03-10-08 PC Agenda
AGENDA
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, March 10, 2008
7 pm
1. Approval of Minutes
February 25, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
2. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision - SU09-12 - 1017 Ravine Trail
Applicant:
Thomas Hunt & Linda McCracken-Hunt
Address:
1017 Ravine Trail
Purpose:
The Subdivision would create two separate lots.
3. Discussion Regarding Mixed Use Zoning District Language
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
5. Other Business
6. Adjournment
"
r
g' This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call
763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
.~
0"""
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 25, 2008
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
February 25,2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, McCarty, Schmidgall
and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Developme M~f.,k Grimes,
City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittma ;;em'ssioner
Kluchka was absent.
Eck referred to the third paragraph on page 7 and n
missing in the second sentence.
1. Approval of Minutes
Waldhauser referred to the seventh paragrqPD 0 age 6 aj:i stated that the last
sentenc.e should read as foll?ws: The c~fffii~'\rnet~~d not to add an adjustment
for pervious pavers to the dnveway requ!~em s. .....iiJjjj.
'kti!.
McCarty questioned what would9t~iTtbte cal!se for denying a Conditional Use Permit to
a day care facility if they met all1iie re 'Ii'rem~A'ts. Grimes explained that circulation
~';l"':.&~, '+'
issues or inadequate parki~,~:tq!?MlcNb ause for denial of a Conditional Use Permit. Eck
added that a Conditional 's~ P~t it cqLJld be revoked if a day care center was not being
run properly, ~;i
MOVED by Eck, se~~~f~~~y ",~!dhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve
the February 1 200 . 'te~ith the above noted changes,
2. Dis. ing Mixed Use Zoning District Language
~
Grimes t~mm eg the mmission that the City Council recently adopted the 1-394
CorrJ.dor sfiT'dx ~rtdle-designated the properties in the 1-394 Corridor area on the General
Lana~"se PI8fi).rnap to Mixed Use. He stated that now the Planning Commission and
Council~~~~ adopt a Mixed US,e zoning district ?ecause stat,e law requir~s that the
Compretienslve Plan and the ZOning Map be consistent. He said he would like the
Commissioners to go through the proposed new Mixed Use zoning district language page
by page to make sure it is easy to understand and administer, He stated that the Council
has concerns about the car dealerships in the area becoming non-conforming and stated
that one option could be to create some kind of special Conditional Use Permit for car
dealerships, He explained that even if a car dealership is considered to be non-
conforming it could continue to operate and be maintained. However, it just couldn't be
expanded.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 25, 2008
Page 2
Keysser referred to the recently approved Morrie's Conditional Use Permit allowing two
awnings to be added and asked if that would be considered an expansion. Grimes said
yes because they were attached to the building and were built closer to the setback line.
Grimes stated that there are other uses in the 1-394 Corridor that would also become non-
conforming and that some of them would be ok if they are zoned Mixed Use.
Waldhauser asked if "building up" would be considered an expansion. Grimes said yes.
Keysser said one option could be to "grandfather in" some of the existin~fuse~for a
certain period of tim~. Cera said another option could be to a~low non~fnform'in~'#; uses to
expand up to a certam percent. Waldhauser suggested allowmg e ,anSlon but not.
allowing acquisition of new properties for the same use.
Eck sai~ he thought the philosophy of the Cor~idor Study w~~
not the Intended long-term use In the area. Grimes agreed ana
other uses that are also not intended long-term uses.
Keysser asked if there is an inventory of all the b Jidor Study area.
Grimes said yes.
Waldhauser r~ferred to gas sta~ions anjEt~~pe '~~~7 .Ixed Use ordi~ance should
expand what IS allowed to provide for n~tghborJ54P,9,9 convenience. She said she would
also like to encourage building abo e;~ uto)gEfale'rsffips~
Schmidgall said it has never be . 99 nda o~not allow viable businesses to continue
and if they want to improv~itlel"~"';ifrties they should be able to. Keysser agreed.
Grimes suggested allowi!,.g~uto tiealei"s,and auto repair uses as a conditional use. Cera
"$",;, #5"' "''i!flil.c
stated that allowing those 'u~~~~~ith a Conditional Use Permit would allow them to stay
forever. Grimes sug~e.~ted la'iiguage that would allow existing auto uses to continue. He
added that once a no~80 ""r~g use stops being utilized or is abandoned the City can
require it to be'brou It. h~9~ance.
Wa.ldha~se4iq~~~~ned i~4there would be a noise issue with auto body uses.n~xt to
resldentl~t prop-erbes.. mes stated that newer shops are much more sophisticated and
that garag~ ~~ are required to closed at all times.
Cera ~~gestEi:: having a time frame or moratorium in which the City would allow for an
expanSiO.!1~9~~On-conforming building. Keysser suggested language that says for the
first 1 0 y~f~:r~fter this ordinance is adopted any existing use would be able to expand.
McCarty asked if that language would allow the City to deny variances. Keysser stated
that a property owner could always ask for a variance but they would have to prove
hardship.
Eck stated that he doesn't understand the rationale for requiring a Conditional Use Permit
for a restaurant located in a free-standing building. Grimes discussed the various types of
restaurant classes. Waldhauser stated that the intent was to discourage stand alone
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 25, 2008
Page 3
restaurants. Grimes said that Class I restaurants could be added to the permitted uses
list, but recommended that Class II restaurants require a Conditional Use Permit because
they have drive-through windows. Grimes added that any use over 2 acres in size is
required to be mixed use.
Eck referred to the maximum height requirements in the various subdistricts and
questioned what would happen if someone built a tall building and then left it. Grimes said
it would not be considered non-conforming because it would have a Conditional Use
Permit. He reviewed a map of the subdistricts and discussed the heigh JIO"d in each.
