunity pment Director Mark Grimes, City Plannemmermministrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners B reau-Landis and Cbsent. 1. Continued Item — Informal Public Hearing — General Land Use Plan Map Amendment — 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South — CPAM-54 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. and from Mixed Use to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 345 Pennsylvania Ave. S. 2. Continued Item — Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South — ZO18-04 Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC Addresses: 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To rezone the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-3) and to rezone the property at 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South from 1-394 Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential (R-3) 3. Continued Item — Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan Review — Laurel Ponds, PUD #117 Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC Address: 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To allow for a 30-unit, detached townhome development Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 2 The Informal Public Hearings for Items 1, 2 and 3 were combined as was the discussion. Zimmerman reminded the Commissioners that these public hearings were tabled at their last Planning Commission meeting. He explained the applicant's proposal to construct 30 detached townhomes on the properties located at 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. As a part of the proposal both of the properties need to be re-guided on the General Land Use Plan Map to the Medium Low Residential designation and rezoned to Medium Density (R-3) Residential. Zimmerman reviewed some of the issues discussed at the July 14 Planning Commission meeting including: the installation of a sidewalk along Pennsylvania Avenue, the inclusion of additional green space, a reduction in the number of driveways accessing Pennsylvania Avenue, the relocation, or clarification of the water and sanitary sewer lines, access to the Workabilities site to the east, and the use of an existing City easement along the south end of the property. He explained that the existing, 55-foot wide easement was established in 1978 as part of the Laurel Avenue Greenbelt, and that it also extends along the Workabilities site. He added that the easement agreement states that no structures or improvements of any type shall be permitted. Zimmerman discussed some of the outstanding concerns and issues including: the reduction in density, or the consolidation of some of the units in order to obtain additional green space, and some distance between homes, the rear and side yard setbacks for the proposed northernmost homes, the setbacks from the internal roadway for the easternmost homes, the construction of public versus private streets, and the creation of a development schedule and construction phasing plan. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the General Land Use Plan Map Amendment, the Zoning Map Amendment and the Preliminary PUD Plan, subject to the conditions outlined by Planning, Engineering, and Fire. Kluchka asked if parking is allowed on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue. Zimmerman said yes, and added that allowing parking on both sides of the street will slow traffic. He said that staff doesn't see a great benefit in having the proposed bump-out parking areas. Waldhauser asked if the bump-out parking spaces would be for the Laurel Ponds use only. Zimmerman said he thinks that is the intent. Zimmerman referred to the proposed access to the Workabilities site and stated that it could be open during construction, and for emergencies, but through traffic and snow storage would not be allowed, and it would need to be maintained year-round. Zimmerman referred to the existing drainage, open space and walkway easement along the south end of the property. He said the applicant is not inclined to take out lots in the center of the project, but is more inclined to create a "beefed-up" green area at the corner of Pennsylvania and Laurel Avenues. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 3 Kluchka referred to the 15-foot setback requirement for the proposed parking spaces on the east side of the site, and asked if that applies to both the Laurel Ponds property and the Workabilities property. Zimmerman said it does apply, however, the Laurel Ponds property could vary from the requirement because it is a PUD. The Workabilities property would need the variance because it is not a part of the PUD. Zimmerman referred to the southern portion of the property and discussed the concerns about the lack of a turnaround area at the Workabilities access site. He stated that anyone using that southernmost roadway would have to use a private driveway in order to turn around. He suggested that with some design changes, or perhaps attaching some of the proposed units, there might be better results in regard to the turnaround area. Zimmerman referred to the proposed private roadways and explained that the PUD ordinance says that streets shall be public unless granted a waiver. He said staff is concerned about allowing private streets unless all the maintenance and access issues are very clear. Kluchka suggested that the language in the condition regarding the sidewalk along Pennsylvania Avenue be changed from "shall consider" installing a sidewalk to "will install" a sidewalk. He also suggested that the language regarding the prohibiting of fences be changed to state that fences "shall be prohibited." Segelbaum asked how the park dedication fees will be used. Zimmerman stated that park dedication funds go into a general park fund, and aren't earmarked for specific projects. Segelbaum asked how this proposal deviates from the requirements in the R-3 zoning district. Zimmerman stated that the applicant is proposing a smaller setback along Pennsylvania Avenue, and the lot sizes are smaller. He added that the Zoning Code doesn't have language regarding detached townhomes. Waldhauser said she is most concerned about the effects on adjoining residential properties. Segelbaum asked if there is precedent of reducing easements to allow for development. Grimes stated that the City has, in the past, vacated easements that are no longer needed. Blum asked how many properties along Laurel Avenue have this easement. Zimmerman said the 55-foot wide easement is on this property, the Workabilities property to the south, and continues for quite a way on Laurel Avenue for the green belt. Don Jensen, Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant, referred to the questions regarding the use of the easement area. He stated that the City has done nothing with this area since 1978 and he hasn't been able to find any documents, or plans regarding the use of the easement area. He referred to the discussion about having a green area as part of his proposal, and his conclusion is that there is no need for park space on this site because there are existing connections to other, nearby parks. He showed the Commissioners elevations of the proposed houses and stated that plans could maybe be redesigned to address the lack of a turnaround area on the southern portion of the site. He discussed the use of the easement, and explained how they could design the stormwater pond and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 4 the landscaped corner of Laurel and Pennsylvania Avenues all within a 45-foot area. He discussed the concerns about private roads and stated that the development will not work with public streets instead of private drives. Waldhauser asked if there could be parking on the internal roads. Jensen said parking would be allowed on one side of the road. Waldhauser asked how the surface water would flow through the site. Jensen referred to a grading plan of the site and explained how the water runs off the site. He added that there will be drain tile installed as well. Waldhauser asked if more trees could be planted going east and west on the site. Jensen said yes. Segelbaum asked Jensen why he needs to have private streets to make the development work. Jensen said all medium and high density projects have private drives. He stated that connecting the units with private drives is the proper way to do it, because public streets would wipe out the developable area, and wouldn't connect to anywhere else. Segelbaum referred to the landscaping plan for the southwest corner and asked Jensen if he would be installing the landscaping, or if the City would. Jensen said that they would install the landscaping, but he would like to talk to the Parks Department about the City installing additional items such as signage, kiosks, trellises, or things that might match the City's existing street furniture or theme. He added that he would also be extending the sidewalk along Pennsylvania Avenue from their site to Laurel Avenue, but not over to Western Avenue. Segelbaum said he is concerned about the existing homes directly across the street on Pennsylvania Avenue if the proposed new homes are only set back 13 feet from property line. Jensen stated that the neighbors in attendance at the neighborhood meetings did not express concern about that. He added that the proposed new homes will be 13 feet from the property line, but approximately 20 feet from the curb. Kluchka said he would feel more comfortable with the project if the parking bays on Pennsylvania Avenue were removed. Baker noted that the applicant has said the City could install additional landscape features on the southwest corner. He questioned if the applicant would be willing to install those additional landscape features. Waldhauser said she would like some of the houses to be smaller in size. She referred to the easement area and said she thinks reducing the size of the easement area and installing additional landscaping would be a trade-off for the lack of green space within the development. Segelbaum agreed that what is being proposed might be the best opportunity to get additional green space. Kluchka said he doesn't think "beefing up" the southwest corner is enough of a trade-off, and he would like to see better quality in the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 5 landscape design and maybe a walkway around the pond. Baker said he wants to be sure there is quality landscaping installed as well, and he would like to see a more detailed landscape plan before the Planning Commission recommends approval. Kluchka suggested that a condition stating that the easement reduction request will be considered, pending an enhanced landscaping plan, subject to Planning Commission review and City Council approval, at the time of the Final PUD Plan submittal. Waldhauser suggested a condition be added stating that final approval will be contingent on quality design and materials used. Grimes stated that the homes will be built in stages, so it would be difficult to enforce the design of each home. Waldhauser suggested guidelines. Kluchka suggested that a list of building materials be approved. Kluchka suggested a condition be added stating that the sidewalk shall continue along the east side of the property all the way to Laurel Avenue. Jensen asked that the words "landscaping framework" be used instead of specifying the landscaping materials. Waldhauser reiterated that she would like there to be greater diversity in the size and price of the units in return for consideration of the reduction of the easement area, setbacks, and allowing private streets. Kluchka stated that the market will generate diversity as well. Baker said he wants this kind of discussion when the Comprehensive Plan is next updated because these types of discussions are lacking on this Commission. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-3) and to rezone the property at 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South from 1-394 Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential (R-3) MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of changing the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. and from Mixed Use to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 345 Pennsylvania Ave. S. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan for Laurel Ponds, PUD #117 subject to the following findings and conditions. Findings: 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 6 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by EVS, dated 6/13/14 submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated July 10, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated July 7, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan as part of the Final PUD Plan set. 5. All principal buildings shall conform to the rear and side property setbacks when adjacent to a single family zoning district as outlined in Section 11.55, Subd. 3(C)(1). 6. No buildings shall be located less than fifteen feet from the back of the curb line for roads that are part of the internal road system as outlined in Section 11.55, Subd. 3(C)(2). 7. Unless a wavier is granted by the City, any streets constructed within the development shall be public streets as required in Section 11.55, Subd. 6(A)(6). 8. The Applicant shall install sidewalks along Pennsylvania Avenue running the length of the property and on the east side of the property south to Laurel Avenue. 9. The easement reduction request from 55 feet to 45 feet will be considered pending review of an enhanced landscaping plan. 10. The Applicant shall prohibit the installation of fences within the development. 11. The Applicant is encouraged to explore a range of housing types and designs. 12. Building materials shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. 13. Permits to construct parking bays on the property at 7400 Laurel Avenue shall be obtained by that property owner and shall not be located closer than fifteen feet to the side property line, as required in Section 11.47, Subd. 6(B), unless a variance is obtained. 14. Any cross parking agreements that are created shall be submitted to the City for review and shall be recorded with the Final Plat. 15. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 117" in its title. 16. The City Attorney shall determine if a park dedication fee is required for this project prior to Final Plan approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 7 17. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 18. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Informal Public Hearing — nor Subdivision — 4XXX Harold Avenue Fretham Twenty-Two — SU -03 i. d pplicant: Lake West Dev lopment, LLC ' i A ess: 4XXX Harold AYenue r' Purpos To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. Zimmerman referredtoa site plan and explained that this proposal is the second part of a three lot subdivision. F,he first half Was at 400 Decatur..Avenue North. He stated that both of the lots in this proposa'meet theminimum lot requirements in the Single Family R-1 zoning district. Lot 1 would be 10,{ 151 square feet in size;-with 81 feet of width at the front setback line, and Lot 2 would be 10,002 square feet, with 80 feet of width at the front setback line. Segelbaum asked if survey's\st bmitted by applicants are verified for accuracy. Zimmerman stated that staff reviews surveys`toat are submitted, but rely on surveyors to submit accurate numbers. Segelbaum asked if this proposal meets the average width test recently discussed by the Planning Commission. Zimmerman'!staie O that he did not consider the average width of the proposed new lots because the City Coune l recently amended the Single Family R-1 zoning district to state that lot width is measured atie front setback line. Grimes added that under today's Zoning Code, it meets all the requirer Vnts. a. Don Jensen, Lake WesyDevelopment, LLC, Applicant, said it was important to show the building envelope on his plans and the practical res'�Its. He stated that the pie-shaped lots in this proposal work because the garages fit in the fNnt, and there will still be strong front yard, and back yard space. Grimes added this proposik.,won't impact neighboring f , � properties. ` Blum asked v�/hat will happen to the berm on the north side kHarold Avenue. Jensen said most of it w,puld be removed for drainage and driveways, but that they will re-work it as much as Possible. /Kluca opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wis ing to comment, closed the public hearing. by Baker, seconded by Seg�Ibaum and motion carried unanim usly to nd approval of the Fretham Twenty-Two Minor Subdivision subs ct to the findings and conditions. C1 tY 0� golden MEMORANDUM vallev Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: July 14, 2014 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing– Preliminary PUD Plan for Laurel Ponds PUD No. 117– 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South – Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant Background Lake West Development, LLC, is seeking approval of a Planning Unit Development (PUD) Permit to construct 30 detached townhome units across 3.3 acres at 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. The property at 305 Pennsylvania currently contains a single family home;the property at 345 Pennsylvania currently contains an office building and two large parking lots. The site is bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue to the west and Laurel Avenue to the south. Single family homes are located to the north and west; commercial properties are located to the south and east. Separately, the Applicant seeks to reguide the properties to Medium-Low Density Residential and to rezone the properties to Medium Density (R-3) Residential. Summary of Proposal The proposed PUD would allow the Applicant to consolidate the two properties and construct 30 detached townhomes in two phases. The existing single family home and garage