01-14-08 PC Agenda
AGENDA
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, January 14, 2008
7pm
1. Approval of Minutes
December 17,2007 Joint Planning/Environmental/Open Space and
Recreation Commission Meeting
December 17, 2007 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
2. Informal Public Hearing - RHT Office LLC - 9400 Golden Valley Road
Applicant: RHT Office LLC
Address: 9400 Golden Valley Road
Purpose: To allow the applicant to operate an employee only daycare
room in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District
3. Discussion Regarding In-fill Housing Issues
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
5. Other Business
6. Adjournment
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.
"',
'lo'
.
Joint Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission, Environmental Commission and Open
Space and Recreation Commission
December 17, 2007
A joint meeting of the Planning Commission, Environmental Commission and Open
Space and Recreation Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council
Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
December 17,2007 Planning Intern Joe Hogeboom called the meetin at 6 pm.
She explained that
problems, communi
staff, residents d r
programm tic
rty,
ndlee
and
Irector of
Clancy,
Ekman, Barr
Intern Joe Hogeboom
Those present were, Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysse
Schmidgall and Waldhauser, Environmental Commissioners,
and Pawluk, Open Space and Recreation Commissioners J
McConico. Also present was Director of Parks & Recreation
Planning and Development Mark Grimes, Director of Public
Environmental Coordinator AI Lundstrom, Public Wor
Engineering Consultants Karen Chandler and Ti
and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman
1.
Presentation/Discussion of the
Element
n Update - Surface Water
.
Chandler stated that a new Surfa
the Comprehensive Plan Updat
of Minnesota National Poll uti
the Metropolitan Council,
Water Management Co
t Plan is being written as a part of
must meet the requirements of the State
andimination System (NPDES) MS4 Permit,
Creek Watershed District and the Bassett Creek
ill provide the following benefits: prevent future
m and issues, provide an information resource for
ter planning for development and re-development and
budgeting.
ES MS4 permit which is a permit that the City has to receive in
ater. He discussed the Golden Valley Surface Water Pollution
PPP) tasks including: public education and outreach, public
it discharge detection and elimination, construction site runoff control,
n stormwater management and pollution prevention/housekeeping.
Brown referred to a map of impaired waters which included: Bassett Creek, Sweeney
Lake, Wirth Lake, Medicine Lake, Lake Hiawatha and Lake Pepin. Schmidgall asked why
Bassett Creek is considered impaired. Brown explained that the waters listed on the
impaired list are due to bacteria, sediment, phosphorus and 'mercury among other things.
Brown then discussed how the City's stormwater is affected by lakes outside of Golden
. Valley.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission/Environmental Commission/Open
Space and Recreation Commission
September 24,2007
Page 2
.
Brown discussed the various watershed management organizations and stated that the
Bassett Creek Water Management Commission is responsible for flood control, lake
water quality, stream channel stabilization, wetland protection, erosion control,
groundwater protection and water resources education.
Brown explained that the Metropolitan Council issues are: reduction of stormwater
volume, improving stormwater quality, maximize infiltration, thermal pollution, wetland
management, nondegradation goals and water quality goals. He added that Golden
Valley's issues for the new Plan are updating the city-wide hydrologic inter-
community drainage, interagency cooperation, wetland inventory an eloping
a stormwater ordinance, Bassett Creek stream bank erosion, red 10
1-394 Corridor Study, flood protection of homes/land acquisitio 100
Decola Ponds flooding, stormwater pond upgrades and sedi
stormwater facility maintenance, stormwater system mainte
ditch maintenance/disposition and public education.
Kluchka asked Bro
Comprehensive Pia
proposed plan
formally writte
w plan. The first goal
r q are: managing the
of Bassett Creek and City
current and future pollutant
age City lakes toward
an Minnesota Pollution Control
.
Brown discussed the goals and policies section 0
he discussed was water quality. The policies rei
water resources to benefit the community, impr
lakes, protect and enhance fish and wildlif
load reductions required by the state or
Bassett Creek Watershed Manageme
Agency goals/criteria.
The next goal Brown discuss
goal are: improving the qu
ponds and meet or exce
r qua of storm runoff. The policies for this
ter runoff, maintain efficiency of stormwater
egulations.
the things that have changed from the existing
ed updated plan. Brown explained that most of the
s things that the City is currently doing but hasn't been
ussed was illicit discharge detection and elimination. The
are to eliminate illicit discharge to storm sewers and receiving waters.
f sump pumps contribute to illicit discharge. Chandler said no.