Waldhauser referred to ~ubdivision 1(E) and said .it.s~ould read "1m .rov~~onneivity for
all modes of transportation". She referred to SubdiVISion 1 (F) a aid th~\word ork to
establish" are redundant. The sentence should read "Foster ~tCE""ina~9~l1l'deV%lHpment and
a balance between urban and natural systems". She referre "iiS~APivisiO~,3(F) and
asked if medical clinics and personal care services could be 'biW infes said he
thinks the two uses are different and should be separat'"
McCarty referred to Subdivision 4(8) and sugges~lwor s' estaurant" be taken
out. He thought the sentence should read "Any ~':1" rmitted B~ mercial use in a free
standing building".
Waldhauser referred to language regarai'JlJ 1i~~ih:RPrk u s which states that they should
maintain a generally residential ch.BrpGte1'ih~:wni~tf.ttnefwork space is subordinate to the
residential u~e. ~he said she w~,,~a~lik~i~ t~~"~ .the opposite. Grimes stated that Golden
Valley has historically allowed 20W():of ~;resldehtJal space to be used for a home
occupation an? these prop, ~e~' "&jj"4~rk units allow 30% of the space ~o be used for a
home occupation. Keyss. sk hY!"tbe percentage of the space dedicated to each use
needs to be addressed. lqh~tser asR'td why the City would care if no one actually
lives in the unit if th i1dingl{~redominately commercial. She said she sees no reason
to limit the size or rat. 'e~sser~said he would want people to live in the units. McCarty
'(k_~, ~'T';!M~':~f>.- _. "ftf.'.;lf1o
questioned how feasiDleem:Hv~work idea is.
Cera referr([(t~~~u City 19n 6(A)(4) regarding setback requirements and questioned if
they waht btnJ.gl"l~gs~t~J,.Gi~se to the street. Waldhauser said the idea was to have to
building~lose'~t e sidewalk, not the street.
Wal~~ser r~t13rred to Subdivision 5(E) regarding live-work units and questioned why
wholeS"'al~iE~mR~mufacturing uses wouldn't be allowed. Grimes said he would look at
revising ttY~"ilanguage. Keysser said that some manufacturing uses have noise, smell and
sanitation issues. Grimes said he thought that buildings that have live-work units in them
would have covenants and rules.
Keysser referred to Subdivision 7(8) regarding required open space and questioned if
15% is too much. Grimes noted that open space consists of plazas, green spaces, play
areas, trails and parkways or a combination thereof.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 25, 2008
Page 4
Cera referred to Subdivision 6(F) regarding minimum height and asked if the City is
limiting itself and preventing stand alone buildings/uses. Grimes agreed and stated that
the City is trying to encourage Mixed Use but questioned how this ordinance would allow
for certain uses such as a gas station. Waldhauser suggested requiring a variance for
those types of uses. Grimes suggested possibly requiring a Conditional Use Permit for
buildings less than 2 stories in height. McCarty questioned if it would be forward thinking
to not allow single story development at all.
Keysser referred to Subdivision 8(E)(2) regarding building materials anPJtequ.tr;i~g that at
least 20% of the fac;ade facing the primary street shall be faced with ~~sota s~f:,l or
.J~'_*' ';::;f'h.
other indige~ous dolo~itic limestone. .He said h.e thinks the language I~mj~ archit~7iectural
freedom. Grimes explamed that the City Council wants to have ertam IO~anqJ
consistency in the corridor area. McCarty said he would like 1\", uildJI)Qs to"-IQpj'1jifferent
from each other. Grimes noted that there is language in the 'Rr;p1fu~f~aflQrdine?n~e that
allows alternate approaches with City Council approval. McC!ijy 5rJggest~'Cig,gtriking the
language in Subdivision 8(E)(2) and replacing it with langl,.lage 'lfthat r~m,t!,rres some sort of
stone to be used but not specifically Kasota stone or' e~OQ~,:'Etra agreed. Waldhauser
said she thinks a general color scheme is important. S gelted requiring consistency
on individual blocks or areas. Keysser asked the%"gommiss i.pers t~ vote on whether or
not Subdivision 8(E)(2) should be removed,jEc..k,~Schmidga'I!~and Waldhauser thought the
~'''''''''-:'~. '!i!!!'
language should stay in the ordinance. Qera, KeysseJ1i~Jj1pcCarty thought the language
should be removed from the ordinance
McCarty referred to Subdivision't~( '1 rd.Ing window and door openings and stated
that there should be commas inserted after th~vyord "shelving" and after the words
"mechanical equipment".
McCarty referred to Subdl ,~ioot~ E)(1) regarding exterior wall finish and stated that the
last sentence shoule cha~gtrd to read "except for glass, all exterior wall material shall
be integrally colore
McCarty r~!err ~~u\~,vision 8(E)(3).regardi~g architectural trim and asked if s~ucco
and cemenJ~b.p?rO snQ,ulctibpe added. Grimes said he thought the words "other eqUivalent
"iiiil!>.. ~~",,"~~!!!Io. ~
material' " wdula"'tbv,et~stLicco and cement board.
.. ~'
Walihause "'ii' ti.gned where the ordinance encourages benches. Grimes asked if she
was ~s1Jggestiri'g'\requiring benches. Waldhauser said she would at the least like to
encou~~p~~~9~allow sidewalk benches. Grimes said there are potential right of way
issues, ploWing issues and safety issues with permanent benches being placed on
sidewalks and in the right-of-way area.
Keysser referred to Section 11.48, Subdivision 2(A) regarding construction or alteration of
a single family dwelling and asked if that language needs to remain in the ordinance.
Grimes said that language could be removed.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 25, 2008
Page 5
McCarty referred to Subdivision 4(C) regarding variances and suggested that the word
"reviewed" be changed to "decided". The Commissioners agreed.
Cera noted that the ordinance talks about sustainability in regard to the construction
process but it doesn't address sustainability in regard to building operations at all.
McCarty said he thinks the building industry would drive sustainable operations.
Schmidgall agreed that there is an industry-wide trend to have energy efficient buildings.
Waldhauser stated that sustainability is also addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Cera
said h~ would like to encourage sustainab~lity i~. this ordinance. Gri~e~Ke era to
help hIm draft some language about sustalnablllty to add to the ordlna ceo
A: . .