at 305 Pennsylvania and the existing office building at 345 Pennsylvania, along with the two parking lots, would be demolished. The proposal consists of six east-west rows—each with five single family homes—that proceed up the hillside from Laurel Avenue. Rows 1 and 2, at the bottom of the hill, are separated by a 24' wide two-way private street that connects Pennsylvania with the adjacent parking lot to the west (belonging to Workabilities). Rows 3 and 4 as well as Rows 5 and 6 are separated by similar private streets that loop and connect along the east side of the property above an existing retaining wall. A sidewalk along a portion of the east side of the property would provide additional pedestrian access between the top and the bottom of the development. All but three of the homes in the development would have driveways off of the internal circulation system;the three homes along Pennsylvania Avenue furthest to the north would have direct access onto the public right-of-way. Parking along the internal private streets would be limited to one side except along a narrower portion of the loop where parking would be prohibited entirely. Plans show enough room for two vehicles to be parked in each driveway. The option of six additional parking bays are indicated along the easternmost portion of the loop street with six more shown as a proof of parking option along Pennsylvania Avenue. The Applicant has explored the possibility of four additional parking bays in the southeast corner of the property that would reside almost entirely on the Workabilities site. The Applicant has explored a parking arrangement with Workabilities that would also accommodate potential overflow parking of 20 spaces for special events. The Applicant has estimated traffic generation to be 8.5 trips per unit per day, resulting in a total of 255 trips per day. The development is being marketed with detached townhomes. The Applicant has suggested that potential homeowners prefer this type of product and that the detached model allows the builder more options for variety in floor plans and architecture as compared to attached townhomes. A Homeowners Association is planned that would cover snow removal on the private streets. It is the assumption that lawn mowing would also be covered through the association. The Applicant has provided two sample single family home floor plans. Each is three stories and roughly 2,500 square feet. Lot sizes within this development range from 36' x 106' to 65' x 106' (though these are slightly misleading dimensions because portions of each lot will be utilized for the private streets). A typical distance between neighboring homes would be 10'. There is an existing 55' wide drainage and open space easement along Laurel Avenue. The Applicant is proposing that the City vacate the northernmost 25' of that easement and allow 10' to be included in the land utilized for the first row of homes. The remaining 15' would be landscaped and a new stormwater pond would be constructed within the City's easement. Three new streetlights are shown on private property along Pennsylvania Avenue. Additional information is necessary to determine if the lighting levels meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting ordinance. Two neighborhood meetings were held in advance of the public hearing at the Planning Commission; the first did not include the single family parcel to the north as part of the proposal but the second did. Overall, neighbors were generally supportive of the proposal though some did voice concerns about the impact of traffic on Pennsylvania and the higher density of the development. . 7500 9^ �7600 x7400 25 30 .113&0 113 OM . nY .. �. 111 1�p �h� 20 15 20 25 7501 7470 h 70 (1)?" +r=r ►+e+.. ..t fr sr Ti C� `490 ' ��@ > 75 g0 C!) 95 50 35 3 70 75 10 0� A d5 50 65 7500 r y 90 95 110 t0 65 51 '3A8 115 110 �., OM 90 C) 7700 50 ,„ �75 100 105+ � 205 110 k,a 115 130 M 135 130 115 11 120 2� 1h�^ 235 130 Y'" 135 150 13D 135 111 135 13 i 105 T' 155 150 7701 �� q b' �� 250 155 0 150 155 12 155 15 120 7751 46, 205 7540 /.f�s�' + 255 150 174 175 170 175 210 1! 200 r 175 215 211 220 .225 O 7600 �Sq' 310 305 170 190 195 230 800 t eP 245�r 330 > 345 210 215 235 23� '�� . 7605 ° 250 e 350 230 a 235 255 250 �A'4 , a m 270 7801 7721 400 401 R 8,- Oso 440 420 120 :`421 420 421 480 A ;x 10 501 500 501 500 101 421 ?0 a 521 7700 521 520 521 510 7400 7100 Lau r p 611 7701 623 648 A 700 675 i 7425 Laurel Ave y 723 716 Q 70 710 Q 743 732 750 705 Pennsylvania Ave S 850 .� 825 o 2. 815 ,.....814 PUD 117 - Site Map Land Use and Zoning Considerations Under the proposed General Land Use Plan Map Amendment being considered, the properties would be reguided to Medium-Low Density Residential, which accommodates densities of 5 to 11.9 units per acre. This would be consistent with the proposed PUD density of 9.1 units per acre. Under the proposed Zoning Map Amendment being considered, the properties would be rezoned to Medium Density (R-3) Residential, which provides for medium density housing of up to 10 units per acre. This would be consistent with the proposed PUD density of 9.1 units per acre. Even with the proposed R-3 rezoning, there are a number of ways in which the current proposal varies from the underlying zoning designation: Medium Density (R-3) District Laurel Ponds PUD No. 114 Permitted Uses Attached townhomes Detached townhomes Dimensional Standards Buildable lots, area 15,000 sq. ft. minimum 3,478 sq. ft. to 6,928 sq. ft.* Buildable lots, width 100' at the front setback line 36' to 65'* Impervious coverage Not to exceed 60% of lot area 52% Front yard setback 25' 13' from Pennsylvania; 20' from drive aisle Side and rear yard setback 30' to R-1; 20' otherwise 5' side yard; 15' rear yard Maximum density 10 units per acre 9.1 units per acre Height 4 stories or 48' in height 2 to 3 stories *These area and width figures are slightly overstated in that portions of each lot will be utilized for the internal private streets. Subdivision 3(C)(1) of the PUD section of the Zoning Code states that no principal building shall be closer than its height to the rear or side property line when such line abuts a single family zoning district. It appears that the row of homes furthest north may have the potential to be in violation of this requirement, though this will not be known until specific building plans are submitted for review. Subdivision 3(C)(2) of the PUD section of the Zoning Code states that no building shall be located less than fifteen feet from the back of the curb line along those roadways which are a part of the internal road system. There are a handful of locations within the proposed development where the potential exists for homes to be violation of this requirement, though this will not be known until specific building plans are submitted for review. Subdivision 6 of the PUD section of the Zoning Code states that private streets shall not be approved unless a waiver is granted by the City based on the following and other relevant factors: a. Extension of a public street is not physically feasible as determined by the City; b. Severe grades make it infeasible according to the City to construct a public street to minimum City standards; c. The City determines that a public road extension would adversely impact natural amenities; or d. There is not feasible present or future means of extending right-of-way from other directions. None of these factors appear to apply in this situation. Public Works and Fire Safety Considerations As is standard practice for development proposals, plans for this proposal were reviewed by the City's Public Works Department to ensure the site can be adequately served by public utilities and that traffic issues are resolved. A memorandum from the Public Works Department that addresses access, easements, sanitary sewer and water services, grading, stormwater management, and tree preservation is attached. The Fire Department reviewed this proposal to ensure that buildings are equipped with fire protection systems and that adequate emergency vehicle access is achieved on the site. A memorandum from the Fire Department that addresses fire hydrants, water supply, and No Parking Fire Lane signs is attached. Justification for Consideration as a PUD The PUD process is an optional method of regulating land use in order to permit flexibility in uses allowed, setbacks, height, parking requirements, and number of buildings on a lot. Staff has determined that this application qualifies as a PUD because it achieves the following standards established in City Code: • Encourage, preserve and improve the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City by encouraging the use of contemporary land planning principles. • Achieve a high quality of site planning, design, landscaping, and building materials which are compatible with the existing and planned land uses. • Encourage construction of affordable housing and a variety of housing types. • Encourages creativity and flexibility in land development. • Encourage efficient and effective use of land, open space, streets, utilities, and other public facilities. • Encourage development n transitional areas which achieve compatibility with all adjacent and nearby land uses. • Achieve development consistent with the City's redevelopment plans and goals. In order to be approved as a PUD, the City must be able to make the following findings: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. 3. Efficient— Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Recommendation Staff supports the general concept of the proposed PUD, but—due to the number of issues that remain to be addressed—recommends continuing this item to a future Planning Commission meeting to allow for additional work sessions with the Applicant. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Memo from the Public Works Department dated July 10, 2014 (8 pages) Memo from the Fire Department dated July 7, 2014 (1 page) Letter from WorkAbilities, Inc. dated July 8, 2014 (1 page) Applicant's Narrative (22 pages) Color Site Rendering (1 page) Site Plans (13 pages) citYyof' Aden MEMORANDUM valley Planning Department - 763-593 8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: July 28, 2014 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Subject: Continued Item —Preliminary PUD Plan for Laurel Ponds PUD No. 117— 30c5 and 34,5 Pennsylvania Avenue South — Lakeai West Development, >eLLC, Applicant a,r.�r'.�i�, wx� ss3Fw.k°5.� �"'w.5.�$!':kt"sw�.._.�er#w-2!c' ,a�,a.�.2. .te-.e�SJR-b::.�31;L4..:�a�'�i%i;..�:.t".� .�` mN �ohhw .:P�aK3.#4rN�.4h'�vt,+�hhs },td_•Rn Y::�% Background This item is continued from the informal public hearing held before the Planning Commission on July 14, 2014. Lake West Development, LLC, is seeking approval of a Planning Unit Development (PUD) Permit to construct 30 detached townhome units across 3.3 acres at 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. Separately, the Applicant seeks to reguide the properties to Medium-Low Density Residential and to rezone the properties to Medium Density (R-3) Residential. Summary Following the July 14 Planning Commission meeting, staff from Planning, Engineering, and Fire met with the Applicant to discuss a number of issues: 1. Installation of a sidewalk along Pennsylvania Avenue running the length of the property. Ownership and maintenance of the sidewalk to be determined. 2. Addition of green area to be used as a gathering space for future residents. 3. Reduction in the number of driveways that directly access Pennsylvania Avenue. 4. Removal of the optional parking bays on Pennsylvania Avenue. 5. Relocation of water and sanitary sewer lines to clearly fall within the right-of-way of the internal street system. 6. Upon completion of Phase 1 construction, closure of full access from within the site to 7400 Laurel Avenue. Emergency vehicle access with year round maintenance will be provided. 7. Preservation of the entire drainage, open space, and walkway easement at the south end of the property. General agreement was reached on items 1 through 6 and changes will be reflected on future plans by the Applicant and submitted for review by Staff. Disagreement continues over item 7 with the Applicant requesting that the City vacate the northernmost 25 feet of the easement to allow homes to be built within the first 10 feet and decks and patios, as well as landscaping, to be constructed within the next 15 feet. The remaining 30 feet would contain a stormwater pond as well as any additional landscaping along Laurel Avenue and at the Pennsylvania Avenue corner. Research has shown that the City obtained 55 foot wide drainage, open space, and walkway easements for both 345 Pennsylvania Avenue and 7400 Laurel Avenue in 1978. This was done at roughly the same time as when the Laurel Avenue Greenbelt was first envisioned. The easements allow the City to provide an area for drainage, a buffer from the industrial uses to the south, and an opportunity to continue the east-west green connection along Laurel Avenue all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue. Given the multiple purposes served by these easements, Staff is not inclined to support a reduction in the width. A handful of additional items remain as areas of Staff concern but were not discussed at the meeting with the Applicant. It is expected these will be discussed and worked out prior to the submission of Final PUD Plans. 1. The option of reducing the overall density by removing a small number of units in order to provide room for additional green space or, alternatively, the consolidation of a handful of units into attached townhomes to provide more space between structures. 2. The relocation or removal of the four parking bays on the adjacent property at 7400 Laurel Avenue as they are located with the side yard setback area for properties in the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. 3. The clarification or adjustment of the setbacks of the homes along the north side of the property in relation to the adjacent R-1 Single Family Zoning District (a requirement of all PUDs). 4. The clarification or adjustment of the setbacks of the two homes along the east loop street in relation to the back of curb line (a requirement of all PUDs). 5. The lack of a dedicated turn-around for the southernmost roadway which dead-ends at the eastern property line. 6. The construction of public streets within the development unless a waiver is granted by the City for private streets (a requirement of all PUDs). All public streets must be designed and built to City standards. 7. A development scheduled that outlines the orderly manner in which the site will be prepared and home construction will be phased, as well as agreements to conditions that will minimize, to the extent possible, the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Engineering, Maintenance, and Fire Safety Considerations As is standard practice for development proposals, plans for this proposal were reviewed by the City's Engineering Division to ensure the site can be adequately served by public utilities and that traffic issues are resolved. A memorandum from Engineering that addresses access, easements, sanitary sewer and water services, grading, stormwater management, and tree preservation is attached. The Fire Department reviewed this proposal to ensure that buildings are equipped with fire protection systems and that adequate emergency vehicle access is achieved on the site. A memorandum from the Fire Department that addresses fire hydrants, water supply, and No Parking Fire Lane signs is attached. Justification for Consideration as a PUD The PUD process is an optional method of regulating land use in order to permit flexibility in uses allowed, setbacks, height, parking requirements, and number of buildings on a lot. Staff has determined that this application qualifies as a PUD because it achieves the following standards established in City Code: • Encourage, preserve and improve the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City by encouraging the use of contemporary land planning principles. • Achieve a high quality of site planning, design, landscaping, and building materials which are compatible with the existing and planned land uses. • Encourage construction of affordable housing and a variety of housing types. • Encourages creativity and flexibility in land development. • Encourage efficient and effective use of land, open space, streets, utilities, and other public facilities. • Encourage development in transitional areas which achieve compatibility with all adjacent and nearby land uses. • Achieve development consistent with the City's redevelopment plans and goals. In order to be approved as a PUD, the City must be able to make the following findings: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. 3. Efficient— Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Laurel Ponds PUD No. 117, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans prepared by EVS, dated 6/13/14 submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated July 10, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated July 7, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan as part of the Final PUD Plan set. 5. All principal buildings shall conform to the rear and side property setbacks when adjacent to a single family zoning district as outlined in Section 11.55, Subd. 3(C)(1). 6. No buildings shall be located less than fifteen feet from the back of the curb line for roads that are part of the internal road system as outlined in Section 11.55, Subd. 3(C)(2). 7. Unless a wavier is granted by the City, any streets constructed within the development shall be public streets as required in Section 11.55, Subd. 6(A)(6). 8. The Applicant shall consider the installation of a sidewalk along Pennsylvania Avenue running the length of the property. 9. The Applicant is encouraged to explore ways to provide additional green area for use as a gathering space for future residents of the development. 