Brown 0 the next goal which focuses on streams. The policies relevant to for this
goal are to: maintain or enhance the natural beauty and wildlife habitat value of Bassett
Creek, implement stream restoration measures, minimize the volume of storm runoff
entering Bassett Creek, increase the groundwater base flow of Bassett Creek, reduce the
frequency of bank full runoff events in Bassett Creek and maintain the efficiency of ponds.
.
Eck asked if geese affect bacteria levels. Lundstrom said yes and explained that there are
many best management practices to address that issue.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission/Environmental Commission/Open
Space and Recreation Commission
September 24,2007
Page 3
.
Kluchka asked what "bank full" means. Brown explained that "bank full" is when the creek
is up to its bank edge which happens approximately every 2 to 4 years. Kluchka asked if
there is a policy related to the "bank full" issue. Brown said the policy related to "bank full"
is to reduce impervious surfaces.
The next goal Brown discussed was flood control. The policies for this goal are to reduce
flooding along Bassett Creek, protect the public from flooding and regulate stormwater
runoff to minimize flood problems, damages and future costs.
Brown discussed t
that showed cost es
implementatio
scheduled in t
,s for
nd
nd
rom
ntion and
would be
tec very frequently
it can protect property
Brown explained that erosion and sediment control is the next goal a
that goal are: preventing erosion and sedimentation, implementin i
sedimentation controls and reducing erosion from single family e c
landscaping sites. Kluchka asked about the specific policies
flooding. Brown explained that protecting the public mostly
purchasing homes in flood prone areas. Kluchka asked if the
better than the word "protect". Clancy explained that t
used because the City can't necessarily prevent
owners to a certain degree.
.
Brown discussed the next goals of protec .
improving the quality of Bassett Creek
recreation opportunities in Golden Vall
groundwater resources.
etlands and natural areas,
nce the aesthetics and
e quantity and quality of
The last goals Brown discuss
contained in the plan and
issues.
Ing plement measures and policies
public involvement in water resource related
ion of the goals and policies and referred to two tables
ial funding sources and proposed year(s) of
many of the items listed in the tables are already
itallmprovement Program (CIP).
e items require new money. Brown stated that most of the "big
n the tables were taken right from the CIP. Clancy added that Bassett
ement Commission has approved some of the items and that some of
re covered by the city utility funds and pavement management funds.
Eck as the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission gets their money.
Clancy exp Ined that there is an Ad Valorem tax that taxpayers in the Bassett Creek
Water Management Watershed pay.
.
Brown discussed the items that will be addressed in the stormwater management
ordinances including: design requirements, rate and volume controls, codifying the
stormwater design requirements of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission,
Met Council and the City's NPDES permit and the City's own policies, outlining the
process and roles of other agencies, addressing illicit discharges and new connections.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission/Environmental Commission/Open
Space and Recreation Commission
September 24, 2007
Page 4
.
Brown discussed the buffer ordinance that will cover wetlands, lakes and streams.
Kluchka asked for an explanation of a buffer zone. Brown stated that a buffer zone is a
zone along a water body that is left to be natural. He explained that buffer zones have
ecological benefits, filter run-off, promote infiltration and help to control geese.
Brown discussed the next steps in the process including the Comprehensive Plan Open
House in Spring 2008, submission to Watersheds in Spring of 2008, approval by
Watersheds in Summer of 2008 and City Council adoption in December 2 08.
Chand lee referred to the impaired water list and asked/!! any
list at some point. Brown said yes and explained how I!a f
impaired waters list.
if they are considered one
ody. Chandler explained that
tion number but they operate
McConico asked what would happen if a community could not afford
set and couldn't get a permit. Lundstrom stated that there is an eo
group that police these issues and there could be the potential aws
that the State could also levy fines and cut aid.
.
Grimes referred to Twin Lake and Sweeney Lak
water body. Clancy said they are not cons'
Twin Lake and Sweeney Lank have th
very differently.
Kluchka asked about the cons i
improve the water quality. Clanc
resistance to the propose
Ie who have waterfront property to
roperty rights issues and there could be
2.
.