3. Appointments to the Douglas Drive Corridor Study S opmg Cmml
Grimes stated that Golden Valley has received funds from ttf~f,' 't~ral Gov~tnment to do
a planning study regarding connectivity in the Douglas Drive t:;Qrrid~t"r.~HEl~;t~ted that the
connectivity issues are only a part of what the City cOCJn,G,iJ:"wo~l~ like~t~~udy and they
~ant to do a co~ridor stud~ si.milar to the 1-394 COr.!J2~!y~fffay~~~tated ~hat he would
like three Planning Commissioners to be a part ()fithe Dot1glas S[J~e COrridor Study
Scoping Committee to help figure out what issuJs should o'e addressed as a part of a
study.
Keysser asked about the parameters dUlh~ stu
boundaries of the study. -
Keysser said he would like to vo u..pje al auser said she would also like to volunteer.
Keysser suggested tentativ. -.. Iu'dl"" Commissioner Kluchka because he thinks that
this is something he mig e involved in.
~;S'i{~..
.~
5.
. he Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
~.<k
oni,""" ,Appeals and other Meetings
~
4. Report~ on ~~~n
Council, Boar"
,~
No reports were ~r
W~l(:tbauser, t ~that she received a call from a resident who was concerned about
the ;ru~~ber orQroup homes in her neighborhood. The resident was also concerned
"4!!}m. ilir'#
about pe~:;t Schuller's smoking outside near her yard.
Grimes explained that the City Council has included the group home issues in their
annual list of legislative items. He stated that he also talked to the same resident about
the smoking issues and he has forward the issue to the Police Department.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 pm.
alley
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
March 6,2008
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing on Minor Subdivision of Property at 1017 Ravine Trail-
Linda McCracken-Hunt, Applicant
Summary of Request
Linda McCracken-Hunt is proposing to subdivide her property, located at 1017 Ravine Trail,
into two separate lots. Ms. McCracken-Hunt has proposed to create a separate residential lot
of record consisting of .30 acres on the southern edge of her existing lot. The existing home
structure at 1017 Ravine Trail would remain in place.
If the proposed subdivision were to occur, each new lot would meet the required 10,000
square foot minimum set forth by the Zoning Code. The northern-most lot would consist of
16,755 square feet of land and the southern-most lot would consist of 13,000 square feet of
land. Setback boundaries of the proposed northern-most lot would allow the existing home to
remain without variances. Setback boundaries of the proposed southern-most lot would allow a
standard home to be built without variance from City Code.
Qualification as a Minor Subdivision
The proposed two lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the property located
at 1017 Ravine Trail is part of a recorded plat. In addition, this proposed subdivision will
produce fewer than four lots and will not create need for public improvements (such as street
construction.) Ms. McCracken-Hunt 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 this lot subdivision request as a minor subdivision. This request creates
two lots that each exceed the minimum lot requirement in the R-1 Single Family Residential
Zoning District. (Minimum requirements are that lots must be at least 10,000 square feet in
area with 80 feet of width at the front yard setback line which is 35 feet from the street right-of-
way.)
The applicant has submitted a survey for the property located at 1017 Ravine Trail prior to
subdivision, as well as renderings of proposed setback boundaries, grading organization, and
lot layout following lot division. These documents provide the City with information necessary
to evaluate the minor subdivision. All documents show the existing home at 1017 Ravine Trail
as part of future lot configuration.
City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, has submitted a memorandum dated February 28, 2008
regarding recommendations from the Public Works Department concerning this request.
Requirements set forth in this memo are itemized in the staff-recommended action area of this
report.
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 comment related to this
request:
1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of
the appropriate zoninQ district. Both proposed lots will meet the requirements set forth
by the R1 Single Family Residential Zoning District.
2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City EnQineer determines that the lots are not
buildable. There is already an existing home in the proposed northern-most lot of the
subdivision area. According to the City Engineer, the east lot is adequate for the
construction of a home. City services can be made available to both lots through
developer requirements.
3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available
or if it is determined by the City EnQineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utility
systems by the addition of the new lots. As noted by the City Engineer, sewer and water
lines are available to the existing home on the northern proposed lot. Sewer and water lines
exist in proximity to the proposed southern lot within the Ravine Trail area and the old
Wayzata Boulevard right-of-way to the south. A developer would be required to submit
detailed plans regarding the proposed sewer and water locations at the time building
permits are applied for. The existing street system will provide adequate access to an
additional home.
4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the QrantinQ of certain easements to the
City. The final plat must show all necessary easements as required by the City Engineer
and City ordinances.
5. If public aQencies other than the City have iurisdiction of the streets adiacent to the minor
subdivision, the aQencies will be Qiven the opportunities to comment. MnDOT has reviewed
the subdivision plans and have stated they have no comment in regard to the proposed
subdivision.
6. The City may ask for review of title if requires by the City Attorney die to 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 subiect to park dedication requirements. In this case, a park
dedication fee will be assessed against this property prior to final plat approval. The fee
amount will be determined by the City Council.
Recommended Action
The Planning Department recommends approval of the minor subdivision with the conditions
listed below:
1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final
plat.
2. As per City Engineer Jeff Oliver's request, any future developer of the new southerly lot
must do the following:
A. Plat easements consistent with the subdivision ordinance, including a ten foot wide
easement on all subdivision boundaries and six foot wide easements on each side of
the internal property line.
B. Obtain a Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Permit at the time a home is built on
the new lot.
C. Obtain Sanitary Sewer and Water Permits for new utility services.
D. Obtain Right-of-Way Excavation Permits for utility excavations and driveway installation.
E. Obtain a Tree Preservation Permit.
3. A park dedication fee in an amount determined by the City Council shall be assessed at the
time of final plat approval.
4. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that
include issues found in the City Engineer's memo dated February 28, 2008
Attachments:
Location Map (1 page)
Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated February 28, 2008 (2 pages)
Photos of the property (7 pages)
Site Plans (6 pages)
)..
~
~
~
0:
~
'"
8
s
~
INTERSTATE 394
1017 Ravine Trail I
~B
...
;U
-..... -.... ......- r-
WAYlATA BLVD '%.