10. The Applicant should consider prohibiting the installation of fences within the development. 11. The Applicant is encouraged to explore a range of housing types and designs. 12. Permits to construct parking bays on the property at 7400 Laurel Avenue shall be obtained by that property owner and shall not be located closer than fifteen feet to the side property line, as required in Section 11.47, Subd. 6(B), unless a variance is obtained. 13. Any cross parking agreements that are created shall be submitted to the City for review and shall be recorded with the Final Plat, 14. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 117" in its title. 15. The City Attorney shall determine if a park dedication fee is required for this project prior to Final Plan approval. 16. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 17. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Attachments Letter from the Applicant dated July 24, 2014 (3 pages) Access Points and Parking Plan dated July 24, 2014 (1 page) Ponding and Open Space Design Plan dated July 24, 2014 (1 page) Revised Color Site Rendering dated July 22, 2014 (1 page) city 0 0 golden MEMORANDUM ��. ey Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: July 10, 2014 To: VM/a/rk Grimes, Director of Planning and Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Public Works S cialist C/ Subject: Preliminary PUD Review— Laurel Ponds (305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue) Engineering staff has reviewed the plans, titled Laurel Ponds, submitted by Lake West Development, LLC (Developer) for the proposed detached townhome development located at 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. The property proposed for development is bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue on the west, Laurel Avenue on the south, Workabilities, Inc. on the east, and single-family homes to the north. This memorandum discusses the issues identified during the Engineering review that must be addressed prior to approval of the Final PUD Plans. The comments contained in this review are based on the plans submitted to the City on June 16, 2014. Site Plan and Access This development of 3.31 acres includes the construction of 30 detached townhomes situated along private streets, sidewalks, and an open space with a stormwater basin located in the south portion of the property. The common area elements, including the open space, streets, sidewalks, and utilities are proposed to be owned and maintained by a homeowners association; although many of the details still need to be determined. The existing house at 305 Pennsylvania Avenue and office building at 345 Pennsylvania Avenue will be demolished and all associated structures and pavements removed as part of the project. Permits from the City will be required for all building demolition, utility cutoffs, tree removals, and earth work associated with demolition. A Right-of-Way Management Permit will be required for any excavations or obstructions within the City right-of-way. Phase 1 is located in the southern end of the site and involves the construction of 10 homes. The homes would have access onto Pennsylvania Avenue and Laurel Avenue via an east-west private street extending from Pennsylvania Avenue to the Workabilities' parking lot. The west driveway for Workabilities, Inc. would be shared and would serve as the Laurel Ponds access onto Laurel G:\Developments-Private\Laurel Ponds PUD\PrelimPUDReview-070314_laurelponds.docx Avenue. Staff has concerns about connecting these two properties with a private street and shared driveway, for the following reasons: 1. Workabilities' parking lots—both front and back—are full after 9 am on weekdays. 2. Workabilities has about 20 buses that run from 9:30 to 10:30 am and 2:30 to 4 pm. These buses stack up in the parking lot and out onto Laurel at times. 3. Employees, visitors, and buses may be tempted to utilize the private street to cut through the Laurel Ponds development to access Pennsylvania Avenue. The narrative submitted by the Developer discusses a cross parking arrangement with Workabilities that would allow for 20 parking spaces for use by Laurel Ponds guests. It appears those spaces may only be available on weekends, but that would have to be determined by the two property owners. The plans also show the construction of four guest parking bays on the Workabilities' property, immediately adjacent to the Laurel Ponds development. In order for the private street and parking bays to be constructed as shown, and the cross parking arrangement realized, easements or agreements between the two property owners would have to be drafted and recorded, and copies provided to the City, prior to Final PUD Plan approval. Given the discussion above and some of the City's concerns, the Developer is encouraged to explore alternative designs for the private east-west street in Phase 1. Modifications could include the following: 1. The private street could terminate with a turnaround or cul-de-sac at the east end. 2. A pedestrian access could link Laurel Ponds with Workabilities, instead of a street, so that visitors can access guest parking spaces. 3. The street and sidewalk could be designed to allow for an emergency vehicle access between properties, similar to other situations in the City. Phase 2 is located in the northern end of the site and involves the construction of 20 homes. The homes would have access onto Pennsylvania Avenue in two locations via a private looped street. The east-west portions of the street are 24 feet wide (back of curb to back of curb) and parking is proposed on one side. The north-south portion of the looped street narrows to 16 feet wide (back of curb to back of curb). This narrow portion may be an issue for emergency vehicle access, or certain vehicles passing each other, especially in the winter. The Developer is providing additional guest parking bays within the site and also along the east side of Pennsylvania Avenue, where on-street parking is currently allowed. The City's experience with parking bays located along City streets is that they can be a maintenance challenge, especially in winter. Parking on Pennsylvania Avenue will have to be discussed further by the Developer and the City before Final PUD Plan submittal. Although guest parking is proposed on Pennsylvania Avenue, three of the six homes on Pennsylvania have driveways onto Pennsylvania, rather than the internal streets. The City would prefer to limit the amount of access points onto Pennsylvania if possible, especially with shorter sightlines due to the hill. In addition, the presence of driveways on Pennsylvania eliminates the G:\Developments-Private\Laurel Ponds PUD\PrelimPUDReview_070314_laurelponds.docx potential for additional guest parking close to the development. It is recommended that the Developer continue working with City staff to explore options for parking on Pennsylvania Avenue that satisfies all needs and interests. The property proposed for development currently has four access points onto Pennsylvania Avenue; three driveways for the existing office building and one driveway for the existing single- family home. The proposed PUD calls for three access points onto Pennsylvania Avenue and one access onto Laurel Avenue. Although it would be preferred to limit the number of access points onto Pennsylvania Avenue South,three access points would be acceptable to the City in concept. However, alignment of the private streets with Quebec Avenue was discussed with the Developer, and according to the plans, none of the proposed streets align with Quebec, which may present occasional conflicts with turning movements. The Developer is encouraged to continue working on a design that allows for a private street to line up with Quebec Avenue. Depending on negotiations with Workabilities, and final design, the access to Laurel Avenue may not be part of the final design. In that case, the City would recommend that a cul-de-sac or acceptable turnaround be provided on the east end of the street. The City and the Developer also discussed alternative layouts for the development, including the option of constructing public streets or cul-de-sacs. The City typically requires the construction of public streets unless a waiver is obtained to construct private streets. In this case, the Developer is proposing streets that are narrower than the City standard in order to increase lot density, and therefore has opted to seek a waiver to construct private streets, which will be owned and maintained by the Developer or future homeowners association. The City's street system in the vicinity of this project is adequate to accommodate the vehicle trips generated by the development. Based upon the plans and narrative submitted, the Developer estimates that approximately 255 vehicles trips per day will be generated by the development. This is likely less than the number of trips generated by the office building when it was occupied at full employment, and what could be generated if the property was utilized at its current zoning. If the development moves forward as proposed, the trips would be distributed among three or four access points onto Pennsylvania and Laurel Avenues and would likely be spread throughout the day. It is anticipated that no traffic control or traffic operations would have to be modified as a result of this development. The Developer is proposing to construct a sidewalk for internal pedestrian circulation which will connect the east-west street to the looped street. This sidewalk will be owned and maintained by the Developer/future homeowners association. Staff recommends that the proposed sidewalk continue south to connect to the City's sidewalk on Laurel Avenue. There is no sidewalk proposed along Pennsylvania Avenue as part of the development. However, the plan states that there is space available for a sidewalk in the boulevard of Pennsylvania Avenue, and the narrative suggests that the Developer may be interested in constructing this sidewalk segment if the City would allow. Staff reviewed the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan and there is currently no sidewalk or trail identified along Pennsylvania Avenue South adjacent to this development. However, the City would support the Developer's construction of a public sidewalk in this location. If constructed to meet City standards and G:\Developments-Private\Laurel Ponds PUD\PrelimPUDReview_070314_laurelponds.docx Americans with Disabilities (ADA) standards, the City would consider owning and maintaining the sidewalk on Pennsylvania. The locations of sidewalks within this PUD should be discussed further with the Developer. Preliminary Plat The property within this PUD consists of two existing parcels which are not part of a recorded plat. The Developer proposes to combine the two parcels and subdivide them into 30 lots for detached townhomes and an outlot where the stormwater bioretention basin is proposed. The streets in this PUD are private and therefore there is no dedication of public right-of-way. There is also no dedication of public easements for drainage and utility purposes in this PUD. Therefore, it is assumed that the streets and utilities are proposed to be private. The details concerning the ownership and maintenance of utilities may need to be discussed further with the Developer. The proposed final plat must include the dedication of drainage and utility easements along the plat boundary consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. There is currently a 55-foot wide public easement for drainage, open space, and walkway purposes adjacent and parallel to Laurel Avenue along the entire width of the property. The easement was dedicated to the City by a previous property owner and stipulates that no structures or improvements of any type shall be permitted over, on, and across the easement area. The Developer is showing a reduction in the size of this easement from 55 feet to 30 feet in order to construct the five homes closest to Laurel Avenue. The narrative suggests that decks and patios may also be included in the design of the homes, which would encroach further than what is shown in the plans. The Laurel Avenue Greenbelt serves as a major buffer between the commercial/industrial uses along 1-394 and the residential neighborhoods to the north. The City has concerns about reducing the size of this particular easement, especially with industrial uses present across the street to the south, and recommends that the Developer make every attempt to design a development that preserves this easement. Preliminary Utility Plan The plans submitted by the Developer do not show the locations of the existing water and sanitary sewer services. Staff is assuming the existing services will be removed as part of the demolition. However, the Developer must identify the location of these services and their removal in the next plan submittal, as there may be additional street pavement cuts that result from these removals. The City's water system that provides service to this PUD has adequate capacity to accommodate the development. The Developer has proposed connecting to the City's watermain within Pennsylvania Avenue in three locations, and extending watermains into the development. The three watermain runs would follow the street alignments and each run is proposed to "dead end" with a hydrant at the east end of the run. In general, the City attempts to limit the construction of dead end watermains and hydrants, and encourages watermain loops in order to help ensure water flow during emergency situations. The details regarding the final design and location of the watermain and hydrants, and the ownership and maintenance responsibility will need to be discussed further with the Developer. Once determined, a maintenance agreement between the Developer/future homeowners association and the City, outlining the ownership and maintenance responsibilities, must be executed before the issuance of permits. G:\Developments-Private\Laurel Ponds PUD\PrelimPUDReview_070314_laurelponds.docx The proposed development is located upstream of sanitary sewer system capacity issues identified in the sewersheds along the 1-394 corridor. The City's sanitary sewer system is effectively at capacity in these locations and there is minimal capacity available for future redevelopment along the 1-394 corridor and areas upstream unless inflow and infiltration can be reduced throughout the sewersheds that are tributary to the capacity issues. In addition to the ongoing inflow and infiltration (1/1) reduction programs, the City is putting plans in place to reduce 1/1 in the City's portion of the sanitary sewer system in the 1-394 corridor over the next several years. Therefore, with continued inflow and infiltration reduction efforts, staff concludes that the existing wastewater system is adequate to accommodate the proposed development. Additional development and redevelopment within the 1-394 corridor sewersheds should be closely monitored to ensure that flows generated by redevelopment can be accommodated as 1/1 reductions occur. The Developer has proposed the extension of sanitary sewer mains which will connect to the City's sewer main within Pennsylvania Avenue in three locations, and then extend into the development. The sanitary mains generally follow the alignment of the proposed streets. The details regarding the final design and location of the sewer mains, and the ownership and maintenance responsibility will need to be discussed further with the Developer. Once determined, a maintenance agreement between the Developer/future homeowners association and the City, outlining the ownership and maintenance responsibilities, must be executed before the issuance of permits. The existing and proposed sanitary sewer services for this property must comply with the City's Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) Ordinance. City records indicate that 305 Pennsylvania Avenue South has received a Certificate of Inflow and Infiltration Compliance. The property at 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South has been inspected and is not compliant. Repair or removal of the sewer will be required and the Developer must enter into an 1/1 Deposit Agreement with the City to ensure that repairs or removal is completed. The Developer or builder will need to obtain a Certificate of 1/1 Compliance for each home prior to occupancy. The Developer must provide plan and profile sheets for all utilities with its Final PUD plan submittal. The Developer will be required to obtain Water and Sewer Permits, a Right-of-Way Management Permit, and possibly other permits for removal and installation of the utilities serving this site. Preliminary Grading Plan The Developer has submitted a preliminary grading plan which shows the re-grading of most of the property in order to construct the improvements proposed and create a variety of lots which consist of ramblers, split levels, lookouts, and walkouts. The plan shows the construction of two retaining walls to facilitate construction of the looped street, sidewalk, and parking bay on Lot 15. The plans also show the reconstruction of 70 feet of a failing concrete retaining wall located on the Workabilities' property adjacent to Lot 15. The entire wall is about 180 feet long and ranges in height from about 2 feet to 10 feet. The Developer must retain a geotechnical engineer to G:\Developments-Private\Laurel Ponds PUD\PrelimPUDReview_070314_laurelponds.docx inspect the entire retaining wall and associated soils immediately adjacent to the PUD, and provide a report to the City as part of the Final PUD submittal. Any additional repairs or structural improvements identified would need to be made as part of the development. The Developer must work with the owner of Workabilities on the details of the wall inspection and repair, and formal agreements or easements may