~
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 17, 2007
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,
December 17, 2007. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
1. Approval of Minutes
November 26, 2007 Joint Planning/Environmental/Op
Commission Meeting
i to approve the
ce and Recreation
eysser abstained from voting
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluch
and Schmidgall. Also present was Council Member Bob Shaffer, Direc
and Development Mark Grimes, Planning Intern Joe Hogeboom and
Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Waldhauser was absent.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motion
November 26, 2007 Joint Planning/Environmen
Commission Meeting minutes as submitte
because he was not present at the mee .
.
Eck referred to the last paragra
the word "were".
noted that the word "where" should be
MOVED by Eck, seconde
November 26, 200'A ula
Commissioners Key
present at the 'n
midgaand motion carried unanimously to approve the
ing Commission minutes with the above correction.
rty abstained from voting because they were not
2.
ing In-fill Housing Issues
e Planning Commission's report on In-Fill Housing and
He said he thinks that lessening the height requirement as suggested
kea big difference. He suggested that the volume of a house and the
volume be en houses is what will make a bigger difference. He gave the
Commissioners drawings and showed them models that illustrated massing and the air
space between different types of houses on different sized lots.
.
Shaffer said he is also recommending that the proposed language regarding side wall
articulation be removed or be made applicable to all floors of a house and that the entire
side yard setback needs to become larger as a house g.ets taller.
McCarty asked if that means the entire structure would have to be set back further from
the side yard property line. Shaffer said yes.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Planning Commission
December 17, 2007
Page 2
.
Shaffer stated that existing structures would be "grandfathered in" and new additions
would have to meet any new setback requirements. He said that increasing the volume
would mean more than reducing the height and the idea is to pull houses away from each
other so he is proposing that if a house is over 15 feet in height, the side yard setback
requirement should increase 6 inches per foot over 15 feet.
Keysser asked if the City has seen examples of large homes being built on 75 foot wide
Jots. Schmidgall asked how many "monster" houses have been built. Sh hought 5 or
6 "monster" houses have been built, but that there will be more. He s ving
different requirements on 40-foot wide lots.
Keysser said
expensiv a
that ot
sugges
on
se being
d in having
s. He stated
Keysser questioned the costs involved in having to "set back"
when remodeling a house. He said he is not sure what is wr
located next to a bigger house. Shaffer agreed that there will
to set back a second story addition but he is trying to teet
that when houses are out of scale is when the City re
.
Rich Baker, 224 Janalyn Circle, stated that the
neighborhood. He said he knows it is difficult to
questioned how that would be done. Sha
volume of a house and explained that
actually measuring the volume. Gri
have impervious surface require'1l
home.
vis I impact on the
volume of a house and
difficult to measure the
e volume of houses without
i;iili'proposed new ordinance does
ill also'help determine the size of a new
McCarty stated that the P
Report and the residents
recommendations i their
visualized in 3-D in
.ssion spent a lot of time on the Infill Development
meetings seemed happy with the
haffer said he thinks the recommendations have to be
understand the issues.
d ut fewer people being able to build and it being more
'r homes and that is not fair to property owners. Shaffer stated
adding language to their codes similar to what he is
e working with it and have been alright with it.
ks the biggest issue is houses that are torn down and rebuilt with
e added that it is more efficient to "build up" and it is better for the
d for water run-off.
Cera agreed with Shaffer and stated that if a second story addition is required to be set-
back further it would affect the scale of the house. Keysser said he agrees that Shaffer's
proposed language would work for new construction but not for remodels or additions.
Shaffer discussed the issue of grading and "building up" the grade in orderto make a
house taller. Kluchka noted that the Planning Commission's. proposed . language stated
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Planning Commission
December 17, 2007
Page 3
.
that the grading on a lot can only be "built up" as high as necessary to get the proper
drainage.
Grimes stated that there are so many unique lots in Golden Valley that it is difficult to
measure the grade. Shaffer suggested measuring the height of a new home from the
existing grade or setting the new house based on the current grade of the lot because
proportions of new houses start to match if they are built where they originally started.
3.
, es
at the time
ial grade.
de and it would
Keysser stated that there are a number of lots that need fill brought in
the drainage work properly. Shaffer agreed and stated that in those
homeowner might have to request a variance.