HE LOO? Pond
SB HWYlOO S TO EB 1394
NO HWYlOO S TO Ea 1394
Yl
w
.;>
,<
~
~
...
Cl)
M,'&IC?'u.,Q',.;J.....',-.A-(:j"tS. c<w'9"J!(C! t.(X"'.:ilSGtS2Il.15
o
E<!I'-"
(~tolden Valley
Me randum
Public Works
763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax)
Date: February 28, 2008
To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Subject: Review of Minor Subdivision at 1017 Ravine Trail
Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed minor subdivision located at 1017 Ravine
Trail. The proposed subdivision consists of splitting an oversized lot with one home into
two single family lots.
Ravine Trail was reconstructed in 1996 as part of the City's Pavement Management
Program. The subject property was subject to three unit assessment of $2400 each.
One unit assessment of $2400 was levied with the project and the remaining two unit
assessments totaling $4800 were deferred until the property was subdivided. Because
there is only one new lot being created by this subdivision, only one of the $2400
deferred unit assessments will be due prior to the approval of the plat. The remaining
$2400 unit assessment must remain on the property as a deferred assessment.
The developer will be required to plat easements consistent with the subdivision
ordinance. This must include 10 foot wide easement on all subdivision boundaries, and
six foot wide easements on each side of the internal property line.
The existing home is currently served by City sanitary sewer and water. However, there
are no sewer or water services provided for the new lot being created. There are
existing sewer and water mains within Ravine Trail and within the old Wayzata
Boulevard right-of-way immediately south of the property. The developer will be
required to submit detailed plans regarding the proposed sewer and water locations at
the time permits are applied for.
The developer will be required to obtain a Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control
Permit at the time a home is built on the new lot. This plan must be prepared according
to City standards.
The developer will also be required to obtain the following permits:
1. Sanitary Sewer and Water Permits for the new utility services.
G:\Developments - Private\1 017 Ravine Trail\Review 022808.doc
2. Right of Way Excavation Permits for the utility excavations and driveway
installation.
3. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Permit as discussed above.
4. Tree Preservation Permit.
Staff recommends approval of this minor subdivision subject to the comments contained
in this review.
C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections
Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist
Gary Johnson, Building Official
Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator
.4_
~
$
~
.
.
L..
..
,
i
;'
"
j"
,.
7-
EB
f
~
9 5>~
~- ~i'
u ti
:lI~
--
I ,/. 0
.
.
~
S :
f . . \
. .~
.
.
'. .
=
t'- .,
: .
f l
$
0
0
0 s
.
L.. .
.
'.
D-
. .
~
-
-
()
-( ~
~ff
~1
"
"
j'
jt
(
.
.
d)
z
Z
{~
~~
..
.
z
{&
z
~
cJ)
z
-
--
~Q
I ~
2f
cD{~
...
.. -
. .
.
.
J
-
{
2
i
.
.
'.
~.
',-
.g~ .
.
L..
-- .....
--..
"
. .
..
.
I
.
.
z
$
.~
~
'r
~o
J ~, ~
i= s~
:J~~
; i
J
I
Ih.
:X
-'
~'
f
~,
-'
()
-
$';:;:1'...." .
. I
: !
!
i
fti
17..
~~
~N --
, .
~ r
~.;
, I
i I
! j
,
I
./ /
! [
I i
I
.
.
- 7/ ..... - .
?.. . ..-.-..-.----.-. I
.~: O-h-~ -., " .
...
~
~ . ~
!~
. ill
jl)
I'
...~.
"0
----- ..--
-~.
~. I ..'
~( ~
~~ .9
". ,[ t
';-1\ -
lL
<J) . i
~::. :
l"-
i~
-
. . ,4.~: -- "'.
~ I :
~ I" ~ :
~.
.. ~
~..._....
1,0,02'1
'"7
.
.
/
.,'
:
. ,
,
#;
z
S
iL-
ill 9~
.L.. a~
. l' c\) ~
~=N~
\)1 - -
61335-001 2(,7-35
SURVEY FOR: THOMAS
HUNT
~
Prepared By:
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Solis Testing
10550 Wayzata Boulevard
Minnetonka. Mn. 55343
Tel. 546-7601
L
.,'
\...1
IS'. OJ!. -:"i:
: N'ly L;n~ 0+ L.t8 w
_...... x
.- :~~~
;" .~:~ I
""
.u
j
J
-.
60.5
78.~
"8.00
1"=30' .
---
44.5
---
I
I
I
I
I
_ ---.J
I
f\I
-_~5
--
Lot S
...:
,
": f.'.
.2 ":"
~
~
~
~
g.
<t
i$
I
;}J
1-
Lu
U).
5
U)
(..~--
,.
\
Q
o
~
I
\.....,
,t..~>
N)anholo (1) 90.0.'
-....130.0-..._
DESCRIPTION:
All of lot 9 and lot 8, Block 11, "West Tyrol Hills", EXCEPT that part of lot 8,
lying Easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northeast
corner of lot 9 said addition; thence Northeasterly to a point in the Northerly
line of Lot 8 distant 40 feet as measured along said Northerly line from the'
Northeast corner of said lot 8, according to the recorded plat thereqf, and
situate in Hennepin County. Minne,sota.
1)
2)
:~
.~~
e- Denotes iron monument found.
0- Denotes iron monument set.
a - Denotes wood stake.
x860.7 - Denotes existing spot elevation.
Existing first floor elevation. 880.6.
Existing basement floor elevation .'872.1;
I hereby certHy that thts survey was
prepared under my superv1s1on and that
I 1m I licensed Lind Surveyor under the
laws of the State of Hinnesota.
~eL .~jL~~
t\eodore D. emol
GENERAL NOTES:
o.ta: May I, ,,,,
L1eonso No. 17006
BENCHMARK:
Invert of sanitary sewer manhole in Sunset Ravine .45 ft. northwesterly of
southwest corner. Elevation. 845.78 (City of Minneapolis datum).
l'
ICO!l
.
T
"'"
.
$ J~
:j;, .