be necessary. Stormwater Management The proposed development is within the Sweeney Lake sub-watershed of the Bassett Creek Watershed and is therefore subject to the review and comment of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). The plans indicate that most of the 3.31-acre site will be disturbed and graded, and an increase of approximately 18,700 square feet of impervious surface area is proposed. Therefore, the plans must include permanent stormwater quality best management practices that meet the BCWMC requirements for developments. This will likely include rate and volume control as well as water quality function. Stormwater calculations showing that the requirements of the City and the BCWMC are met must be submitted prior to the Final PUD plan submittal. Sweeney Lake is listed as an impaired water for nutrients (phosphorus) by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Review by the City and BCMWC will include an evaluation for compliance with the Sweeney Lake Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan. The Developer has proposed the construction of a bioretention basin in the south portion of the site, as well as perforated draintile within an engineered soil in the side and rear yards in the north portion of the site. The City will review the plans and stormwater calculations to determine if the proposed water quality best management practices meet the goals and policies set forth in the Sweeney Lake TMDL. The homes closest to the proposed bioretention basin do not appear to meet the 25-foot setback required in the City's Stormwater Management ordinance. Staff recommends that the City and Developer have further discussions regarding the public open space easement discussed earlier and the proximity of the homes to the bioretention basin. The proposed storm sewer system captures runoff from the private streets and some of the side and rear yards within the PUD. The storm sewer generally runs from north to south through the PUD with the main line running along the eastern boundary very close to the retaining walls. The storm sewer in this PUD will be privately owned and maintained by the Developer/homeowners association. The City has concerns about the Developer's ability to access and maintain this system in both the side and rear yard areas and also near the retaining walls. The City recommends that the Developer continue to explore alternative designs that would provide better access for future maintenance. All storm sewer facilities and stormwater quality treatment facilities that are part of this development will be owned and maintained by the Developer/future homeowners association. A maintenance agreement between the Developer/future homeowners association and the City, outlining the ownership and maintenance responsibilities, must be executed before the issuance of permits. G:\Developments-Private\Laurel Ponds PUD\PrelimPUDReview_070314_laurelponds.docx This development is subject to the City's Stormwater Management Ordinance. The City must approve the Stormwater Management Plans prior to submittal to the BCWMC for review. In addition, the project is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's NPDES Construction Storm Water Permit. A copy of this permit must be obtained by the Developer and provided to the City, prior to issuance of any permits to begin work on site. Tree Preservation Plan This PUD is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance and requires a Tree Preservation permit. The plans submitted with this application include a Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan. However, a tabulation of the existing significant trees, and the significant trees proposed for removal and replacement must also be submitted in order to perform a proper review. The City Forester will review the tabulation and plans in more detail, prior to Final PUD Plan submittal, to determine the level of mitigation required and if additional information is needed. Summary and Recommendations Engineering staff generally supports the Laurel Ponds PUD in concept; however, many details of the development still need to be determined. Based on the comments contained in this review, staff recommends having further discussions with the Developer before approval is recommended. The comments are summarized as follows: 1. The Developer is encouraged to explore alternative designs for the private east-west street and the layout of the lots in Phase 1, as discussed in this review. 2. Easements or agreements between the Developer and Workabilities must be drafted for any cross parking arrangement, retaining wall work, or other improvements on the Workabilities' property. These need to be recorded, and copies provided to the City, prior to Final PUD Plan approval. 3. Parking and access onto Pennsylvania Avenue will have to be discussed further by the Developer and the City before Final PUD Plan submittal. 4. The locations and design of sidewalks within this PUD should be discussed further with the Developer. 5. The details concerning the ownership and maintenance of utilities need to be discussed further with the Developer. 6. The proposed final plat must include the dedication of drainage and utility easements along the plat boundary consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 7. The Developer is encouraged to preserve the 55-foot wide public easement for drainage, open space, and walkway purposes adjacent and parallel to Laurel Avenue. 8. The Developer must identify the location of existing water and sewer services and the intent with respect to removal in the next plan submittal. 9. The details regarding the final design and location of the sanitary sewer, watermain and hydrants, and the ownership and maintenance responsibility will need to be discussed further with the Developer. 10. The property at 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South does not have a Certificate of Inflow and Infiltration Compliance. Repair or removal of the sewer will be required and the Developer must enter into an 1/1 Deposit Agreement with the City to ensure that repair or removal is completed. The Developer or builder will need to obtain a Certificate of 1/1 Compliance for each home prior to occupancy. &\Developments-Private\Laurel Ponds PUD\PrelimPUDReview_070314_laurelponds.docx 11. The Developer must provide plan and profile sheets for all utilities with its Final PUD plan submittal. 12. The Developer must retain a geotechnical engineer to inspect the concrete retaining wall and associated soils immediately adjacent to the PUD, on the Workabilities' property, and provide a report to the City as part of the Final PUD submittal. 13. The Developer must include permanent stormwater quality best management practices which meet BCWMC requirements and the Sweeney Lake TMDL Implementation Plan, as discussed in this review. 14. Stormwater calculations showing that the requirements of the City and the BCWMC are met must be submitted prior to the Final PUD plan submittal. 15. Staff recommends that the City and Developer have further discussions regarding the public open space easement along Laurel and the proximity of the homes to the proposed bioretention basin. 16. The Developer must submit a copy of the issued MPCA NPDES Construction Storm Water permit prior to issuance of a City Stormwater Management Permit. 17. The City recommends that the Developer continue to explore alternative designs for the storm sewer system that would provide better access for future maintenance. 18. The Developer must submit a tabulation of the existing significant trees, and the significant trees proposed for removal and replacement. The City Forester will review the tabulation and plans in more detail, prior to Final PUD Plan submittal, to determine the level of mitigation required and if additional information is needed. 19. The Developer must obtain permits from the City for Stormwater Management, Tree Preservation, Sanitary Sewer, Water, Storm Sewer, Right-of-Way Management, and any other permits that may be required for development of this site. 20. Subject to the review and comments of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Approval is also subject to the comments of the City Attorney, other City staff, and other agencies. Please feel free to call the Engineering Department if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Tom Burt, City Manager Chantell Knuass, Assistant City Manager/Interim Physical Development Director Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Mitch Hoeft, Utilities Engineer Mark Ray, Street Maintenance Supervisor Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester Kelley Janes, Utilities Supervisor Joe Fox, Water Resources Engineer John Crelly, Fire Chief Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Jerry Frevel, Building Official G:\Developments-Private\laurel Ponds PUD\PrelimPUDReview_070314_laurelponds.docx goldal #40" V Y Fire Department 763-593-8079 / 763-593-8098 (fax) Date: July 7, 2014 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Community Development Cc: Jeff Oliver, City Engineer From: John Crelly, Fire Chief Subject: Preliminary PUD—305 & 345 Pennsylvania Ave S—Laurel Ponds I have reviewed the preliminary PUD application for Laurel Ponds located at 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. Leading up to this review there have been a number of discussions and various proposals showing a wide range of concept ideas on how this area could be laid out to accommodate a number of single family detached homes. This submittal shows a south road that connects from Pennsylvania Avenue South to the Workability Parking Lot thus providing bi- directional access. The upper two streets are configured in a horse shoe style. The road overall width is 24 feet on the east/west surfaces and a reduced width of 16 feet on the east road connecting the middle and north roads thus forming the horse shoe. The plan that I am responding was received by the City on June 16, 2014 that included civil drawings C201 and C401 dated June 13, 2014. Listed below are my comments pertaining to this specific proposal. 1. The installation and maintenance of any fire hydrant shall be in accordance with the City of Golden Valley Public Works Department. Private fire hydrants located on private property shall be identified with a red paint color. This proposal shows the installation of three fire hydrants. I have concerns on the middle fire hydrant. First, are there concerns of this water line freezing due to its close proximity to the retaining wall (cold from the surface and from the side)? Second, the middle fire hydrant is located in direct line with the downward sloping road and will most likely be hit by a vehicle during slippery conditions. 2. The narrowing of the north south street forming the horse shoe that connects the middle and north road has been reviewed. This portion of the road will need to be posted "No Parking Fire Lane" in a fashion to protect our ability to maneuver a ladder truck/fire engine on these streets. The six parking stalls that are shown are acceptable as long as they do not encroach on the fire access road. Installation of No Parking Fire Lane signs shall be installed in accordance with the Golden Valley City Ordinance. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065, or e-mail icrelly@goidenvalleymn.gov VvTorkAbffftiesA July 8, 2014 Mayor Shep Harris Tom Burt, City Manager Jason Zimmerman, Planning Director Dear Gentleman, I, along with Brent Williams-Business Manager, have met with Don Jensen on more than one occasion to learn about the proposed Laurel Pond housing development to the west of our property. We feel that Don has been thorough and forthright in sharing development information with us via personal meetings and email correspondence. We feel that we have a good understanding of the expected impact on our property and business operations during construction. We have outlined our concerns to him and we have received satisfactory responses. Don has agreed to provide an overview of the project to our Board of Directors at our next meeting which is scheduled for Thursday, July 24th. We are confident our Board will also feel that the impacts to our property and business operations during construction will be tolerable and that the items outlined in legal documents will be considered acceptable. We intend to have all official documents reviewed by our legal counsel prior to final approval as Don has outlined in correspondence to us. Please let me know if you need anything further from us at this time. We look forward to welcoming our new neighbors! Sincerely, Luana Ball, Executive Director 763.541.1844 ext: 106 CC: Donald Jensen, Land Development Director Curt Fretham Cathy Chamberland 7400 Laurel Avenue, Golden Valley, MN 55426 763.541.1844 www.WorkAbilities.org 0 I ! ENGINEERING } ---- � SURVEYING I ENVIRONMENTAL _ m { PLANNING EVS,INC. 10025 Valley View Road Suite 140 _ Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344 Phone 952.646-0236 i - Fax'952-6 9-0290 i TO- PROOF vs-en-com PENN PNiKtN - 1 u Y LI } wo " � i ""- �!� "Ns �") — Preliminary PUD x � ! 1///>-,-sL {— - t wa--- r••nsy.,..,- ( t�Ill ..,� ) -._ g. , I - r,77 7LO- ( f 1 Lo CLIENT ' L SL/L SL SLW s -r Lakewest Development y SL— iI1 -I wo 0 c - PROJECT ri '^ ! r0 1 ' `� — _ 1 R_ �,,...,. Laurel Pond LO_ "ice _ { LOCATION f ;I t� tl3 --_wo- - �, , .. 'C4� y o 1 -'Lo_ Valley, N _ 11 _:! SHEET l"' iVE 1\ LO•--.. 77 / o en e -' _ Prel urinary Site Plan •, 7'RISER 1 !; . p_ !��' r►iilE' wo,{{ R \ ---•'R'SEa7N cAR<.cE-:• -„_ , 'd .. 2-7-RISERS IN GARA SL I WO 11 WO _._SL_ ,�'ft'SER IN GARARGE h ? LO 'aek i Al - _ i GUEST PARKOPTION _ ".- __ ... _... v ING "... -.: � _- a> `'� --� __-GU�6T PAR pp )i # DATEREVISION �1 - r _ y SL a WALL. _:- -` --.. --_ -_-- ,.$. A )..✓ g..` .....Lit.,,. NOTES LEGEND SINGLE FAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY VEHICLES DETAIL .- GROSS SITE= 331 AC PROPOSED BITUMINO OUTLOT A015AC -_.... _ ,,. _....,.__.....„_- _ = . Itj 1. DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT AND - i ARE TO BACK OF CURB AND EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS PROPOSED HEAVY DU NOTED OTHERWISE. ___ -^�A I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS 38.75 PLAN,SPL-'CLF9(:ATIUN,OR 2. CONCRETE SUPPLIERS ARE REQUIRED TO HAUL CONCRETE WASTE amu^ PROPOSED CONCRET ���'3' � REPORT t['ASPREPARLiD BY ME AND WASH OFF-SITE �~� - "� i ,�v -- y ORUNDER MY DIRECT PROPOSED CONCRE *- - - ---- - SUPERVISION AND THAT[AM A 3. EXISTING STRIPING ON POWERS BLVD AT LAKE DRIVE WILL NEED r DULL'LICENSED PROFESSIONAL _ .... , TO BE CHANGED TO ACCOMODATE TURN LANES.EXISTING TIPOUT CURB(66.12) I ENGINEER UNDER THELAWS OF STRIPING SHALL BE OBLITERATED BY GRINDING OR H - ..t= SANDBLASTING. NEW STRIPES SHALL BE LATEX WITH 6'EDGE LINE. - — _ THF.STATE OF AfiNNF.SOTA. STRUCTURE ac I on..n 9T FT muvlm�m wl�c 4. ALL CONCRETE CURB SHALL BE 86-12 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. NUMBER OF LOTS 30 UNITS 6.75 20.50 {} STREET LIGHT _ SETBACK _ �- �� ✓-� ” 6a;14 14"',h--- 5. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS ti-� -= 1993 Ladder T Lick feet REQUIRED.DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED a STOP SIGN LAUREL AVE 30 FT T DATE 611312014 OVER ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES AND UP TO ONE(1)FOOT ABOVE THEPENNSYLVANIA AVE 13 FT Width 7.22- REGISTRATION NUMBER 21836 HIGH WATER LEVEL OF ALL PONDS. STREET SIGN --- —� 9 Track 7.22 FRONT YARD ID FT FROM DRIVE ISLE _ _ q"; R SIDE YARD SFT Lock f0 Lock Time :6.0 ® 'POND BUFFER"SIGN REAR YARD15FT �' `� F— I, L 10 Steering Angle 33.3 MINIMUM DRIVE ISLE(PARKING ON ONE SIDE) 24 FT B TO B '-1971 !.r dd±.r TA„.,k 111 I DRAWN BY CHECKED BY PARK MONUMENT SIGN wo WALKOUT ZONING DMS/ZRE DJN/ZRE LO LOOKOUTEXISTING ZONING 1-394 MIXED USED 6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IR-1) DATti PROJECT# R RAMBLER PROPOSED ZONING PUD -,} 6.13.2014 2011-038.1 SOG SLAB ON GRADE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS.AREA 129AC, (39'K) PROPQ IMP AREA 172 AC (52%) SL SPLIT LEVEL NOTE PERCETAGEE,OF THE SITE THAT IS PROPOSED TO 6E IMPERVIOUS FALLS UNDER THE PERCENTAGE ALLOWED IN THE REZONED PROPERTY0 30 60 SHEET DUMBER TUG TUCK UNDER GARAGE SCALE IN FEET C201 PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLANS � F O R ENGINEERING SURVEYING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING EVS,INC. 10025 Valley View Road,Suite 140 Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344 LAUREL PONDPhone:952-646-0236 Fax:952-646-0290 www.evs-eng—in Golden Valley, MNPreliminaryPUD Presented By: CLIENT Lakewest Development Lakewest Development PROJECT Laurel Pond LOCATION Golden Valley, MN AREA MAP SHEETTITLE SHEET 4 SHEET INDEX ace Q) c�YQm SHEET DESCRIPTION C100 TITLE SHEET v room hk rn u C101 SURVEY RaRew�YPd PROJECT CONTACT LIST C102 PRELIMINARY REMOVALS,TREE PRESERVATION&DEMOLITION PLAN # DAZE REVISION DEVELOPER LANDSCAPING C201 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Lakewest Development EVS,INC. 14525 Highway 7,Suite 335 10250 VALLEY VIEW ROAD Minnetonka,MN 55345 SUITE 123 C202 PRELIMINARY PLAT holsky • lea, TEL:952-930-3000 EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344 sFAX:952-653-2198 TEL.(952 646-0236d0nycA'VES CONTACT DONALDJENSEN FAX:(952)546-0290C301 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL,DETAILS wcsr Ir, q aondEIVILEN INEE Iwestdev.wm CONTACT:KATHVO'CONNELL gcornC401 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN EMAIL:koconnell@evs-eng.comCIVIL ENGINEERSITE LOCATION EVS,INC. ARCHIrecr L101 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE DETAILS 10250 VALLEY VIEW ROAD WELLS&COMPANY ARCHITECTS p m3a5 Pe,mvrvama A--scum ! TEL:612-669-2052 IAve ,t, Laurel Ave , ^men•Jaue,,NNSswzs Laurel 4f- - SUITE 123 coNrncr:wlLUAMwELLs L102 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN l d4 EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344 TEL:(952)646-0236 EMAIL:wellsandcompany@yahoo.com r,ers&Concepts.n. FAX(952)646-0290 A1* CONTACT:ZAC ESSIG I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS EMAIL zessig@evs-eng.com A2 PENNSYLVANIA AVE STREET ELEVATIONS AND TYP HOUSE ELEVATION PIAN,SPECIFICATION,OR LAND SURVEYOR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME Ergolet Anwm4ii, EVS,INC. A3 FRONT HOUSE ELEVATIONS, INTERIOR PRIVATE RD,ST ELEVATIONS OR UNDER MY DIRECT 10250 VALLEY VIEW ROAD SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A A4 REAR HOUSE ELEVATIONS UPGRADE OPTIONS DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL. SUITE 123 ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF >s Bmthane EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344 THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. m TEL(952)646-0242 A5 FLOOR PLANS � FAX:(952)646-0290 CONTACT:MICHAEL WILLIAMS EMAIL:mwilliams@evs-eng.com *NOT INCLUDED IN THIS SUBMITTAL David Nash DATE 6/1312014 REGISTRATION NUMBER 21836 DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DMS/ZRE DJN/ZRE DATE PROJECT# 6.13.2014 2011-038.1 SHEET NUMBER 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET C100 I.O- I a 1 $TCB ri.1 I I I TALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE IN TERMS OF US SURVEY FEET I U RIM=884.9 EWALD CONTOURS ARE IN 1 FOOT INTERVALS BENC ELEVATION=888.521 HMARK TNH 8115_ - ;n S. IINV. 880.0 NV.=880 HEIGHTS RIM C8895.2 _ W LU ST I0 LU B#42.3 HORIZONTAL DATUM '�. _' S. _ 0 SS MH#654 ^sr ST CB 81.2 N.INV.=a90.5 m Z -RIM=895.5 I RIM=684.Q_ ('(� RIM=885.3 N.INV.-890.6 ! W W S.INV.=892.9 ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS HENNEPIN COUNTY N INV=871.8 t_ • I \ DST MH#42 2ND II COORDINATE SYSTEM,SOUTHERN ZONE.NAM3.1996. S.INV.=871.8 :\ E INV.= 6 RIM 893 a d Q j $TCB#421 ADD Q VERTICAL DATUMiBENCHMARK 880. E.INV.=8711 - -._- -'. T r N.INV.=890.0 12^R -RM.896.6 I N _ IT W INV=871.2 _ CP INV 892 TOP NUT ELEVATION HYDRANT 114 STMH#1A __8_CIP 7g - I �V/ NW '` 'S ST OB#42.4 RI MH ELEVATIGN-8861%FEET RIM=897.6 RIM-904.3 RIM.684.1��. -�' -- [LOCATED IX4 LAUREL AVENUE APPRO%MATELY 325 F'r EAST OF E INTERSECTION OF LAUREL AVENUE'PENNSYLVANIA AVENUEf �" ENGINEERING -�-- �� -�. ���---' -- __ J I ' BE INV.=893.8 N.INV.=892.7 WEST LINE OF THE NE I/40F SURVEYING N.INV =878.3 _ 4 --_. --_ �� S.INV=892.4 s wv.=a7e.3 ° M THE NW 114 TOPNUTOFHYDRANT115 ENVIRONMENTAL •¢�_ OF SHE E.INV. sr .•12•RCP t N + T._. � - - -- - 9"VSA - - _ 6'CIP "�- �_ 5 ELEVATION-886.521 W.INV.=878.5_ _ 12"RCPo I -�- I �'CQ -iI`�^l� ----- --_ _,---. :\ (LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF LAUREL PLANNING i - _ � - :��_�: AVENUE PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE( P --'� -- _ _ EV$:INC. i,- •'� '��• .- 'T^0 p-_,�_� � - -�A�tNIA -�,�•__ -- �.__,_-_ \ -� EL: TIIXJ PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 10250 Valley View Road,Suite 123 x ST MH#1 'i was_ o 12' CP - :c -AVENU -:_-�. - - __--_.__ 6"CIP\ \ EdenP Prairie,Minnesota 55344 RIM=884.3 I EAST sr. / - ��._-_ -- -�- Ph Fax 952-6460290 'P�•"-m s : 52-646-0236 N.INV.=879.4 I� ,r� ROW LINE F_OR I'- 12'RCP .---i_' °moi--e� 407.11�'- 9'V r 60, PENNSYLVANIA AV 6�- .� �-•�� �-�- NEINV.: I -_. - -a�. ,. _ ___ www.evscng.com ENUE{ \ -�-.- - ._ E.IN I I(i - 5J _ PP E S.INV.-a7s.o ti _ - 4 E -I a ---e° °38' ` W.INV..879.0 .' I r I NS l N 0 ST CB#1.4 I / • ' I - I ;j _. I O ��� JF'Y�t+MC p r RIM=883.8 I a I' 1\ \ N.INV.=880.4 I I 11Wo �� aoo m / _-. \� \ STCB#1.3 a• RIM=883.8 S INV-=880.0 v •I-•I W> ,IIfIi N I `voJ mi�`Po0 Ns T/ANMPPIE PDE ^ GRAPHIC SCALE LESW INV. O 0 O 30 15 30 SQ Z C 177QZ IN FEET 92.2 O T Q HOUSE 1 inch = 30 feet. I000miiiiiiii J � 1 c0 .W � -- � i ;' l BUSHES'. o VICINITY MAP I I J • w ¢..,,. z m -(- - OV RHANG 12.8 11,Ve w g I s ^ J I - I L-- / O �I m S a I �/ I �( Q oo N 29.33`I T - F- �_ 3 O M I ` I I ,_ �e+--__ a� EXISTING BUILDING N ai 18.4 )1 m -°�' j 7 Q 10(i _D. I 15,957 SQUARE FEET - J W F w � _ FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION=901.1 FEET I - z z ft...+• i Z V I i w 3 p +0e 9 m I I - -_ ). GARAGE I Z°' ce,oc�r�:-s i mrn `1 m _ ILL! - - I O ) m \'� - „p� ti o I I -_ ¢:v I I __. -- 55.-.------- II I m m o \._--_- \ ° 47.1 :1 Ids ..."'•. 5 \ o.-. 0- _ _ W.LINE OF 'Pm'N I 2.9 / _ 9 r V I 5 i 354. 1 0 PROJECT r X09. m I �.: _,p-._ - LWITH 1 oy - 1 5.2 :gym 199 10 J� 98b a - '�� I ° _''f--._ J '� / - NE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 �' Laurel Pond `RkRCEL B\ -\t.• ,y w z / = --_ _ t • -.- - PS-=-,� \ � �'_ 3537 �_ -"P gecM -� N.LM-OF THE IN THE z ST H. __ d°g 3j,_y-3 1 ENT FOR THET Vw. 971 L RIM=8 .a IRON PE _ c�'�-- _ 23..L9 -ECIAI- ER -/_ `l.J! / z w LOCATION FASEMEN7 F it Z_� .00.0 O OR THE TRAN DOC:NO_ 121da a F N 1 V.;87 ELECTRICAL ENER $MISSION OF- ..__ i r - NE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 w e-) O S.1 V.''a7 ! GY PER DOC,NO.3212117 _ _- - ..� as S1 OF - 'O; _ _ - _ N I ,-PINCHED PIPE E O T zo Golden Valley, MN 777 ���,1._1 E.1 V. 87 388-- -_. - _ ___ - (� '91 \ �� 1 N �,- 6933'' 9aJ� y`7a9674" TM .PP�-_1_�__ \? - Iy' woo ET S�+HE e Z w W.NJi 8 4 ..- - I .I ❑ C7 Survey 60 m w�• - - CB EE I - \ ` - cit - ^"��.."� t- p SS MH#653 _ S!1 ✓8 88~2 - / _ ----�0 a"'-b9 E3 u' t _ pa \72 00.0 /: TCB#6 - IM 882.7 -� �5 ' -,� 1 RIM- v - BB3.4 J. -Bl10.5 I(y I \ u] " < #9 0 - .. LOT 10 N.INV-8691 ' .INV. 879.4 , :� �� \ \ T D - II tr zn E.INV-8690 ��. I i 07.0.-i-99567 ' \ .L OMCR`1' _ W.INV.=870.4 D - - # DATE REVISION CSI EXISTING BUILDINGlC`.. ssx \ lc \�2AAC°L.A 80290 34- SH11gkli VEGEf-ATI , COLpNI AL RCB Be82.7 �. 6 _ '� _� ,8�1 \ _..I RINGS N.INV. 877.7 4 L:- IFFICP I WORKABILITIES,INC. �P geg _ SECOND ADDITION " !1 888 I SECo MARK J.BASS&MARLA HARRIS GOO EN VALLEY, \'C ` p,7 I PA19,10 a t H -. 170 OREGON AVENUE SOUTH S.INV._877 8 ` \ - 887 L��8 / I + GOLDEN VALLEY,MN 55426 J -N LINFOh'- 0 '- 883 .a3s1 Kj N,E- NVJ GOLDEN VALLEY,MN 55426 -� ■SURVEY NOTES ■PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 89Za�d es< IY- SM 8881.5 I I The property address is 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South,Golden Valley,MN 55426. Parcel A: \891 , E.LINE OF NE 1/4 OF - -- _ �'. NW 1/4 SEC.! -- 1. The property identification number is 05-117-21-21-0074 and 05-117-21-21-0004. That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5,Township 117,Range 21, _ N.INV.=877.7 2. The property is 144,235 square feet,more or less,or 3.31 acres,more or less. Hennepin County,Minnesota,described as follows:Commencing at a point on the East line of said _- '�`- --- _ S.INV.=878.7 3. The property is located in the city of Golden Valley zoning district 1-394 Mixed Use. Northeast quarter of the Northwest Quarter,distant 778.58 feet South of the Northeast comer thereof; I ` \ I 77i� a j thence West parallel with the North line of said Northeast quarter of the Northwest Quarter to its - 1 NE COR.OF NE 1/4 OF_,' I z Building Setbacks intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 250.3 feet East of the West line of said Northeast Front Yard=75 feet(Nonresidential or Mixed Use) I NW 1/4 SEC.5 ` f0 Quarter of the Northwest Quarter as measured along a line parallel with the North line of said Northeast I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN Front Yard=30 feel(Residential Use adjacent to R7 zoning district) it TREE IDENTIFICATION TABLE Front Yard=70 feel(Residential Use) Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;said point being the actual point of beginning of the tract to be OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR � described;thence North parallel with the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a ■LEGEND UNDER MY DIRECT'SUPERVISION rn Side=50 feet(adjoining R1 zoning district) 1 GREEN ASH 11' 31 SUGAR MAPLE 8' distance of 84.72 feet;thence West parallel with the North line of said Northeast Quarter of the AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED 2 RIVER BIRCH 15" 32 SUGAR MAPLE 11' Side-10 feet(adjoining all other zoning districts) Northwest quarter a distance of 250.3 feet to the West line of said Quarter-Quarter;thence South along o 3 RIVER BIRCH 10' 33 SUGAR MAPLE T Rear-50 feet(adjoining Rt zoning district) FOUND IRON MONUMENT - CONIFEROUS TREE(SEE TABLE FOR TREE INFORMATION) PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR UNDER H Rear=10 feel adjoining g ) the West line of said quarter-Quarter a distance then.407.915 feet;thence East parallel with the North line THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF 4 GREEN ASH 9' 34 SUGAR MAPLE tt' (ad'oinin all Other tonin districts of said Quarter-Quarteradistance of 250.3 feet;thence North parallel with the West line of said O BOLLARWPOST DECIDUOUS TREE(BEE TABLE FOR TREE INFORMATION) 5 GREEN ASH 11' 35SUGAR MAPLE 10' MINNESOTA. m Quarter-Quarter a distance of 323.195 feet to the actual point of beginning.Except the Westerly 30 feet - 4 6 GREEN ASH 6- 38 SUGAR MAPLE 7' Parking Setbacks - STREET SIGN - BUSH 7 CHERRY fi" 37SUGAR MAPLE T Front=15 feet thereof,according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, 8 HACKBERRV 6' 38 SUGAR MAPLE 9' side=15 feet Minnesota. ANCHOR -a- OVERHEAD ELECTRIC Michael R.Williams 8 JUNIPER 20'DRIP LINE 39 SUGAR MAPLE 10• Rear=15 feet Parcel 0: DATE 05-23-2014 0 POWERPOLE • UNDERGROUND GAS 10 COTTONWOOD 42" 40 BLUE SPRUCE 20' REGISTRATION NUMBER 44076 11 COTTONWOOD 36" 41 BLUE SPRUCE 20' That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarteraf Section S,Township 117,Range 21, Impervious Coverage pa County, GAS MANHOLE UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTICS - 12 COTTONWOOD 48" 42 BLUE SPRUCE 15' pin to Minnesota,described rt follows:Commencing at point on the East linen said Maximum=65 percent Northeast quarter of the Northwest Quarter,distant 778.58 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof; f3 COTTONWOOD 48" 43 COTTONWOOD 60" O GAS METER -t UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE 14 COTTONWOOD 48" 44 BLUE SPRUCE 15' 4. Sanitary,Storm,and Water Main Structures are numbered per utility plans provided by the City thence West parallel with the North line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest quarter to its � of Golden Valle DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 75 COTTONWOOD 32" 45 80%ELDER 6 TRUNKS,EACH AT d" Y intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 250.30 feet East of the West line of Northeast [� GAS VAVLE SANITARY SEWER LINE It 16 COTTONWOOD 32" 46 BLUE SPRUCE 13" 5. Location of utilities(representative examples of which are listed below)existing on or serving Quarter of the Northwest Quarter as measured along a line parallel with the North line of said Northeast m 17 COTTONWOOD 32" 47 DECIDUOUS 24" the surveyed property as determined by observed evidence together with evidence from plans quarter of the Northwest Quarter,thence South parallel with said West line of the Northeast Quarter of O TELEPHONE MANHOLE -•- STORM SEWER LINE LCC MRW 18 GREEN ASH 28" 68 ASH 18" obtained from utility companies or provided by client,and markings by utility companies and the Northwest Quarter a distance of 323.195 feet t0 the actual point of beginning of the land to he herein pTM TELEPHONE PEDESTAL STORM SEWER CULVERT 19 GREEN ASH 32" 49 DECIDUOUS 24" other appropriate sources.The surveyor does not warrant that the underground utilities shown described;thence South an said parallel line 199.10 feet,more or less,to the South line of said Northeast DATE PROJECT SI a 20 GREEN ASH 28" 50 DECIDUOUS 12• hereon,d any,are in the exact location as indicated,although the surveyor does certify that Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;thence West along said South line to the West line of said Northeast Qs SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE ---- --- WATERMAIN 2/ SUGAR MAPLE 9' 51 DECIDUOUS e" they are located as accurately as possible from information available.The surveyor makes no Quarter of the Northwest quarter;thence North along said West line to its intersection with a line drawn 22 SUGAR MAPLE 10" 52 DECIDUOUS 12" guarantees that the underground utilities shown comprise all such utilities in the area,either in parallel with the North line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter from the actual point of ® CATCH BASIN(CURB TYPE) EDGE OF vEGEATION 05-23-2014 2011-038.1 P5 23 SUGAR MAPLE 8' 53 DECIDUOUS 15' service or abandoned.The surveyor has not physically located the underground utilities.Utilities beginning;thence East to the actual point of beginning.Except the Westerly 30 feet and the Southerly 50 ® CATCH MIN(BEEHIVE) ASPHALT SURFACE 0 24 SUGAR MAPLE 12' S4 DECIDUOUS 18' are shown to Level D and Level C.Pursuant to ms 216A contact Gopher State One Call at feet thereof,according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, , 25 SUGAR MAPLE 17 55 DECIDUOUS 18" Minnesota. © STORM SEWER MANHOLE SHEET NUMBER 651-454-0002 prior to any excavation.Underground utilities as shown are based upon 26 SUGAR MAPLE 1Y 56 DECIDUOUS 12' CONCRETE SURFACE 27 SUGAR MAPLE 15' 57 DECIDUOUS 18' available maps and locates by utility locators from Gopher State One Call ticket no.111603156. .ta GATE VALVE h 28 SUGAR MAPLE 10' S8 DECIDUOUS e' The locators may have Or may not have located all underground Utilities. Parcel C: C 101 29 SUGAR MAPLE 10' S9 DECIDUOUS t 8" 6. Field work was completed on June 24,2011. The Wert 250.3 feet of the South 100.0 feet of the North 693.86 feet of the Northeast quarter of the <T HYDRANT CURB AND GUTTER ry 30 SUGAR MAPLE 8" 60 DECIDUOUS t8" 7. A portion of the improvement and topographical features on Parcel 3 were not field located.t Northwest Quarter.Except the Westerly 30 feet thereof,Hennepin County,Minnesota. ® POST INDICATOR VALVE 61 MAPLE 60" NOTE:The property description for Parcel C above was taken from an abbreviated version per the Pe tnl OW WATER MANHOLE Hennepin County Tax Department y a S7 CB#1.1 RIM=884.9 EWALD - S.INV.INV­80.0 I HEIGHTS � NI -8 890.5 m � ST CB#42.3 S.INV.=880.0 /( ST CB#1.2 Z RIM 895.5 RIM-885.3 N.INV.-890.6 W W S.INV.=892.9 E.INV.=880.6 > > 2ND ST MH#42 ,1#654 r-42 T _{ RIM:893.8 J QQ ST CB#42.1 ADDITI N I ENGINEERING -� I N.INV.=890.0 12"RCP RIM=896.4 /88871.8 \ I` "CIP \�6 ) NW INV. 892.5 SURVEYING \ RIM 8976 I I ENVIRONMENTAL I,=871.8 flIM=897.6 1.=87'•1 ar-�_ m \ BE INV.=893.8 WEST PLANNING V.=8712 U I o SS MH#1461 THE LINE OF THE NE 1/4 OF EVS,INC. RIM=904.3 NW 1/40F SECTION 10025 Valley View Road,Suite 140 12"RCP �� 400 L,n9'VSP .5,1 6"CIP \N.INV.=092.7 �_ 5 12'RC I I I 1 1 m Eden Prairi Minn sota 55344 Phone:952-646-0236 m b I � � PE \\ \ Fax:952646-0290 -a4..J-V.- _ _ \ �}- ''�?�I Nle/ AV www.ev nlI c rn \'„'F- o \ ( 12" CPI J ,,/1 I I 6"CIP\ \ _ I EAST ROW LINE EOR\�I ` `�_�_ ` _ 712'RCP / 9'VSP -- ST CB#1 3 PENNSYLVgRIq AVENUE \ \ _ \ ' i I \�- / RIM= .8 a ',#- v S.INV. I \ � }� Preliminary PUD \ I'11J / 0�1 I ' / #19 \ FIELD LOCATE,PLUG 8 { 820 e o ABANDON EXISTING WATER AND SANITARY o^ SERVICES AT R/O/W.\ - ¢ ^ 41 #2 - q \\ \ I ' N I I I I I m I \ e �I I I J Yr$mo� 0 31 � /�/1 � CLIENT I W o �o A I A t� I root' / �( \ v l N I z< I \ I 13 I I i I I I \• /g ; i Is j ' I I 32 '� 'r PIPE W/ � II / I r I Lakewest Development Z N I I I 1 I 1 I I I v !yam i // �IMPI`D^PALS 4741" W V It' ' I/ I I PROJECT 13 a' V I I I 1 1 I I /ll ¢ a oIl w \ Z Z I / _ 92.2 1�oT 1 I I Laurel Pond W io ao N e IIII I I 1I IlI A�IP 4BUSHES / '# y? I II I LOCATION� 5J Golden Valley, MN f.1 Vo, /// J <z) SIIEET 29 pa.a I «IZQEXISTING BUILDING Preliminary 5.957 SQUARE FEET I1 11 Removals, FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION=901.1 FEET Z Tree Preservation& #5 - w U(. g ; w3 C�pg r l II I Ili s°1 a `\/ w \ t_ \ � I I t / / o v III I �aaAG I =Io Demolition Plan J \ X \ I I I I '� 1° 47.1 ° 1 1 1 / 55 r#11 I I I I I I r a Qmo 1 s 1 1 I I I %'12.9 '�, P 6.5 # LINE PARALLEL WITH 13 41 199.10- e#101 I I 1 I 1 1 SALVAGE IF W.LINE OF 5.2 I 1 1 / #61 e 9� \ POSSIBLE NE 114 OF NW 1/4 I 1 I I i I I % / 1 1/ Os -_� - EA.SEd6EdlT-Fpg q III (I I N.L/t4JE OF THE IN 250.3'OI.T.E rwn w IRON PE EASEM '_ �a'�9s3_' - E6ECI8 TBA�I 97"1 S 100.0'OF THE N. OF ///Z< ENT fOR7HE TRA P_Eg�C- / ���-� 'fiLi ELECT NSMISSION OF - --_\ �'�=•�_\ \ '..._ - _ I I�e1t I NE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 ! RICAL ENERGY pE �N0.3 7 R DOC,NO.3272177 _ po -d 6 e Id I I I I 'PINCHED PIPE / _l / 2 W w # DATE REVISION so Wo'=o .1 CB c0 ST CB#6 _ RIM=8827 'aT\ \ - // N.INV.=8 0.5 ANA EA ON THE NEIGHBORS'EXISTING PARKING LO SHALL \\ s-=-.-_-�•� \/('/ LOT 1 O S.INV.=89.4 1�1 BE DESIGNATED WITHIN AN EASEMENT AS NON-BUSINESS AN AREA OF THE EXISTING RETAINING WALL IS \ �,\� �9020 y \�\\ \� - -------916-- '-B _ 1I�,� 7, I \HOURS ONLY(TOWABLE)GUEST PARKING.TO BE OUTLINED SEPARATING AND SHALL BE REPAIRED IN COORDINATION \ \\\ -98g= i8" I PER AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNERS. WITH THE PROPOSED SITE DESIGN.FINAL SITE 8 GRADING �t .00 \\� _ - �p+� � G' I EXISTING BUILDING PLAN MAY INCLUDE STEPS AND HEIGHTENED WALL. \ \�\�P'.0.8 _ -g I / l 20 STALLS ARE GENERALLY OUTLINED HERE. 93= - / EXTENTS OF IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED PER\ ` \(;AR=E ?- MY\ '\��L 1 CO ~L 15'RCP� 6 I / 22 LO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNERS. \\ 1 \\- ��`\�`�`-__ RINGS ITIQN WORKABILITIES, ADD 7400 LAUREL AVENUE \Q ` \ - NOTE TO CONTRACTOR: - SECOND MARK J.SASS&MARLA HARRIS O a y GOLDEN VALLEY,MN 55426 \�\ \\` -TREES OFFSITE BAY BE REMOVED AS 170 OREGON AVENUE SOUTH / 1 \\ EEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PER THE I GOLDEN VALLEY,MN 55426 \ _ EIGHBORS'APPROVAL.CONTACT PROJECT IDENTIFICATION TABLE&SCHEDULE ANAGER FOR ADDITIONAL DIRECTION. I # SPECIES DIAMETER STATUS REPLACE # SPECIES DIAMETER STATUS REPLACE RESULTS X697-- ----�_ -_ E.LINE OF NE 1/4 OF 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS _ _ NW 1/4 SEC.5 PLAN,SPECIFICATION,OR 1 GREEN ASH 11" REMOVE 2 31 SUGAR MAPLE 9' REMOVE 2 TOTAL CALIPERS IN.)IN SURVEY-1,111 - _ "� =_�_ _ _ 7.7 ( - _ \ ) /L_ REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME 3 7 I 2 RIVER BIRCH 15' REMOVE 2 32 SUGAR MAPLE 11" REMOVE 2 __ "��1 - ____ _ OR UNDER MY DIRECT TOTAL CALIPERS(IN.)ON SITE=1,023 3 RIVER BIRCH 10' REMOVE 2 33 SUGAR MAPLE 9' REMOVE 2 \ 1`-I I I n8•� SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A 4 GREEN ASH 9' REMOVE 2 34 SUGAR MAPLE 11" REMOVE 2 TOTAL REMOVED ON SITE(IN.)