'-\,"';
.'-, II"~
J
I
I
I.,
f;
t
I I
'"
III{' ;
!I'I
/ g/l
lit
If. /.1
,I lh
'II.'. 1."
l 'f
;1 i I J
, ;; J t
I! I,'
J(,
- /.
" '
<"~
..-'"
"
.
-..--- -
I,
i;
It
~"'.
-~-
f
Ii' .
~&.~.
. tfi'''''''
"
..
.,.
~
'~":~.
..b;:..
! ,'S
;,~{t- '"
,r'"
1
"
.~
~
"
t
~;~
~
,,~
l
r
I
"
"
,
;'
I'
t
J
\1
"
'\'
~,
\ 1
I'"
1
\i-i'
\ 1\ \;:
I I ,\~,.1 !
" ~il'
\J I ~:'rV. u~
ll../4 \U d
t ~lj"~'J1 -
- t f /F .1 '
II' I '
,:,01 I
f.~
~ II
~Ji
" 4
y'
I
l
i
_ t
~
""
,
t
~
"I.
'.-
~.
(
~ I' I
I
I ~Ij
I I I'
: 'III
II I
I
~ "1
I J~/:'
f t I
I
II
{' "
I )1
...:::L I L2-.!
,I
i
,.
'II' f.
I ~ l' I _
:!' I I}' ,
II I I
I IJ "
I
I Nfl !.J I
i
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
March 6,2008
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Review of Suggested Changes Made by the Planning Commission at the
February 25, 2008 Planning Commission meeting to the Proposed 1-394
Mixed-Use Zoning District
At the February 25, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission met to discuss the
proposed text for the 1-394 Mixed-Use zoning district. The Commission spent quite a bit of time
in the review and made changes. These changes are highlighted in yellow on the attached
draft of the ordinance.
Staff would like you to review the ordinance one more time considering the changes that were
made by the Planning Commission at the last meeting. If it is determined that these changes
are what the Planning Commission had in mind, an informal public hearing on the ordinance
will be scheduled.
Attachments
Proposed Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance (11 pages)
~_h..9l"!ges frQ[ithe2/25/58PTan..nirig 90mmission Meetln~g are_h]gllUghted
Proposed Future Ordinance
Related to Mixed-Use Zoning District
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. Section 11.03 is amended by adding the following as new paragraphs
in alphabetical order and renumbering the remaining paragraphs:
~
"Display Window" - A window at street level, tYPiCally(~rt'~; a storefront facade,
used to display merchandise. /T" .:
"Live-Work Unit" - A dwelling unit in combination with a sl1op,office, studio, or
other work space within the same building, wher.,elheresident occupant both lives and
works.
/
"Park" - An open space with natural vegetation a.rd landscaping, which.may
include recreational facilities, designed to serve the recreation needs of the residents of
the community. ~
"Play Area" - A small park developed prirT1arily for ~se by children, which typically
contains play equipment, seating, and may iri<c1ude other facilities such as basketball or
~
tennis courts. ~
~ ~ ,/ ...../
~ .
"Plaza" - An open ~space that is generally open to the public and used for passive
recreational activities ~nd relaxation. Plazas are areas typically provided with amenities
I
such as seating, paving, water features, public art, shade trees, grass and other
landscaping. ,. ,
~ '
/Se9.tiori 2. Section 11.12 of the City Code is hereby amended by changing it to
read~as,.follows:.... ......
SECTION 11.12. PRINCIP~L STRUCTURE ON ONE LOT. Exceptfor properties
within the 1-394 Mixed Us~ Zoning District or regulated under the Planned Unit
Development Regulation~s' oflthis Chapter, every principal structure erected in the City
after the effective date of this section (October 3, 1991) shall be located on a separate
lot and in no case snarl Sh~re be more than one principal structure on a lot.
~
Section 3. A new Section 11.47 entitled 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District, is
hereby adopted to read as follows:
SECTION 11.47.1-394 MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT.
Subdivision 1. Purpose. The City of Golden Valley has undertaken a
study of the 1-394 Corridor with the intent of improving the area's cohesiveness,
attractiveness, and sustainability. The purpose of the 1-394 Mixed Use ("MU") Zoning
July 1 0, 2007
1
District is to implement the principles and recommendations of the 1-394 Corridor Study.
The principles are as follows:
A. Enable the corridor to evolve toward a diverse mix of land uses,
including residential as well as commercial and industrial.
B. Maximize integration rather than separation of land uses, where
appropriate.
C. Maintain the corridor as an employment.center.
D. Improve the visual coherence a7nd a~~ness of the corridor.
~ ...."'--
E. Improve connectivity for all moa~s'of transportatIOn.
~ ~ ~
F. Foster neighborhood-ser,vi~g retail and servite~.
J'
interchanges.
,
G. Maintain or improve tl:le functionil)g'of intersections aJd highway
~
...------ ,
H. Foster sustainable developme"nt and ~I/ork to ~till2I~1j a balance
between urban and natural systems.
"
The District includes specific standards for builaing form, height, bulk and placement in
" "
order to encourage development that is varied, visually~app'ealing, accessible to non-
motorized transportation,and pedestrian-oriented. It is designed to complement the
#' ... .~
standards of the 1-394 Overlay District.
< ' I ,
SubdiviSion 2~D~istfict Established. Properties shall be established
within the 1-394 MU Z'oniilg#District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90,
Subdivision 3 oftliis Ch~pter,(The district thus established and/or any subsequent
changeS to such aistrict s h'a II, be. reflected in the official zoning map of the City as
provided in Section 1'1.1'1 of this '€hapter.
....
~..... Subdivisio~ 3" Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the
1-394 MU ~istrict:
~
'll ~
~/M)Jltiple Dwelling (3 or more units)
B. Elderly and Handicapped Housing
C. All permitted uses in the Commercial Zoning District, provided
that such uses are combined with other permitted or conditional uses within a mixed-
use building, and that the gross floor area occupied by any such single use shall not
exceed 10,000 square feet.