-88% I I NE COR.OF NE 1/4 OF DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL 5 GREEN ASH ,1" REMOVE 2 35 SUGAR MAPLE 10" REMOVE 2 TOTAL TREES IN SURVEY=61NW 1/4 SEC. \ ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF 6 GREEN ASH 6" SAVE 36 SUGAR MAPLE 7" REMOVE 2 IN I THE STATE OF MNESOTA. 7 CHERRY 6' SAVE 37 SUGAR MAPLE 7" REMOVE 2 TOTAL TREES ON SITE=58 8 HACKBERRY 6" SAVE 38 SUGAR MAPLE 9" REMOVE 2 TOTAL TREES REMOVED ON SITE-45 9 JUNIPER 20'DRIP LINE SAVE 39 SUGAR MAPLE 10' REMOVE 2 TOTAL REMOVED ON SITE PERCENTAGE=78% 10 COTTONWOOD 42" REMOVE 4 40 BLUE SPRUCE 20" REMOVE 2 LEGEND David Nash 11 COTTONWOOD 36" REMOVE 4 41 BLUE SPRUCE 20" REMOVE 2 DATE 611312014 12 COTTONWOOD 48" REMOVE 4 42 BLUE SPRUCE 15" REMOVE 2 PERCENT OF TREE REMOVAL(#): REGISTRATION NUMBER 21936 13 COTTONWOOD 48" REMOVE 4 43 COTTONWOOD 60' REMOVE 2 PROTECT TREE 14 COTTONWOOD 48" REMOVE 4 44 BLUE SPRUCE 15" REMOVE 2 ALLOWABLE=47.5% ® PROTECT EXISTING RETAINING WALL 15 COTTONWOOD 32' REMOVE 4 45 BOX ELDER 6TRUNKS,EACH AT 4"SAVE ACTUAL=78% 16 COTTONWOOD 32" REMOVE 4 46 BLUE SPRUCE 13' REMOVE 2 ® REMOVETREE REPLACEMENT=30.5%-45 TREES x 30.5%=14 17 COTTONWOOD 32" REMOVE 4 47 DECIDUOUS 24" REMOVE 2 ® REMOVE BUILDING AND ANCILLARY STRUCTURES DRAWN BY CHF,CKED BY 18 GREEN ASH 28" REMOVE 4 48 ASH 18" REMOVE 2 (FROM LARGEST REMOVED TO SMALLEST) ® REMOVE STAIRS 19 GREEN ASH 32" REMOVE 6 49 DECIDUOUS 24" REMOVE 2 ® REMOVE UTILITY(E.G.SERVICES) DMS/ZRE DJN/ZRE 20 GREEN ASH 28" REMOVE 4 50 DECIDUOUS 12" SAVE REPLACEMENT PER CATEGORY 8: O REMOVE PAVEMENT SECTION 21 SUGAR MAPLE 9' REMOVE 2 51 DECIDUOUS 8" SAVE NUMBER REQUIRED=52 ® BITUMINOUSCUT DATE PROJECT# 22 SUGAR MAPLE 10' REMOVE 2 52 DECIDUOUS 12" SAVE 23 SUGAR MAPLE 8' REMOVE 2 53 DECIDUOUS 15" SAVE NUMBER PROPOSED-69 24 SUGAR MAPLE 12" REMOVE 2 54 DECIDUOUS 18' SAVE TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. 6.13.2014 2011-038.1 25 SUGAR MAPLE 12' REMOVE 2 55 DECIDUOUS 18" SAVE -�j- 26 SUGAR MAPLE 12" REMOVE 2 56 DECIDUOUS 12' SAVE REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR REPLACE SIZE, 27 SUGAR MAPLE 15" REMOVE 2 57 DECIDUOUS 18' SAVE SPECIES AND LOCATION. 28 SUGAR MAPLE 10' REMOVE 2 58 DECIDUOUS 8' SAVE SHEET NUMBER 29 SUGAR MAPLE 10' REMOVE 2 59 DECIDUOUS 18' SAVE 0 30 60 30 SUGYfFtMAPLE 8" REMOVE p 60 DECIDUOUS 18"60REM SCALE IN FEET C102 61 MAPLE ' REMOVE 6 L_ r I - r � W % — n I ENGINEERING ¢ 00 J D I SURVEYING G ENVIRONMENTAL M PLANNING -- -- EVS,INC. 10025 Valley View Road,Suite 140 --�- �_ Eden Praine,Minnesota 55344 _ Phone:952-646-0236 — PENNS Fax 952-646-0290 -- — NIA AV —J—JJJ www.eva—g—rri PROOF OFI . PARKING N5° _ lIl _ 38'44 THE So LEV ID RASIDEWA�LK THIN SL/yy ,I _ ,� LEVARD OF SIDE LK AVE �. Preliminary PUD SL OP �- i — I- - - - I & wo I' N — — — SL/LO I N I` SL/WO I '-O— — — — i_ — — 3L/L0 CLIENT • C O N OCcl -� I SL — -� — —,}, — — — g Lakewest Development X 3 o— — — — — A SOG PROJECT Cl) r0 I -- — — — — — — o R _ I Laurel Pond LO GARAGE _ — I I I SL/WO I = _ — — — —au+ACE I LOCATION I m ��z y — — - -, SL m I m W wo L — o — Lo Golden Valley, MN _� — — R ai SHEET _ t ' MSE � Lo Preliminary Site Plan I �o SL/ wo z SLRIS — i —SFR IN GABA i k w0 R SL n+ I Z—'j I` R18ER M GARAGE LO r I 2'r R18ER8 ( IN GARAGE NI SL/wo I SL ar I I I g wo R 1 -' Z SL N O) I---- �_ — 1 a '�j T"RIBER IN GARAGE a LO + f RETAINING yyAl1A h (— I GUEST PARKING _ — — �/ ,\ J� — is ��= SIDEWALK GUS -y- -I-- # DATE REVISION IMPROVED - _ _ --- - -�—- EXISTING RETAINING WALL 35° I I . NOTES LEGEND SINGLE FAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY VEHICLES DETAIL PROPOSED BITUMINOUS PAVING GROSS SITE= 3.31 AC OUTLOT A= 0.15 AC 1. DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT AND ARE TO BACK OF CURB AND EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVING NET SITE AREA= 3.16 AC C" NOTED p NOTED OTHERWISE. NUMBER OF LOTS30 LOTS w.R44'L , I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS � = - �_- MAX 10-12 U/AC H. k - PLAN,SPECIFICATION,OR 2. CONCRETE SUPPLIERS ARE REQUIRED TO HAUL CONCRETE WASTE PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK REQUIRED DENSITY= AND WASH OFF-SITE ---� PROPOSED DENSITY= 9.5 U/AC 111 "'3'^` --_- REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT d PI" OR UNDER MY DIRECT 3. EXISTING STRIPING ON POWERS BLVD AT LAKE DRIVE WILL NEED LOT SUMMARYSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A L1O') TO BE CHANGED TO ACCOMODATE TURN LANES.EXISTING TIPOUT CURB(B6-12) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL 1+'io- STRIPING SHALL BE OBLITERATED BY GRINDING OR MINIMUM LOT AREA 3476 SF L.a'.) ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF SANDBLASTING.NEW STRIPES SHALL BE LATEX WITH 6"EDGE LINE. _ _ _ MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 36 FT GD THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. STRUCTURE SETBACK MINIMUM LOT DEPTH97 FT STREET LIGHT 4. ALL CONCRETE CURB SHALL BE 86-12 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. NUMBER OF LOTS 30 UNITS 6.75 20.50 {} SETBACKS .�/-`\���— David Nash 5. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS 1993 Ladder T UCk feet STOP SIGN DATE 611312014 REQUIRED.DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED a LAUREL AVE 30 FT T Width 7.22 REGISTRATION NUMBER 21836 OVER ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES AND UP TO ONE(1)FOOT ABOVE THE l STREET SIGN PENNSYLVANIA AVE 13 FT [�,. A"k, HIGH WATER LEVEL OF ALL PONDS. T FRONT YARD 20 FT FROM DRIVE ISLEyAI,,.,F. Track 7.22 " SIDE YARD 5 F - Lock to Lock Time 6.0 ® "POND BUFFER'SIGN REAR YARD 15 FT Steering Angle 33.3 PARK MONUMENT SIGN ® MINIMUM DRIVE ISLE(PARKING ON ONE SIDE) 24 FT B TOB 1995 L.nddcµ,Tiwck Way„\>E DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 1 wo WALKOUT ZONING }zr DMS/ZRE DJN/ZRE s�• LO LOOKOUTEXISTING ZONING 1-394 MIXED USED 8 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(R-1) H� DATE PROJECT# PROPOSED ZONING PUD "'3" -` "'' 6.13.2014 2011-038.1 R RAMBLER (xn••) 0..3 SOG SLAB ON GRADE (wl") _n{• .. .yY^'1' �'_' 1.29 AC. (39%) •r-- ___. i„6•/. EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 1.72 AC. (52%) 39'q" �— SL SPLIT LEVEL NOTE:PERCETAGE OF THE SITE THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE IMPERVIOUS TUG TUCK UNDER GARAGE FALLS UNDER THE PERCENTAGE ALLOWED IN THE REZONED PROPERTY. 0 30 60 SHEET NUMBER SCALE IN FEET C201 L J a a STCB#1.1 U ¢ RIM=884.9 15 W.INV.=880.1 STCB#42.2 C S.INV.=880.0 RIM=895.2 ST CB#1.2 N.INV.=890.5 m STCB.,5 RIM=89589 II RIM=885.3 N.INV.=890.8 W S.INV.=892.9 AIL40000, i-- E.INV-880.6 ST MH#42 m RIM=893.8 n ST =SSMH#654 J ENGINEERING RIM=884.2 N.INV 89 1 CP RIM N.INV.=871.8 g•Clp '-� < NW INV.=892.5 ST C8#42.4 SURVEYING S .INv. m RIM=eszs ENVIRONMENTAL E.INV.=871.1 SE INV.=893.8 PLANNING W.INV. 871.2 SS MH#1461 8"Clp RIM=904.3 EVS,INC. 12'RCP 12"RCP I� �- �_ -_ Q 400 LF 9-VSp 5 1 % N.INV.-892.7 10025 Valley View Road,Suite 140 O S.INV.=892.4 Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344 QOQ �- Phone:952-646-0236 k - - �" PENNS LANIAqV Fwww evs-eng co90 30 12' CP E 6'CIP - ST CB#13 i 94 12'RCP 9'VSP L a RIM=88.8 ' 06 I U S.INV- 80.0 LO I s SW INV,d 1 1 N5°38'44"E B5 .34 (FIELD VERIFy� 1 1,.3 I T1 10 99 Preliminary PUD � 11 m 100 Q. �� I 100 I M N 20 e e 1 Hi 09 r O i 2 �� 100 21 coVI CLIENT ` N I c N I 9 'fl7 _ Lakewest Development C N r- I EXISTING PROPERTY 12 106 rn O 1 LINE TO BE ELIMINATED M w" 30 PROJECT -{ 103 19 106 EXISTING PROPERTY o. r I 3 97 1 O 22 LINE TO BE ELIMINATED Laurel Pond y LO D M uCO/ D `r 8 = 107 106 ' aV T-- 109 LOCATION CC) I = "'y 13 29 Golden Valley, MN Z X30- LG2s-, 103 (Dj1 m 18 23 v SHEET 7 `O I 1 4 m Preliminary Plat-PUD V co ym I 7 107 N m 1 I 106 I i 09 N� a ; M 14 17 � 106 28 CC) i m2� 103 97 q 24 r� 107 109 5 I I e 106 rr I N I n 15 16106 I 27 0 I u9 25 r1 _36_-- _ LO 109 883.4 `.1`173---.__-_ =87 1 _ EASEMENT TO REMAIN _ .=87.4 _-- _ _ - -�'" --_ ___ Q 26 # DATE REVISION -8 esa - - -_657.97.58°38'44"Vy_` too---------- ---- _ v 6 STCB# CS BEEHIVE ___�- ---' -_ ST CB RIM 882.0 RIM= 2.7 ..880.2 NNV. 880.5 S.INV Sr.INV.=879.4 109 8"IiVC ♦ .c•oro 5 Qv0 PARCELS PARCELS SINGLE FAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY PARCEL AREA[SF] AREA[ACRES] PARCEL AREA[SF] AREA[ACRES] GROSS SITE= 3.31AC I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS OUTLOT A= 0.15 AC PLAN,SPECIFICATION,OR BLOCK 1,LOT 1 4839 0.11 BLOCK 1,LOT 18 3827 0.09 REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME NET SITE AREA= 3.16 AC OR UNDER MY DIRECT BLOCK 1,LOT 2 4069 0.09 BLOCK i,LOT 19 3822 0.09 NUMBER OF LOTS= 30 LOTS BLOCK 1,LOT 3 4127 0.09 BLOCK 1,L0T20 4716 0.11 PROPOSED DENSITY SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL = MAX 1 9.5 LACUTAC ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF PROPOSED DENSITY= 9.50 UC BLOCK 1,LOT 4 4121 0.09 BLOCK 1,LOT 21 4887 0.11 THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. BLOCK 1,LOT 5 5006 0.11 BLOCK 1,LOT 22 3827 0.09 BLOCK 1,LOT 6 5567 0.13 BLOCK 1,LOT 23 3827 0.09 LOT SUMMARY David Nash DATE 6113/2014 BLOCK 1,LOT 7 3671 0.08 BLOCK 1,LOT 24 3827 0.09 MINIMUM LOTAREA 3671S REGISTRATION NUMBER 21836 MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 36 FT BLOCK 1,LOT 8 3478 0.08 BLOCK 1,LOT 25 6926 0.16 MINIMUM LOT DEPTH 97 FT NUMBER OF LOTS 30 UNITS BLOCK 1,LOT 9 3725 0.09 BLOCK 1,LOT 26 5459 0.13 SETBACKS DRAWN BY CHECKED BY BLOCK 1,LOT 10 5157 0.12 BLOCK 1,LOT 27 4149 0.10 LAUREL AVE 30 FT BLOCK 1,LOT 11 1 5501 0.13 BLOCK 1,LOT 28 4147 0.10 PENNSYLVANIA AVE 13 FT DMS/ZRE DJN/ZRE FRONT YARD 20 FT FROM DRIVE ISLE BLOCK 1,LOT 12 4054 0.09 BLOCK 1,LOT 29 4363 0.10 REASIDE YARD R YARD 15 FT DATE PROJECT# 5 FT BLOCK 1,LOT 13 3839 0.09 BLOCK 1,LOT 30 5798 0.13 MINIMUM DRIVE ISLE 22 FT B TO B 6.13.2014 2011-038.1 BLOCK 1,LOT 14 4052 0.09 1 1 OUT OT 6606 0.15 1 ZONING BLOCK 1,LOT 15 6094 0.14 BLOCK 1,LOT 16 6928 0.16 EXISTING ZONING 1-394 MIXED USED 8 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(R-1) SHEET NUMBER PROPOSED ZONING PUD 0 30 60 BLOCK 1,LOT 17 3827 0.09 C202 SCALE IN FEET L � I I a ST CB#1.1 RIM=884.9 5 W.INV.=880.1 ST CIS#42.2 S.INV.=880.0 RIM=8952 ST CB#42.3 ST CB#1-2 N.INV.=890.5 RIM-895.5 N.INV.=890.6 RIM V. 88 S.INV.=892.9 �r E.INV. 880.6 ST MH#42 RIM=893.8 STCB#42.1 ENGINEERING QT T 1 \ N.INV-890.0 12"RCP 4IM=896.4 SURVEYING ---- I ' CIP ��� i I \ NW INV. 892.5 ST CB#42.4 ENVIRONMENTAL / V SE INV.=893.8 PLANNING EVS INC. T 10025 Valley View Road Suite 140 12"R CP I\, I _� Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344 1 GQI , / \ \ \ 1 \W_I�� Phone.952-646-0236 I \ I_ 1 1 I ax:952-646-0290 /-8,01.0 B ,N. I -- I �.;LP_-tom-� I �/ �/ �/ �` �\ �\ �\\\ Fwww evs-eng.- r / I ST CB#1 I RIM=B _f--�_ \ \ ' r\ � S.INV.= B 0� I I / \ I 1 ,� \ / / / �� t// I SW INV. /' # 5P \\ / 1 -ham_ I i/ \ 11 �� i Q Ip I FE 887. 1 1 1a' -- �, /` ---�_ - Preliminary PUD I , �" i `\ \ \I \I• , / / � / 1 I�-� `� g� CLIENT Sz' � ' o Lakewest Development tw I,l12 PROJECT -� �- 1¢ O .,i 3 I I i ! ' I T+-, -, I_�.�/ _ I 1 I o� I FE 897.7 - Ij1' m .I 11 --1a r-- 1I1,� ; Laurel Pond RISER IN GARAGE I 1 I w w I '1 ✓ r - -- / I I j LOCATION Golden Valle MN 18 09.5 To t I - 29 / I/ y c I om 3 LFE q °° f i SHEET \ , •,1 /i, \LY�o 1i 1\1\1\ � Preliminary Grad in9 plan A-o T Details and Erosion Control I �1ti1 I I I 17 -r� o LFE 897.7 14 i 3 11 l4 RISER IN N GARAGE I LFE 903. c" I 11 / I ' 3D � 1 T"f I I � I '~'^'-r;--•--'�-•� I 1 I I I T-'-- 'I I , , , i ,( `w I 1 I I I • I � � // i ti1� I III 'I I '--� - I I ' ' IJ \R_ . \ , L III- �+ I /I 11s I .. I-1 ,I I , / ISN 7 /•. I Ill II La� 25 83.4 0 C•�EO _ _ _ ,_ -i- y -., <o r� \ r i -�3`_ / t I /// =87.1 ��• - `�- - 4 _ - \ 7/ I ' --- _J Md I I m /II .87.4 18@�3 B" "!' _�-. �, \\ i5.0 ' :� ��4\ 1 r, .p#--__ , i I II I ,/� m - I i '•p rl� # DATE REVISION =e 6.4 88x19 Twp o \ ro i 1 ' N LFE Ogi ^ ?� ��€wa �` ~- I tl• I ce 6 r+v � ,�'--'- � ea . �w\ ST C8#6 1 / - BTW\ \ BW RIM=18B.0 8B 0 BW4 \ \ 90 0��1` RIM=882. S.IN/*.. 2 8. \ 1 \ \ \ N.INV.= 5 1 i, I i _ `\ ® 1 \ �_,`��� 1 . �!� 4• �/, ` S.INV.-�.4 ' r t I ; �� \ 1 4a \ \__` \ _ - X98 1 I 1 I \ \ \ \ � \�_-- ��-� �� -_-- __-_-__-_-316-� I / I p"PV� x'--98-J-_ s / 6 PL _J.' I r/ \ \ _``I\I�\` -908-2- `\\�•�-__878- :I 15"RCP - I -- -__ \ � •_"--I _ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS - � PLAN,SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME LEGEND GRADING NOTES OR UNDER YDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL 1. PROPOSED CONTOURS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION.SPOT ELEVATIONS ALONG e. IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE WITHIN THE SITE,HE OR SHE SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF PROPOSED CURB DENOTE FLOWUNE GRADE. THE ENGINEER WITH THE LOCATION,SIZE,INVERT AND IF TME TILE LINE IS ACTIVE.NO ACTIVE TILE THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. MACHINE SLICED SILT FENCE SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITHOUT REVIEW,DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL FROM THE PROJECT 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT.THE ENGINEER. ------�- EXISTING CONTOUR CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO THE ADJACENT 7. ALL RETAINING WALLS TALLER THAN 4 FEET SHALL BE DESIGNED BY A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. 8. MAXIMUM SLOPE TO BE 3:1 David Nash 3, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH 9 MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY SLOPE SHOWN IS 10% DATE G/IN 2614 ------------ PROPOSED CONTOUR THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OWNERS SOILS ENGINEER.ALL SOIL TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED REGISTRATION NUMBER 21836 BY THE OWNERS SOILS ENGINEER.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOIL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH THE SOILS ENGINEER. C THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL INLET PROTECTION DEVICE-IN STREET DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES,WARNING SIGNS,DIRECTIONA SIGNS,FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO NOTE TO CONTRACTOR CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY.TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL DRAWN BY CHECKED BY CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS. THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE SWPPP DMS/ZRE WIN/ZRE 5. THE TREES AND OTHER NATURAL VEGETATION WITHIN THE PROJECT AND/OR ADJACENT TO THE MUST BE KEPT ONSITE UNTIL THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION IS FILED WITH THE SPOT ELEVATIONS: PROJECT ARE OF PRIME CONCERN TO THE CONTRACTORS OPERATIONS AND SHALL BEA MPCA.THE CONTRACTOR MUST UPDATE THE SWPPP,INCLUDING THE EROSION RESTRICTEDAREA.HE WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE TREES WHICH ARE TO BE SAVED TORE CONTROL PLAN SHEETS AS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL DATE PROJECT# SURE THAT THE EQUIPMENT IS NOT NEEDLESSLY OPERATED UNDER NEARBY TREES PND SHALL Ill 915.0 TW TW/BW)RETAINING WALL REQUIREMENTS,SUCH AS ADDITIONAL OR MODIFIED BAPS DESIGNED TO FF FINISHED FLOOR FIR EBRANCHE REQUIRE WORKING ADJACENT TREES.SHOULD TRACTORS EQ IPMEN sls.oew 6.13.2014 2011-038.1 ( ) TREE BRANCHES REQUIRE REMovu r0 PERMIT OPERATION OF THE coNTRACrotes EQUIPMENT, CORRECT PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED.AFTER FILING THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION, 915.0 B• (G) FINISHED GRADE HE SHALL OBTAIN THE SERVICES OF A PROFESSIONAL TREE TRIMMING SERVICE TO TRIM THE THE SWPPP,INCLUDING THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS,AND ALL TREES PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF OPERATION.SHOULD THE CONTRACTORS OPERATIONS (8) BITUMINOUS RESULT IN THE BREAKING OF ANY LIMBS,THE BROKEN LIMBS SHOULD BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY REVISIONS TO IT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER,TO BE KEPT ON FILE IN (C) CONCRETE AND CUTS SHALL BE PROPERLY PROTECTEDTO MINIMIZE ANY LASTING DAMAGE TO THE TREE.NO ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORD RETENTION REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN SHEET NUMBER (GL) GUTTER LINE TREES SHALL BE REMOVED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION BY THE ENGINEER.COSTS FOR TRIMMING THE SWPPP NARRATIVE. 0 30 60 (TC) TOP BACK OF CURB SERVICES SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND NO SPECIAL PAYMENT IC301 (•) MATCH EXISTING WILL BE rnnDE. SCALE IN FEET L _.i i N.INV.=890.5 ST CB#1.2 RIM=895.5 N.INV.=890.6 I'1 II I RIMLMO S.INV.=892.9 \ E. 6 ST MH#42ENGINEERING il RIM=893.8 ST CB#42.1SSS MH#654 G) t CONNECTION TO EXISTING SANITARY. N.INV.=890.01 12•RRIM=896.4RIM=8887 SURVEYING N.INV.=871.8 BUILD MH OVER EXISTING SEWERNECTION TO EXISTING 1 NW INV.=892.5 ST CB#42.4 EX.PIPE INVERT=SN%7H6(FIELDVERIFY) WATERMAIN WITH WET ENVIRONMENTAL S.INV.=871.8 RIM=897.6 PLANNING -`E.INV.=87+.1 -�` PROPOSED SAN MH 03 INVv 881.00 TAP 8 6"GATE VALVE. SE INV.-893.8 _ CONNECTION TO EXISTING` -�-_ _ W INV. 8712 STORM STRUCTURE W/ _ _ --�- __ IPE VERIFY EXISTING SS MH#1461 \\ PIPE SIZE AND TYPE. RIM=904.3 CORE DRILL 8 BOOT. ONNECTION TO EXISTING Suit INC. 12• 'FIELD VERIFY EXISTING -T 400 LF 9'VSP 8"CIF N.INV.=892.7 10025 Valley View Road,Suite 140 RCP ( �-� - _ 5.1 % SANITARY.CORE DRILL 8 12"F Q S.INV=892.4 Eden PraiPhone:952-646-0236 " BUILD AND INVERTS) FLEXIBLE BOOT.FIELD VERIFY t e,Minnesota 55344 PROPOS INV.=880.05 B G �`- _ --__._.EXISTING PIPE INVERT. NNECTION TO EXISTING - --- Q' CONNECTION TO EXISTIN PROPOSED INV=892.72 - -- Fax:952-646-0290 SANITARY.CORE DRILL 8 _ �'-'- WATERMAIN WITH WE7 o-- ��r FLEXIBLE BOOT FIELD VERIFY --s-g.- TAP I a 8 B'GATE VALVE. ��+ 6 EXISTING PIPE INVERT I 12" Cir FIELD VERIFY EXISTING - _ `�+ CIP PIPE SIZE AND TYPE. - _ PROPOSED INV=892.72 ? - i 9"VSP ST CO#1�3 CONNECT NNECTION TO EXISTING SANITARY. a RIM=88.8 r �, BUILD MH OVER EXISTING SEWER._ U S.INV. FIELD VERIFY EXISTING PIPE INVERT. SW INV. J 1 I I I 1 INV-=893.02 MH 01 INV.=82 10 - Preliminary PUD o <s I I I r II I I I I� a CLIENT N I 9© i " <G 12 1 �-- Lakewest Development _ _ _ I«m n o - _ -J p ' m_ 3p ( PROJECT I �x I - �'mII a 19 $ 4 < <a 3 I - _ �t I o s$p y 1 I 22 w_ - m< I Laurel Pond I y I 4mi a H i"u>; II T N P� _ 1 + I I 6 ( v I- -mac m a '_-c-_� -�1-� S I 11� - LOCATION -I - < z 13 p I . I - - - I Golden Valley, MN 18 23 I SHEET 1 I - _ - - - +1� I �. 2zm -I- Preliminary Utility Plan I I w 11 I I 4 I 7 - - <N "<--- --_E-_-t__ I I O m I z I 1 i i I I I I I 1 Ian _`�`'-mac a alp a$- - - - - ° - - v R I 17 I poo I ?8 A <m I I - - _ I ' _ti I +IV $ 24 1y - IA I yn'lL gv I NI- 16 F ae i I_ 27 ;m 25 1 �_o ( yl�y i _m" p <3 6 _- I I .4 1 mw v <g< z "Zz y - - _ �$A L _ o;; - __ /. 87.1 ° 3 O cpm ° w<py� ..-<�____ - �$>i - __ cox m �s I /. 8 .4 I u,o1 vm x v v�m� v 3a3; _ `d� _ ---_ �, m C 26 I # DATE REVISION /. 87.4 0 �"-vc 0 z Gy cCB BEEHIV o ST CB#6 RIM=882.0• iRIM ------v N.NV.882.70.5 S.INV.=8 2 F o Q S.IN 19 1 . Blfp p MATERIAL NOTES UTILITY NOTES LEGEND ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN CEAM SPECIFICATIONS EXCEPT AS 1. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION GATE VALVE MODIFIED HERIN. AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND,WHERE ® CURB STOP 1. ALL MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CIN. POSSIBLE,MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD.THE INFORMATION IS NOT -♦- HYDRANT 2. ALL SANITARY SEWER TO BE PVC SDR-35 FROM 0'-18'DEEP,OR SDR-26 FROM TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE.THE CONTRACTOR MUST I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS >18'DEEP,UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE ANY I WATERMAIN PLAN,SPECIFICATION,OR 3. B INCH WATERMAIN TO BE PVC C-900 DR18 WITH 7.5 FEET MINIMUM COVER. EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES.R SHALL BE REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME 4. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE TO BE REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE WITH R-4 THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE OR UNDER MYDIRECT JOINTS AND RUBBER GASKETS,UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A 5. RIP-RAP SHALL BE MNDOT CLASS 3. ON THE PLANS.THE LOCATIONS OF SMALL UTILITIES SHALL BE OBTAINED BY > SANITARY SEWER DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL 6. ALL WATERMAIN SERVICES SHALL BE I INCH HDPE. THE CONTRACTOR,BY CALLING GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT(651)4540002. ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF 7. ALL SANITARY SEWER SERVICES TO BE 4"PVC SDR 35. STORM CATCH BASIN/OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE/ THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 8. 4"PERFORATED DRAINTILE TO BE INSTALLED 50'EACH SIDE OF ALL LOW 2. SAFETY NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS:IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY / / / FLARED END SECTION POINTS ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES,THE CONTRACTOR SILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING » STORM SEWER David Nash PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK.THIS REQUIREMENTWILL APPLY __�___�___�_ DRAINTILE DATE 6/13/2014 CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS.THE - REGISTRATION NUMBER 21836 DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY MEASURES IN,ON OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 3. ALL AREAS OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES THAT ARE DISTURBED BY UTILITY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE RESTORED IN KIND.SODDED AREAS DMS/ZRE DJN/ZRE SHALL BE RESTORED WITH 6 INCHES OF TOPSOIL PLACED BENEATH THE SOD. DATE PROJECT# 4. FINISHED GRADE IS THE CENTERLINE PROFILE.MANHOLE RIMS DEVIATE 6.13.2014 2011-038.1 FROM THE CENTERLINE ELEVATION AS A RESULT OF THEIR OFFSET AND ARE SHOWN ACCORDINGLY. 5. SEWER SERVICE STATION SHOWN IS THE DISTANCE FROM DOWNSTREAM MANHOLE TO WYE CONNECTION. 0 30 60 SHEET NUMBER 6. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY STANDARD DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS SHALL C401 GOVERN. SCALE IN FEET 7. XXXXXX 1 I I p c M PLANTINGS AND SEATING @ INTERSECTION M O �O BE-FIELD LOCATED ENGINEERING D EXISTING PLANTINGS TO REMAIN ON NORTH PROPERTY LINE SURVEYING _ C 1 PROPOSED TREES TO BE FIELD-SITED TO AUGMENT EXISTING PLANTINGS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING EVS,I 10250 Valley View Road, C. -� s Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344 Phone:952-646-0236 Fax:952646-0290 www.evs­eng.com I ° I ° ` w --- Preliminary PUD �� CLIENT Lakewest Development n N - a PROJECT F — — — _ Laurel Pond LOCATION Golden Valley, MN SHEET Preliminary Site Plan m I IAt DATE REVISION I s w _ LANDSCAPE LEGEND CaKFERE)US TREES DESIGN NOTES KEY I aNNam MME IcommoN NME SIZE I Ram I(M. I RFMMA6 ® Mies-noolor CONCOLOR FIR 6' M. – °`°0XXXJS TREES TYPICAL FOUNDATION LANDSCAPE PLANS TO BE DEVELOPED Acer%fraeman6'AF/1' FlREFALL MAPLE 2.5' BB 10 (9ea Picobies NORWAY SPRUCE 6 HT FOR BUILDINGS THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS Picea glouca densata BLACK HILLS SPRUCE 6' M. 10 PLAN,SPECIFICATION,OR 1) HOME ELEVATIONS FRONTING PENNSYLVANIA AVE. REPORTWASPREPAREDBYME Thuja occidsntaTis'Ruahmore RUSHMORE ARBORVITAE 6' M. 12 OR UNDER MY DIRECT I Mer eaachorum'BalMo' FALL FIESTA SUGAR MAPLE 2.5" 88 – Q SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A \\/J Pinus strobus WHITE P01E 6' HT. 5 2) SPACES BETWEEN HOMES IN THE SITE INTERIOR THAT DULY LICENSED PRT PROFESSIONAL L aPWNENr1E TREES ADDRESS ACCESS, PLANT MAINTENANCE AND AESTHETICS. THE TATE OFMINN SO A. OF Gb�tsio tricontlge vor.inermh SKYLINE HONEYIDCUSf 2.5' BB 10 'SNycole' Syringo reticulata'Nay Silk' IVORY SILK JAPANESE TREE LMAC 6' as 22 CLUMP FORM 3) BACKYARD SPACES IN THE SITE INTERIOR THAT CONSIDER THE OWNER'S PRIVACY AND THE SEMI—PRIVATE David Nash Onerous roam NORTHERN RED OAK 2.5* BB 11 Malus'Proiri6re PRNRIFlRE CRAB 6' 88 9 CLUMP FORM NATURE OF THE SPACE. REGISTRATIONDATE 5/ 2/2014 UMBER 21836 ® Molus'Red Jewel' RED JEWEL CRAB 6' BB B CLUMP FORM 10 Blio americana'McKSentry' SENTRY LINDEN 2.5' BB 2 bwcums 9M99 a FER IMALS NOTE: DRAWN BY CHECKED BY CA Comus a8asiberico'Red Gnome' REDNOME DOGWOOD /5CDM. — DMS DJN Tilia cordata LTTLELM EAF LINDEN 2.5' BB 9 Euonymus olatus'Compactus' DWARF BURNING BUSH /7 CD . 16 0 Hydrangea mocropyilo'PIIHM-l' TWIST–n–SHOUT HYDRANGEA /5 COM. 4 TREE AND SHRUB SYMBOLS ARE SHOWN GRAPHICALLY DATE PROJECT At P Physoaarpus opulifolias'Center G%as COM GLOW NIMMARK /5 COW. - ON THE PLAN AND IN THE LEGEND AND NOT LABELED. 5.22.2014 2011-038.1 SM Syringe meyeri'Pa6bin DWARF KOREAN LILAC /5 CONT. – Syringo vulgaris'Charles Joy' CHARLES JOLY LILAC /5 COM. 11 E DENOTES DOSING TREE Syringo vulgoris'Kmsovitso Moskvy' BEAUTY OF MOSCOW LILAC /5 COM. JD 0 30 60 SHEET NUMBER )Hordy–Low Mointenance Perennials PEONY,DAYULLY MIX,etc SCALE IN FEET L 1 L J _ON CENTER SPACING �ac- AS STATED ON PLAN PLANTING SOIL MIXTURE (SEE SPEC.) 3-4" MULCH ENGINEERING FINISHED GRADE SURVEYING .; ? �i�i,..-t•��q��<> ENVIRONMENTAL PLANT ACCORDING TO PLANNING SHRUB AND TREE PLANTING DETAILS ON THIS PLAN EVS,INC. 10250 Valley View Road,Suite 123 Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344 NOTESPhone:952-646 Fax:952-646-0290-0236 s MASS PLANTING BED PLANTING BED / MIXED ww --eng.- L2 NOT TO SCALE LANDSCAPE WORK TO BE COMPLETED AFTER FINISH GRADING IS COMPLETED BY OTHERS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR WILL VISIT THE SITE BEFORE / SUBMITTING A BID TO FULLY UNDERSTAND SITE CONDITIONS. Preliminary PUD NOTE:GUY ASSEMBLY OPTIONAL BUT _ \.% =f j ALL PLANTS AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE 1. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR CONTRACTOR ASSUMES FULL ~' I� ! LATEST EDITION OF THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR TO PLANTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING ;r' NURSERY STOCK, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN. CLIENT TREE IN A PLUMB POSITION FOR THE �;? 2. TRIM OUT DEAD WOOD AND WEAK AND/OR DURATION OF THE GUARANTEE PERIOD DEFORMED TWIGS.DO NOT CUT A LEADER. ,� � LakeWeSt Development DO NOT PAINT CUTS. GUY ASSEMBLY-16"POLYPROPYLENE v PLAN OR POLYETHYLENE(40 MIL)1-1/2 WIDE v;; ALL TREE TRUNKS SHALL BE SURROUNDED BY A MINIMUM PROJECT 3. SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL OR STRAP(TYP)DOUBLE STRAND 10 GA. OF 2 FOOT RADIUS WITH .'S" THICK SHREDDED HARDWOOD THOROUGHLY COMPACTED BACKFILL SOIL. WIRE,2-7'ROLLED STEEL POSTS Laurel Pond INSTALL PLANT SO THE ROOT FLARE IS AT OR (MnDOT 3401)@ 180°O.C.(SEE STAKING B" 2-PLY RUBBER HOSE MULCH. UP TO 2"ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE. DIAGRAM) DOUBLE STRAND 12 GAUGE WIRE LOCATION 4. PLACEPLANTIN PLANTING HOLE WITH COORDINATESTAKING COVERED W/2-PLY RUBBER HOSE ALL PLANTS WILL BE GUARANTEED FOR FULL REPLACEMENT BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET,(IF USED),INTACT. TO INSURE UNIFORM PAINTED FLUORESCENT ORANGE A MINIMUM OF AT LEAST TWO FULL GROWING SEASONS Golden Valley, MN BACKFILL WITHIN APPROXIMATELY I2'OF THE 120° 120° ORIENTATION OF GUY WHITE FLAGGING (TYP.) (600 DAYS) AFTER INSTALLATION ON SITE. SHEET TOP OF ROOTBALL,WATER PLANT.REMOVE LINES AND STAKES TOP 1/3 OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO HORIZONTAL RINGS,WHICHEVER IS 120' �o TREE WRAP Preliminary Site Plan GREATER,REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND NAILS STAKING DIAGRAM "`\\\��11"/��/� 4 INCHES MULCH IF THE CONTRACTOR FEELS THERE MAY BE AN ERROR, FROM TOP I/3 OF THE BALL.REMOVE ALL ( 4 INCH DEEP SAUCER HE/SHE IS REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE LANDSCAPE TWINE. GUY WIRE WITH WEBBING 1 ARCHITECT. FLAGGING-ONE PER WIRE 8' STEEL TEE POST- 3 REQUIRED AT 120' S. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH BACKFILL SOIL. ?4'-6"SHREDDED BARK MULCH BACKFILL MIX PLANT SYMBOLS SHOWN ARE FOR LOCATING THE POSITIONS 6. WATER TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS. TxTxN"WOOD STAKE SET AT FOR PLANTING. SIZES SHOWN DO NOT NECESSARILY 7. WATER WITHIN TWO HOURS OF ANGLE-STAKE TOP BELOW GRADE UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL REFLECT THE TRUE PLANT SIZE EITHER AT TIME OF INSTALLATION.WATERING MUST BE - EXISTING GRADE SUFFICIENT TO THOROUGHLY SATURATE '� - INSTALLATION OR WHEN FULL GROWN. ROOT BALL AND PLANTING HOLE. �@ 341V MINIMUM I2 WIDTH OF ROOT BALL REMOVE BURLAP & ROPE III= - FROM TOP 1/3 OF THE BALL 8. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THEIIIIIIIIIIINII _ PLANTING SOIL MIXTURE(SEE SPEC.) LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR WILL REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE illlll CI411W111111111 UNDISTURBED OR STABILIZED NOTE: SEE PLANTING NOTES FOR THE TYPE OF MULCH MATERIAL TO USE. PROPERTY FROM INSTALLATION ACTIVITIES AT NO ADDITION IS EXCESSIVE. SUBSOILS EXPENSE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING 2 DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL APPROVE FINAL BED # DATE REVISION LAYOUT FOR SHRUBS AND LAWN AREAS. L2 NOT TO SCALE L2 NOT TO SCALE 6111111111111111 PLANTING NOTES 1. ALL PLANTS MUST BE HEALTHY,VIGOROUS MATERIAL,FREE OF PESTS AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO DELIVERY ON-SITE FOR APPROVAL.DELIVER LOAM CONTAINING A LIBERAL AMOUNT OF HUMUS AND CAPABLE OF SUSTAINING SITE AND REPLACED WITH MATERIAL OF THE SAME SPECIES,QUANTITY,AND SIZE DISEASE AND BE CONTAINER GROWN OR BALLED AND BURLAPPED AS INDICATED MULCH ON DAY OF INSTALLATION.USE 4'FOR TREES,SHRUB BEDS,AND 3"FOR VIGOROUS PLANT GROWTH.IT SHALL COMPLY WITH MN/DOT SPECIFICATION 3877 AND MEETING ALL LANDSCAPE LEGEND SPECIFICATIONS. IN THE LANDSCAPE LEGEND. PERENNIAL/GROUND COVER BEDS,UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED. TYPE B SELECT TOPSOIL.MIXTURE SHALL BE FREE FROM HARDPACK SUBSOIL, STONES,CHEMICALS,NOXIOUS WEEDS,ETC.SOIL MIXTURE SHALL HAVE A PH 24. WATERING:MAINTAIN A WATERING SCHEDULE WHICH WILL THOROUGHLY WATER 2. ALL TREES MUST BE STRAIGHT TRUNKED AND FULL HEADED AND MEET ALL 11. THE PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE LANDSCAPE LEGEND IF BETWEEN 6.1 AND 7.5 AND 10-1010 FERTILIZER AT THE RATE OF 3 POUNDS PER ALL PLANTS ONCE A WEEK.IN EXTREMELY HOT,DRY WEATHER,WATER MORE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED. DISCREPANCIES EXIST.THE SPECIFICATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE CUBIC YARD.IN PLANTING BEDS INCORPORATE THIS MIXTURE THROUGHOUT OFTEN AS REQUIRED BY INDICATIONS OF HEAT STRESS SUCH AS WILTING PLANTING NOTES AND GENERAL NOTES. THE ENTIRE BED BY ROTOTILLING INTO THE TOP 12"OF SOIL. LEAVES.CHECK MOISTURE UNDER MULCH PRIOR TO WATERING TO DETERMINE 3. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY PLANTS NEED.CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE THE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR WHICH ARE DEEMED UNSATISFACTORY BEFORE,DURING,OR AFTER 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL MULCHES AND PLANTING 19. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR TWO COMPLETE GROWING SEASON WATER. INSTALLATION. SOIL QUANTITIES TO COMPLETE THE WORK SHOWN ON THE PLAN.VERIFY ALL (APRIL 1-NOVEMBER 1),UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.THE GUARANTEE I HEREBY CERTIFYTHAT THIS QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE LEGEND. SHALL COVER THE FULL COST OF REPLACEMENT INCLUDING LABOR AND PLANTS. 25. CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST IN WRITING,A FINAL ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION. PLAN,SPECIFICATION,OR 4. NO SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 13. LONG-TERM STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR SUPPLIES ON-SITE WILL NOT BE 20. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT LEAST 3 DAYS 26. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED,ARE TO RECEIVE 4"TOP SOIL,SEED, OR UNDER MY DIRECT ALLOWED. PRIOR TO PLANNED DELIVERY.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE MULCH,AND WATER UNTIL A HEALTHY STAND OF GRASS IS OBTAINED. SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A 5. ALL PLANTING STOCK SHALL CONFORM TO THE"AMERICAN STANDARD FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF BEGINNING PLANT DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL NURSERY STOCK;ANSI-Z60,LATEST EDITION,OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION 14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP PAVEMENTS,PLANTERS AND BUILDINGS CLEAN INSTALLATION. ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF OF NURSERYMEN,INC.AND SHALL CONSTITUTE MINIMUM QUALITY AND UNSTAINED.ALL PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICLE ACCESS TO BE MAINTAINED THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANT MATERIALS. THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.ALL WASTES SHALL BE PROMPTLY 21. SEASONS/TIME OF PLANTING: NOTE:THE CONTRACTOR MAY ELECT TO PLANT REMOVED FROM THE SITE.ANY PLANT STOCK NOT PLANTED ON DAY OF IN OFF-SEASONS ENTIRELY AT HIS/HER RISK.DECIDUOUS POTTED PLANTS: 6. EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS TO REMAIN SHALL BE PROTECTED TO THE DRIP DELIVERY SHALL BE HEELED IN AND WATERED UNTIL INSTALLATION.PLANTS NOT APRIL 1-JUNE 1;AUG.21-NOV.1 LINE FROM ALL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC,STORAGE OF MATERIALS ETC.WITH 4' MAINTAINED IN THIS MANNER WILL BE REJECTED.ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING DECIDUOUS B&B: Davld Nash HT.ORANGE PLASTIC SAFETY FENCING ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY STEEL FACILITIES SHALL BE REPAVED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE, APRIL 1 JUNE 1;AUG.21-NOV.1 DATE 51221`2014 FENCE POSTS 6'O.C.MAXIMUM SPACING. EVERGREEN POTTED PLANTS: REGISTRATION NUMBER 21838 15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL APRIL 1-JUNE 1;AUG.21-OCT.1 7. ALL PLANT MATERIAL QUANTITIES,SHAPES OF BEDS AND LOCATIONS SHOWN APPLICABLE CODES,REGULATIONS,AND PERMITS GOVERNING THE WORK. EVERGREEN B&B: ARE APPROXIMATE.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETE APRIL 1-MAY 15;AUG.21-SEPT.15 COVERAGE OF ALL PLANTING BEDS AT SPACING SHOWN AND ADJUSTED TO 16. LOCATE AND VERIFY ALL UTILITIES,INCLUDING IRRIGATION LINES,WITH THE 22. MAINTENANCE SHALL BEGIN IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH PORTION OF THE WORK DRAWN BY CHECKED BY CONFORM TO THE EXACT CONDITIONS OF THE SITE.THE LANDSCAPE OWNER FOR PROPRIETARY UTILITIES AND GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 454-0002 IS IN PLACE. PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE PROTECTED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL THE ARCHITECT SHALL APPROVE THE STAKING LOCATION OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS (TWIN CITIES METRO AREA)OR 800-252-1166(GREATER MINNESOTA)48 HOURS INSTALLATION OF THE PLANTS IS COMPLETE,INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE,AND DMS DJN PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. BEFORE DIGGING.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION PLANTINGS ARE ACCEPTED EXCLUSIVE OF THE GUARANTEE.MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF ANY DAMAGES TO SAME.NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL INCLUDE WATERING,CULTIVATING,MULCHING,REMOVAL OF DEAD 8. ALL TREES MUST BE PLANTED,MULCHED,AND STAKED AS SHOWN IN THE OF ANY CONFLICTS TO FACILITATE PLANT RELOCATION. MATERIALS,RE-SETTING PLANTS TO PROPER GRADE AND KEEPING PLANTS IN A DATE PROJECT# DETAILS. PLUMB POSITION.AFTER ACCEPTANCE,THE OWNER SHALL ASSUME 17. USE ANTI-DESICCANT(WILTPRUF OR APPROVED EQUAL)ON DECIDUOUS PLANTS MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES.HOWEVER,THE CONTRACTOR SHALL 5.22.2014 2011-038.1 9. ALL PLANTING AREAS MUST BE COMPLETELY MULCHED AS SPECIFIED. MOVED IN LEAF AND FOR EVERGREENS MOVED ANYTIME.APPLY AS PER CONTINUE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE TREES PLUMB THOUGHOUT MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTION.ALL EVERGREENS SHALL BE SPRAYED IN THE THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. 