D. Class I and III Restaurants
July 10, 2007
2
E. Business and professional offices, provided that the gross floor
area occupied by the use(s) on any lot shall not exceed 10,000 square feet.
F. Medical clinics
G. Live-work units
H. All uses permitted in the Institutional Zoning Districts, 1-1 through
1-3
/~
..
"
J. Adult Day Care Centers <,r ""
^~ "
K. Structured parking accessory"to any permitted use
Subdivision 4. Conditional user / "
A. Class II Restaurants _ ~' .. 2_ _ __ _ ' ·
B. Any permitted use in the Commercial zoninq district commerci31
t:JSe QLj~""'Eil[~ in a free-standing' building. ....
, ~
1 - ~ '-------
C. Any permitted or conditional use allowed in the Commercial
.... - - - - - ---- . ~ ""IIIl ...
:zonina district cOIlJ!]erci31 use occupying more than 1 Q,OOO square feet of gross floor
area. "'7 ~r .... "" ~
/ D.~~usines.s' ard professional offices occupying more than 10,000
square feet on any zoni'1g lot.,The' City Council may establish a maximum amount of
office dev~lopm~nt th'at~ill~bZpe.rmitted on apy zoning lot, based upon traffic studies as
required l:5y the 1-394 Overlay~oning Districtrusing appropriate minimum Levels of
Servic<f "
I. Child Care Facilities
...
..
~
E. Research and development laboratories
.",
.
F. Convenience stores, including the sale of gasoline.
J
~
J,?! D,J'ive-in or drive-through facilities accessory to any permitted or
~
"H. Buildings exceeding the height limits specified in Subdivision
.
conditional use. ...
6(D).
Subdivision 5. Standards for Live-Work Units. The purpose of a live-work
unit is to provide a transitional use type between a home occupation and a larger
commercial enterprise, and to provide neighborhood-oriented commercial services,
while maintaining a generally residential character in which the work space is
subordinate to the residential use.
July 10, 2007
3
A. The work space may be located on any floor of the building, but
businesses serving the public shall generally be located on the first floor for
accessibility. Office or studio spaces or other low-traffic activities may be located on
upper floors or basements.
B. The dwelling unit component shall maintain a separate entrance
located on the front or side facade and accessible from the primary abutting public
street.
^
_ _ _ ___ _..J L _ _ _
_ __ _ _ ~. The work sp~ce component of the unit~_h..illLnq!9~ed thirty.
QQ).porconl o!..!!l2.loli'lgrooo floor ill!!9 of 1!!Q..!J'!.il,// .
Q 5. A total of two off-street p~:uking spaces shall be provided for a
live-work unit, located to the rear of the unit, or in/an underground or enclosed space.
~
...
..
& :R.l The business compol1ent of the building may includ~ offices,
small service establishments, home crafts which are tYRi~lIy considered accessory to a
dwelling unit, or limited retailing (by appointment onl~)'~ssociated with fine arts, crafts,
or personal services. It may not include a wholesale business, a manufacturing
business, a commercial food service reguiring a licens~, a limousine business or auto
service or repair for any vehicles other than those registered to residents of the
property. .. '
.J
~ E. The business of the Iive::o;K'u~jemust be conducted by a
person who reside~ in" the dwe~lIif1g unit. The business shall not employ more than 2
workers on-site at al1Y one time who live outside of the live-work unit.
~
It.
Subdivision 6. Dimensional Sta,ndards.
~
//~
.... 1. NOl'lresidential or mixed uses facing an R-1 zoning district
across a public street: 75 feet (measured from right-of-way)
A. Minimum front yard setback, buildings:
""
,
) 2. Residential uses facing an R-1 zoning district across a
public street: 30 feet.~" /
3. Buildings with residential uses at ground level: 1 0 feet
from edge of right-of-way.
4. Buildings with nonresidential uses at ground level: no
minimum setback.
5. All setbacks shall be landscaped according to the
standards of Subdivision 8 hereof.
July 1 0,2007
4
B. Front, side and rear yard setbacks, surface parking: at least 15
feet, landscaped according to the standards of Subdivision 8 hereof.
C. Side and rear yard setbacks, buildings:
1. Adjoining an R-1 or R-2 zoning district: 50 feet
2. Adjoining any other district: 10 feet
D. Maximum height: three height subdistri's~~designated as "A"
through "c" are established, as shown on Figure 1. Maximu~ beight shall not exceed
the following except by Conditional Use Permit: /T" .
1. Subdistrict A (Low): 3~stories ,,\.....
2. Subdistrict B (Med{rt(6 stories
...'" ,
~ ...~
3. Subdistrict C (Hign): 1 0 stories~
" /
E. Transitional height. Buildings or~Portions of buildings located
within 75 feet of a residential district boundary shall note)$ceed the maximum height
permitted within that residential district. \.
.....
""
~- '---- --- -
F. Minimum height. 2 stories. Buildinqs occupyinq 10,000 square
__ __..JlJ. q."" __ _.. .....
feet or more must be 2 stories in heiqht. A one-story wing,or section of a taller building
may be permitted }it'cpmprises,no more than 25% of the length of the fa<;ade.
< ~~ J
~~. Maximum impervious coverage. The maximum impervious
coverage is 65%. '- / r f'
(
~ Subctivi~ion 7. D,ensity and Mix of Uses. Mix of uses, minimum
den.sities and floor are,a ratios are established to ensure that new development or
red€w~lopment achieves the goals~of the 1-394 Corridor Study and contributes to a
lively, p~destrian-oriented environment.
" .. A. R..equired mix of uses. Development sites over 2 acres in size in
height subdistrict C shall include at least two use types from the following categories:
... /
....
~
1. Residential
2. Commercial
3. Office
4. Other, including studios and other live-work uses
July 10, 2007
5
B. Required open space. Development sites over 2 acres in size
shall reserve at least 15% of the site as designed and landscaped open space,
consisting of a plaza, green, park, play area, trail or parkway or combination thereof.
C. Minimum density, residential development
1. If housing is part of a mixed use development, no
minimum density is required.
.....