10. MULCH:SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,CLEAN AND FREE OF NOXIOUS WEEDS LATE FALL FOR WINTER PROTECTION DURING WARRANTY PERIOD. OR OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL,IN ALL MASS PLANTING BEDS AND FOR 23. ANY PLANT MATERIAL WHICH DIES,TURNS BROWN,OR DEFOLIATES(PRIOR TO SHEET NUMBER TREES,UNLESS INDICATED AS ROCK MULCH ON DRAWINGS.SUBMIT SAMPLE TO 18. PLANTING SOIL FOR TREES,SHRUBS AND GROUND COVERS:FERTILE FRIABLE TOTAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK)SHALL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED FROM THE L2 L -J mm•s4z�npsy6uedmo�puea�a�•mwm a � j g u £6IZ'£59'Z56 A065S[IIQ`a l �u!iH Z S4£SS Mw qu-*W!NI S any u'd--H 99C£ >w F 3 a CN t S££;!-S'L A-0H SZStI ZSOZ 699 Z19 v a o e e ` V juawdolana0 isaM a��� S 10 31 I H 0 b b f a > � Ba m Q ANddW00 'S S113M W �zWo �y �a a 9 a Jfn mu' t=ifH� O x N € 8 to } J Z O LU i Q > O Q a z Z W > z J Z a � � Q Z cc ¢ z w z J C Q z Z U W Z CL d Ll f N CL z Z O O $ O U- j J LU Q N W W Z I Lu �x 9x Va Qa 05 Z ;€ o gLU 0 CL LU J u FNo RI— >` �N o S I QQ I > Z 'R I � a h � w Z ', �u M 41 > sd a$ P• E3 a I R g Ili � it I o j 0 Aoo 12 oa o -rH�l —_= l J ODD ODD ODDCl) I _ I _-aoo ADD goo b' P� a �1 i�� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII • _==SII ��l�Lnll � � _ IIIIIIIIIIIillll ¢E_ JIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 =_ ___,�_IE._■� s : ■� � L. Eco-' 252--, EG��lig�3\ IIIIIIIIiI nnunnr r�„- l �-• Il�lllilllllllllllll �� a i. �'''• /r I� Illlilllllllli��l .+• ,�� IS_� �I�Ifl51' -- z • MIN :LE\. I EPEE_`� ��r._ • II ��ze • ptlyr, ZZIM €+— '�EE _=ES3 I IIIIIIIIIH1111 - @' I� 1111111111111... -E eE ❑ � IIII'��1 Illilllll""':.T. IIIIIIIIII""': —Ifil��s� —1f111w1'4r�°; fil�llll .�' fi111Y111 �� I� • MOM �� • •� M11 Lill alI ` aaJ :� 1010,111119 1 IIL'9!L OF-1 �• � �;=�_= llllllllll�iil:: � _.�„ 1,11 =�=��� I�IIII�I,IIII IIIIIIIilllll 2_. �:�i � ;' JIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIII `�.�`� =�,�1�,�'f��I��IICiill!III �_ Q �— � '�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ��Q����� illllllllllllllllllllllll � ' �) a_ __ =_�E s=E ;nrrimirlllr'� III�IIIIIIII IIII�II�IIIII IIIGIIIIIIIIIIIIII� �.....\li •�`_. It111111111Yn. �� �\I 111111116:::::,-- ;;-a.€=_=_a=_� IIIIIIIIIR�,jr►�` mnnm lunnunn�--_. �u sc a IIII ElulUb EW-£59-Z56 aovss rnA'm°aeaa o w S4£SS mw` '°lauuryQ S any ucdaouaH 94£f a <= 3 o g y 5££al1°S'L(em98rl{SZS4t ZSOZ G99 Zl9 w c a G S103IIHO �it/ �T TWO s �3g F }uawdOlanaa isaM w 1 �oo o � g z Q ANddW00 'S S113M =�a W = " a } Q J Q O � Q z O Z N n� a W Q- 0 0 a Q Z ry N W ZO d N Q of Q ry O l mil O Z CL_— Z _ w O O w z or LL 3 O Z O Og N8 x z wp Qa wfr d � B g LU LU O ¢ Q 4 Q b < � W Q 0 W W. EH O o ;Mw 1w 9b +L.` �c a w ELS U O m z w w U w O O z _ E TYT 'T z Lu EH z ';'' °•sem z FMI 5 L W LL W o z g LAUREL AVE r W Y 7 + S-A HOUSE STYLE Af a N 8 GARAGE AT BASEMENT LEVEL cn� HOUSE STYLE B y 3 LEVELS WITH TUCK UNDER GARAGES GARAGE AT FIRST FLOOR LINE N N FITS ON LOTS:#12-#29 M FITS ON LOTS: #I-#10 FINISHED SQFT:2,600 SQFT +� FINISHED SQFT:2,400 SQFT UNFINISHED BASEMENT:800 SQFT S UNFINISHED BASEMEN:540 SQFT ❑ l UNFINISHED GARAGE:484 SQFT n OUNFINISHED GARAGE:484 SQFT III Ij c ~ I I/ J a z � s ROOF O LNDRY - a Q_ U IS BELOW ROOM ROOF LAUNDRY 2 W 6' OFFICE BELOW HALL b O N R � ROOM CLOSET HALL _ MASTER BEDROOM a 0 _ [ E V U V BAT R&k 6 J m j MASTER BEDROOM TL�OXSET1p WDECK ORBEDROOM iLBEDRM i DECK OR ORCHROOF o PORCH ROOF o.°...°..... CL. BEDROOM CL. CLOSET BATH R PROJECT TITLE: Laurel Ponds —'�— Subdivision SECOND FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN 345 Pennsylvanla AveS SAIF:,/e'•,•-0' SCALE:/e.=,'d Golden Valley,MN 55426 97- -1091- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5, - - - �- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 I ` ° FENTRY SHEET TITLE: `� I/ I 2 a� - ■ MAIN _ FLOOR P ANS / ° I ° ENTRY / I BEDROOM a �� I O CLOSET CL. AT RIM' OR OFFICE ` I/� I LIVING ROOM I I 20, JiLad Ir DRIVEWAY Y t - - I ' F-- —_ 29 -T I DRIVEWAY -- I 2 CAR GARAGE 8 T CLOSET DECK OR 22'X 2 ■ _ -- KO LIVING ROOM ENCLOSED PORCH 10' KITCHEN 12BEDROOM KRCHEN ItI °o°o -- - --u ----IPROJECT N: 01.2014 O -97- DRAWN I S' I S BY: WELLS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J L - - O 1091- - - - - - - - - - J — — — — — — — — CHECKED BY: WELLS FIRST FLOOR PLANISSUE: DATE: SCALE:1 =,�' FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE:1/e'=I'd' 45' 57 UNEXCAVATED CONC MECHRM STOOP ABOVE TH RM I mmby w"Mr Nb p n by magyar unarm a�ro 0 tEe XBATH emnnzlt 1�°ft imd 2 CAR GARAGE me snca. Mnroeoa am: DRIVEWAY UNEXCAVATED FINISHEDOPTIONAL 22�X 22' Wllllem M.WON,Arthkecl r--- -- BASEMENT are: m.m. 49615 --� FINISHED OPTIONAL DECK ABOVE MECH RM DECK ABOVE SHEET N0: BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN A5 SCALE'.1/e"=t-0whin Pmletl m MY x3C pap, SCALE:I/6'=1'-0"when printed Pn 1 x34"PIP, -PRELIMINARY-FORZONING APPROVAL ONLY- DEVELOPMENT CO. , L. L.0 Members of the Planning Commission Mayor Harris& Members of the Council July 24, 2014 c/o Jason Zimmerman City Planner City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Laurel Pond Plan Amendments to address staff concerns and conditions Dear Mr. Zimmerman,Grimes, Commission &Council: Lakewest met with planning and engineering staff on July 22nd,to discuss conditions and concerns in the staff report reviewed at the Planning Commission meeting of July 14. We want to be sure that the previous narratives and the documents are clearly understood. We have the following plan amendments and clarifications in writing so that the neighborhood we are proposing to construct can be approved for Final Development Plans. In order to have a chance to construct Phase One this fall,any delay at this time of year jeopardizes the project for 2014 as the ability to pave is limited to before November 151h, and we need at least 8 weeks ahead of that date to start a project to build piping and streets. (September approvals to proceed with some utility work) Staff has been accommodating to date to get to this stage so that we can look at approvals that work for both the City and the development team. We did not spend money on all the submitted plans to push the envelope beyond a reasonable plan that is livable and enjoyable. This neighborhood is an association of Detached Townhomes. This means that there is the ability for us to control the architecture,grounds maintenance, pets and other issues normally contained in Homeowners Association Documents.We have submitted the HOA outline to staff as part of the initial submittals. Statutes created by the Legislature will govern the association. No fences between units will be allowed. Conveyance is by deed for land and structure, but the use of the land is defined by the documents. Permission to modify the exterior of the home is by Architectural Control Committee, but the inside has full flexibility,something not found in apartments or condominiums as easily as townhomes. Engineering had concerns that they could maintain the piping of water and sewer. The Fire Chief has no concerns about moving the City equipment through the site as drawn. So long as the mains are 10'apart in the private drives Engineering sounded 14525 Nlghway 7. Suite 335 • Minneronka. MN 55345 • Phone: 952-930-3000 • Fax; 952--r53-2198 comfortable they would be maintained properly.We believe we have drawn the mains in locations on the revised plans that allow for full access and maintenance of water lines,hydrants,valves and other critical junctions. We have Draintile lines that will be maintained privately, like sump hoses are on traditional single family.Street repair in the case of pipe repairs is the responsibility of the association, similar to when a water line freezes in a single-family yard, not all the work is paid for by the public. Drawings are resubmitted that do the following: 1. Clarify the public and private utilities; 2. Show how all the elements desired in the ponding and open space easement fit into 45'versus 55'width through a more detailed submittal; 3. Driveways,existing parking and proposed parking are shown that have a ratio of almost 5:1 on site; 24 parking places possible not in garages or driveway aprons. We have removed one driveway access onto Pennsylvania for proposed lot 21,which increased parking options. Only two remain. 4. We cannot shift the driveway accesses proposed to align with Quebec. We have dimensioned the distances from Centerline to Centerline,which exceed typical guidance for distance from a public street. 5. We have confirmed the parking stalls on site currently and have less trip generation with our plan than Mark Hurd or allowed office uses at their peak operations. 6. We have agreement with our neighbor on all issues that concerned staff regarding access,temporary access,guest parking and ability to work together on retaining wall stabilization for the duration of the life of our project. 7. We have shown a sidewalk and the City engineers agree we can build it. 8. We will be asking XCEL energy to plan for 200 amps per home to better allow for electric cars in the future; 9. We have not heard from any other neighbors of concerns, they were comfortable with all dimensions as proposed to property lines. 10.The fire chief has no concerns with the layout; 11.Should the City and Workabilities believe that a drive lane should not be maintained in the future between our two sites,we would leave money in the association to convert it to a grass fire lane,plowed in the winter; 12.The site appears dense, but is more desirable than the previous alternatives that were of other land uses. The view into the property from Pennsylvania Ave is a similar pattern of housing as is across the street, 6 residential facades. 13.The target market is families that do not want yard maintenance. We do not see lots of children as a result that require active play space on site like apartments. The big parks are two blocks away with all the amenities desired by children or grandchildren. The open space at Laurel is 75'x 220'from the curb to proposed edge of easement,almost a youth football field. We have a place proposed to visit and enjoy the landscape amenity and whoever you may be with.The pond drains dry and provides dual interest, as it is a wildflower mix that will bring birds and a variety of colorful insects like butterflies as well. The plan continues the walkway corridor available next door,but currently absent on the current property. 14.We see no benefit to our future homeowners by removing a home site in the middle of the plan for any "special" open space that is perceived to add recreation space. The City still needs to consider what improvements will be built with the park dedication dollars the project will contribute. We seek to do the following with the dollars,estimated to be in the range of $25,000. 1. Extend the sidewalk from our site north to Western; 2. Add a trellis and kiosk showing the sidewalk and trail network in our private resting space similar to other signage features in other open space corridors. We will provide the following in the open space at our cost: 1. All the new trees, shrubs and groundcovers; 2. The perimeter irrigation system and creek bed fountain; 3. At least two benches; 4. Wildflower plantings; and S. Additional sidewalk connections. Summary With these clarifications we seek your recommendation of approval at the upcoming meetings. We welcome the opportunity to visit privately or publicly with any member who has specific concerns or would like greater explanations of any portion. Respectfully submitted, Donald Jensen Land Development Director UMTC 1980, BLA Cc: Curt Fretham EWALD HEIGHTS AM90001 i� s ENONEERM,O SURVEYM ENVIRONMENTAL PLANMNG IT _� .t aswwrssra.r,artw _ ---- •" - - 1�"'^^--,_.T,,,` PrellminaryPUD r Lakewast Developmem __ Laurer Laurel Pond LOCAVOW Ar M • �� • CoMn Valley,MN m Remo"Is 6 1 a�V Der"Idon Plan T � 4 •DATE RM,ION I G r S OCK, I� J� 5 G nsN srarys�mwnorTMi,oT:ws ��°��� sos,�.NnnwD�cTaaD srsre usERYmoNANDTNAr,As.s AGGeSS TMriTATCOFMNN6OTA MTa lW7n! ar4T NUNRRR� ORA"RY CHECKED BY DMS IZRE WNIZRE E C E I V E DATE 011.03. 65.22.20142 Z011 D„dSa, s JUL 2 4 2014i FM sNErTNUMBER a m m C102 BY: 133f NI 3MS � 0 N woz h z inr ___---- is - -- - - EnN3nd i�iund� ----- wnn i II{f a wNY1 i I {y � I — — I ,p ! r I M ENGINEERING SURVEYING L OD 1 I I ENVIRONMENTAL (< \ PLANNING EVS,INC. aw 10025 Valley ViRoad,Suite 140 Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344 Phone:952-646-0236 I Fax:952.6464290 --- -- ww —s-eng.— ----- PENNSYLANIA AVE o e PRooF o PAS - 4 •' 1 RASID HIN I € ' a- PENNSY sLiwo i - Preliminry PUD - i _ I I SL a S CLIENT -> � > _-o— — —— SL/LO =° Lakewest Development �'---fir' ) SOG PROJECT M wo I I � }-R — _ — Laurel Pond r O I W.. — �'. 17"RISERINGARAG I Im LO es'x: 1 'b -`- E I .4,.> LOCATION Oaz MsL (> (>A �m` - wo Golden Valley, MN ' �_ m (T7 I! _ I �R o SHEET BVI BSER IN GARAGE J \ — e Lo — Preliminary Site Plan SL/Wo o — ' I >'—SL — �r y:: � �•µ p � nN1 wD I I I /•�� ... "` ..v. - I,-RI 40 CHANGE R �N —i/ SL TO EXISTING _ // '�- Chi\/' O , £ — I/ " _ N GARAGE ETATION I IN GARAGE -- -- - —' " $�, YI - - Z 2014 I wa �SL i. JUL 2 G r —SL - ( 1�r--wo -- ) — fir, RISER IN GARAGE �Lo • BY. V J V -� „ T t SLY£ - T__ % I , GUEST PARKING OPTION _ OPT # DATE REVISION SIDEWALK ----� � XI ING RETAINWG WALL` _— - A NO CHANGE `. TO EXISTING ....s,..:r- .. �'�"�''+.-^'-x .- ;` � ,. • VEGETATION NOTES LEGEND SINGLE FAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY VEHICLES DETAIL _ GROSS SITE= 3.31 AC PROPOSED BITUMINOUS PAVING 04ITLOTA= 0.15 AC 1. DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT AND ARE TO SACK OF CURB AND EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVING NET SITE AREA 3.16 NOTED OTHERWISE. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS NUPROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK REQUIRED DENSITY MBER OFLOTS= 30 LOTS ---- 3B.75-— _ PLAN,SPECIFICATION,OR 2. CONCRETE SUPPLIERS ARE REQUIRED TO HAUL CONCRETE WASTE C = MAX 10-1U/AC 2 - _-- _ '---- REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME PROPOSED DENSITY= 9.5 U/AC OR UNDER MY DIRECT AND WASH OFF-SITE. 0 PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT i _n e,._ - "- - SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A 3. EXISTING STRIPING ON POWERS BLVD AT LAKE DRIVE WILL NEED LOT SUMMARY c>v'1 DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL �sA' �'' ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF MINIMUM LOT AREA TO BE CHANGED TO ACCOMODATE TURN LANES.EXISTING TIPOUT CURB(B6-12) 3478 SF „••�) STRIPING SHALL BE OBLITERATED BY GRINDING OR MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 36 FT O THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SANDBLASTING.NEW STRIPES SHALL BE LATEX WITH 6'EDGE LINE. — — STRUCTURE SETBACK MINIMUM LOT DEPTH97 FT NUMBER OF LOTS 30 UNITS 6.75 20.50 4. ALL CONCRETE CURB SHALL BE 86-12 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. STREET LIGHT - David Nash SETBACKS - `� -�` �_/�/ 1993 Ladder T Uck feet DATE 611312014 5. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS v STOP SIGN 30 FT T REGISTRATION NUMBER 21836 REQUIRED.DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED LAUREL AVE _ Width 7.22 PENNSYLVANIAAVE 13 FT Y A"1" Track : 7.22 OVER ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES AND UP TO ONE(1)FOOT ABOVE THE + STREET SIGN FRONT YARD 20 F'FROM DRIVE ISLE —1---. H6°ess R, Lock to Lock Time 6.0 HIGH WATER LEVEL OF ALL PONDS. SIDE YARD 5FT ® 'POND BUFFER'SIGN REAR YARD 15 FT Steering Angle : 33.3 ® MINIMUM DRIVE ISLE(PARKING ON ONE SIDE) 24 FT B TOB I IAP.T,wck O.a/' ' - DRAWN BY CHECKED BY PARK MONUMENT SIGN yyo WALKOUT ZONING DMS/ZRE DJN/ZRE DATE PROJECT# LO LOOKOUT EXISTING ZONING 1-394 MIXED USED 8 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(R-1) - PROPOSED ZONING PUD (x,+') ` 31 6.13.2014 2011-038.1 R RAMBLER 07,ik v r• `/ $GG SLAB ON GRADE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA 1.29 AC. 39%) f - PROPOSEDIMPERVIOUSAREA 1.72 AC. (52h) .. .......__.._1M1'4" —...___....—� $L SPLIT LEVEL NOTE:PERCETAGE OF THE SITE THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE IMPERVIOUS tyty) SHEET NUMBER FALLS UNDER THE PERCENTAGE ALLOWED IN THE REZONED PROPERTY. 0 30 60 TUG TUCK UNDER GARAGE NI C201 SCALE IN FEET L c of go1den1V.kAr M E M 0 R A N D U M valley jL Planning Department 763-593-8095 763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting August 19, 2014 Agenda Item 6. A. Bottineau Transitway Update Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Summary The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the station area planning efforts did not meet in August. The agenda for the September meeting includes reviewing concept alternatives for each station area. The Station Area Working Group, made up of members of the Golden Valley Planning Advisory Committee and Minneapolis representatives, met at the Theodore Wirth Chalet in July to discuss how they will be used to provide input into the process. Regular monthly meetings are being established to allow the Working Group to review material presented at the monthly TAC meetings as well as to work with the consultants on station area plans. Community open houses will be scheduled in October and December to share these concepts with the general public and allow the consultant team to receive feedback. An evening Green Line tour for officials and staff of the Bottineau cities will be scheduled during the week of September 8. Recommended Action Receive and file Bottineau Transitway Update.