2. Freestanding residential buildings'shall be developed at a
minimum density of 15 units per net residential acre, with thEt E1xception of buildings or
portions of buildings located within 75 feet of a residential.....district boundary (no
minimum density applies in this transitional area). ~~ f'"..
/"" ~ ~ d~
D. Maximum floor area ratio.....Non-residential and mixed uses: 0.6
except by Conditional Use. ' -' / '
~ ,. "
~'" "-
Subdivision 8. Development Standards/This section establishes
objective development standards for all uses within the....District. Standards are intended
- - - -- "
to encourage creative and sustainable approaches to development, and therefore allow
some degree of flexibility in that some are mandatory a~d others are suggested:
...
~ ........
A. Building placement. Buildings shall'be placed close to the
adjacent primary street where.practicable. Primary streets include: Laurel Avenue and
the north-south streets6f Xenia, Colorado, Hampshire, LQuisiana, Pennsylvania and
Rhode Island. (AdditibnaC primary streets may be established in the future.) Parking and
services uses shoU'ld..o'e located;in the interior of the site in order to create a vibrant
pedestrian environment, slow traffic, and increase the visual interest and attractiveness
... ~
of the area. " "" ;
" I' ·
/ ~ 8., Building design. Building facades over 30 feet in length shall be
visually divided into smaller increments by architectural elements such as recesses,
openings, variation in materials or details. Building tops shall be defined with the use of
archit~ctural details such as cornice~, parapets, contrasting materials or varied window
or roof s~capes. Buildings should have a defined base, middle and top, and employ
elements that relate to the human scale and appeal to the pedestrian, such as awnings,
~,-"-
windows or arcades.
, ~
,C. :Transparency. Views into and out of nonresidential buildings
shall be provided to enliven the streetscape and enhance security.
1. Where nonresidential uses occupy the ground floor level,
window and door openings shall comprise at least 60% of the length and 30% of the
area of the ground floor falfade facing the primary street and shall be located between 3
and 8 feet above the adjacent grade level. Window and door or balcony openings shall
comprise at least 15% of upper stories and side and rear facades.
July 10, 2007
6
2. Where residential uses occupy the ground floor level,
window and door openings shall comprise at least 20% of the primary fa<;ade and 15%
of each side and rear fa<;ade.
3. Window and door openings shall be clear or slightly tinted
to allow unobstructed views into and out of buildings. Views shall not be blocked
between 3 and 8 feet above grade by storage, shelving mechanical equipment or other
visual barriers. Display windows, if designed to provide equivalent visual interest, may
be considered as an alternative approach as provided in Subdivision 8. The display
area behind the window shall be at least four feet deep and shc1ll be used to display
merchandise. ~./
D. Building entrances. Building en~ranc';s'shall be provided on the
primary street on which the building fronts, in additi0h to~ny enira~ces from rear or side
parking areas. Street entrances shall be lighted ~ar<d defined by means of a canopy,
portico, recess, or other architectural details.
~
'- /
1. Exte~ior wall finish. Exteri~r wall surfaces of all buildings,
excluding those portions of foundation.walls extending above finished grade, shall be
faced with glass, exterior cement plaster (stucco), natural stone, brick, architectural
concrete, non-corrugated metal, or an equivalentor better. Use of masonry and other
. ..J --- j ---- --~-
durable materials is preferred. Except forglass~ all exterior wall material shall be
inteqrallv colored) ~II color sh~1I bo intogr~lt6tho oxto"rior...\^t~1I finish m~tori~1.
~. ,
E. Building materials.
"
2. At least 20% of the fa<;ade facing the primary street shall
be faced with Kasota stone or other indigeno4s dolomitic limestone.
,;' 3. When used as architectural trim, up to 15% of the exterior
wall s~rface'bf a bl:lil'ding elevation may be wood, metal, exterior insulation finish system
(EI~S) 9r ~ther equ'rvq,l~nt materials as approved by the Director of Planning and
Development.
4; Fa<;ade treatment. All building facades shall be
constructed with materials of equivalent levels of quality to those used on the front
"""\_ 11
fa<;ade, except where? fa<;ade is not visible to the public.
F. Building colors. Bright or primary colors shall be limited to 15% of
all street-facing facades and-roofs, except when used in public art or on an awning.
G. Parking location. Parking shall be located to the side and rear of
buildings to the maximum extent feasible. Parking within front yard setbacks between
buildings and the primary street shall be limited to a maximum depth of 40 feet.
H. Parking screening. Parking areas shall be screened from public
streets, sidewalks and paths by a landscaped frontage strip at least 5 feet wide. If a
July 10,2007
7
parking area contains over 100 spaces, the frontage strip shall be increased to 8 feet in
width.
1. Within the frontage strip, screening shall consist of either
a masonry wall, berm or hedge or combination that forms a screen a minimum of 3.5
and a maximum of 4 feet in height, and not less than 50% opaque on a year-round
basis.
2. Trees shall be planted at a minimu of one deciduous
tree per 50 feet within the frontage strip.
1. Upper floors shall
of parking structures do not dominate the ap'
I. Structured parking. The ground fI
3. The appeqranc cture ~,~flJking entrances shall be
minin:ized ~o that they d dominat~~p;~ st~';14jt.\'" _,,",;:~i~"E~~fii~ building. Possible
technJqu~s Include .re~g,,'iilijY '''''fj;~n~ry; ext7"p~ng portlom;tof the structure over t~e
entry; uSing screenJngi~nd landSQqplng to"sQften the appearance of the entry; uSing the
4!ii;~~....-ilP.. 'wiHi:.,~ ~,;;.;rIJfi,
smallest curb cut~aricF"driveway Possible; and1$ubordinating the parking entrance
(compared to the If~~e trian e t'!!!E!Ii)hce in ter'W"sl;!'\~ of size, prominence, location and design
emphasis.
1. Si .. f"csfllks shall be required along all street frontages, and
'all be ~onsistent with the City of Golden Valley Public
. A well-defined pedestrian path shall be provided from the
sidewalk to each ... customer/resident entrance of a building. Walkways shall be
..~t"';f!i,?
located so that the aisUmce between street and entrance is minimized. Walkways shall
be at least 6 feet in width, and shall be distinguished through pavement material from
the surrounding parking lot. Walkways shall be landscaped for at least 50% of their
length with trees, shrubs, flower beds and/or planter pots.
3. Sidewalks of at least 6 feet in width shall be provided
along all building facades that abut public parking areas.
July 10, 2007
8
4. Sidewalks shall be maintained by the adjacent property
owner.
K. Drive-through facilities.
1. Drive-through elements shall not be located between the
front fa<(ade of the principal building and the street. No service shall be rendered,
deliveries made or sales conducted within the required front yard, although tables may
be provided for customer use. "'
2. Site design shall accommodate a logical and safe vehicle
and pedestrian circulation pattern. Adequate queuing lane space shall be provided,
without interfering with on-site parking/circulation. ~~
3. Drive-through cano~1t~d other ~tructures, where
present, shall be constructed from the same m6teri~ls as the primary....building, and with
a similar level of architectural quality and det~ili[1~. / '-. "
~ .... ~~, v
4. Sound from any speak~rs used on the premises shall not
be audible above a level of normal conversation at thetfuundary of any surrounding
residential district or on any reside~tia.1 property. .... ...
L. Outdoor seating and service areas. Outdoor seating and garbage
... ,
receptacles are encouraged within front, side or rear setback areas, and temporary
seating may be permi!ted,with~r!ghts-of-way, provided th,at sidewalks remain clear to a
width of 5 feet. Service windo~s for serving food and beverages may be permitted as
part of any bUildiQ9 faiade. Garbage receptacles shall be maintained by the property
owner. .. \.. / I ~
" ,,/~
~ M. P":,uIJlic art. Public art is encouraged as a component of new
development witbin tho) ~g~~ ...
..
... Subdivision 9. Alter~ative Approaches to Development Standards.
Although many of the development standards in this Section are mandatory, there may
.... .
be other ways to achieve !h~ same design objective. The City may permit alternative
approaches that, in its deter,mination, meet the intent of the development standards
equally well or ~hen specific physical conditions of the site or building would make
~ ~ ,
compliance infeasible or inappropriate.
'" ,
Section 4. A new Section 11.48 entitled Site Plan Review, is hereby adopted to
read as follows:
SECTION 11.48. SITE PLAN REVIEW.
Subdivision 1. Purpose. Site plan review standards are established to
promote development that is compatible with nearby properties, neighborhood character
and natural features, and consistent with the comprehensive plan and/or area plans
July 10,2007
9
adopted by the City Council. The regulations in this Section are intended to minimize
pedestrian and vehicular conflict, to promote public safety, and to encourage a high
quality of development. The regulations recognize the unique character of land and
development throughout the City and the need for flexibility in site plan review.
Subdivision 2. When Required. Within the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning
District, site plan approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit for any
proposed construction or issuance of a zoning certificate for any proposed use, with the
following exceptions: / ".
A C t t. It t' f r _.J Lt -t -- , I f 'I'
, ons ruc Ion or a era Ion 0 an accessory s ruc ure:~g 0 ~mlY;
~ffing..Q~o~rYbUTId1ng; /,,'" ". --
B. A use within an existing building'that has received site plan
approval, if the establishment of the use does not~lter the approved site plan for the
property. " ~
the building.
...
~ .
C. Proposed modification~ that are stfictly related to the. interior of
"'
~
D. Modificatio~~, additions, or enlargements to a building which do
not increase the gross floor area by more than 500 square feet or 10%, whichever is
less, and which do not require a varia\'ce from ,the provisi6ns of this ordinance.
" ~j .. ~
~ . /
E....Alteration or expansion of an existing parking lot that results in a
change of no greater1han 10% of the total nun;ber of parking spaces,
~ 1
~ (
F. Grading ortsit~ preparation that results in minor modifications to
the existing site, as approved by the City Engineer.
...
"
/ r Subd!vis!ori'3. Required Information. All site plans shall be drawn to
scale apd shall contain all the.{ollowing information, except to the extent specifically
waived'in writing by the Director of Planning and Development:
~ ~
A. Project name, location, developer, and designer of the project.
)1
R...Evidence of ownership or an interest in the property.
/
,
C.'Property dimensions and boundaries.
D. The existing and intended use of the property and all structures
upon it, including floor area, number of dwelling units proposed, parking, circulation,
landscaping, signage, and stormwater management and snow storage facilities.
E, Any other information deemed necessary by the Director of
Planning and Development.
July 10, 2007
10
, "
Subdivision 4. Site Plan Application. Applications for site plan approval
shall be made on forms provided by the City.
A. Site and building plans which do not involve a variance or
conditional use, and do not involve other matters requiring consideration by the
Planning Commission or City Council may be approved by the Director of Planning and
Development. An administrative review shall be completed within 30 days of receipt of
complete plans, and the applicant will be notified by mail. Administrative decisions may
be appealed to the Planning Commission. ........
~
~
B. Site or building plans involving a conaitional use, or other
I
matters requiring consideration by the Planning Commissiol) shall be reviewed by that
body. The Planning Commission shall make findings and rec~mmendations to the City
Council. / ) ~ '"
C. Site or building plans involving a variance shall be reviewed
8ecidea by the Board of Zoning Appeals. /' "
Subdivision 5. Site Plan Review"Standard~.~Site plans s~1I be
reviewed with reference to: '" / /
A. Conformance to the applicable standards of the City Code and
other city requirements
'" ..
..
B. Where applicable, consistency with tne'development standards
and objectives establish~d for the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District or specific areas or
districts in the Compr~he:;sive "'Plan or other area plans adopted by the City.
< (r
Section 5. CitY-Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire ~CS;ity;Codelncluding Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99
entitled 'Violation a Mi~elf,e,ahor" are hereby'adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim 'herein.
...
'"
..
....
..... Section 6. This Grdinance shall take effect after its publication as required by
law.
..... I
Adopt~d by the CJty Council this _ day of
//
,2008.
.....
"
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
July 10,2007
11