Cera suggested looking at the grade on a lot during the sub .
stated that new plats now require subdivision agreements an
a lot is subdivided. Kluchka said he likes the idea of m surin
Grimes stated that the City would have to require a su
have to be checked before and after constructio
Shaffer reiterated that height isn't the issue, it's
to give the Planning Commission ideas t
that will work.
e explained that he is trying
e incorporated into the code
.
Eck referred to the language reg
sentence. Grimes explained tha
t 0 omes and questioned the last
e "grandfathers in" existing homes.
Keysser summarized the
new language for the PI
grade from the exist' g gra
additional side yard ck
articulation on con
side yard prop i
put in the
es discussed. Grimes said he will draft some
i ~;~n to discuss the following items: measuring
t, structures higher than 15 feet will require 6 inches of
for each additional foot over 15 feet, sidewall
oofs, and second stories being setback further from
dded that he will work on some drawings that can be
ngs of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
rd of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
ort on the November 20,2007 City Council Meeting.
4. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
.
5.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:5~ pm.
.
.
.
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
January 8, 2008
To:
Planning Commission
From:
Joe Hogeboom, Planner
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit (CUP-121) to
Allow for an Employee Daycare Facility at 9400 Golden Valley Road - Peter
Thomley (Representative, RHT Office LLC.), Applicant
Background
Mr. Peter Thomley, representative for RHT Office LLC, has requested a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) in order to allow an employee daycare at 9400 Golden Valley Road. The
property is located in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. Section 11.45,
Subdivision 7(B)(7) allows conditional uses which, in the opinion of the Council, are compatible
with uses specifically described in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. Staff
has determined that an employee daycare is compatible with other functions of the District.
RHT Office LLC is the owner of the property at 9400 Golden Valley Road. Meridian Services
and Orion ISO, related social service agencies, currently occupy the building. The proposed
daycare facility would be used for Meridian Services and Orion ISO employees' children only.
Proposed Use
In addition to being located in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District, 9400
Golden Valley Road is guided for Office Use in the Comprehensive Plan. The building was
constructed in 1976 and has housed business and office~related clients since its construction.
In its Conditional Use Permit application, RHT LLC explains that the proposed daycare would
be used by ten children. The proposed daycare would accommodate four infants and six
toddlers. Proposed hours of operation would be from 7 am to 7 pm, with an average of two
daycare staff members present during that time.
The proposed daycare will occupy 1004 square feet of space inside the building. In addition,
1500 square feet of outdoor space (to be fenced-in) would be dedicated to the proposed
daycare. The facility will include amenities standard for a childcare operation. Employee-only
daycare facilities are qualified conditional uses within the Light Industrial Zoning District, which
. is located directly north of the proposed site.
9400 Golden Valley Road is currently being remodeled. Upon completion of remodeling, the
parking lot will be re-striped. The proposed daycare would not require the building to add
additional spaces beyond what is necessary for current expansion plans. With limited daycare
staff, there will be minimal impact on parking.
Analysis of Ten Factors
Per City Code, the Planning Commission must make findings on ten factors when reviewing a
CUP application. They are as follows with staff comment:
1. Demonstrated Need of the Use: The City requires that an applicant identify a legitimate
need for a Conditional Use Permit. RHT Properties has demonstrated this by citing the
number of employees with young children who work at 9400 Golden Valley Road.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The General Land Use Plan Map depicts
the proposed site as long-term office use. An employee-only daycare facility does not
conflict with that use.
3. Effect on Property Values in the Area: Staff does not believe the approval of this permit
will affect property values in the area in any way.
.
4. Effect of Use on Traffic in the Area: Children of the proposed daycare will arrive with
parents who would otherwise be on the site, therefore not impacting traffic. The minimal
number of daycare staff will not negatively impact area traffic.
5. Effect of Increases in Density or Population on the Area: The proposed use will not
increase the population of the area. Since this use is non-residential, only the daytime
population of Golden Valley would be (very minimally) effected.
6. Increase in Noise Created by Use: Noise impacts created by this proposed facility should
not extend beyond the site.
7. Any Dust, Odor or Vibration caused by Use: No such problems are expected to be
caused by this proposal.
8. Any Increase in Animal Pests Caused by the Use: The nature of this facility does not
contribute to the existence of pests in anyway.
9. Visual Appearance of the Use: The exterior of the building will not be affected by the
proposed daycare. A 1500 square foot outdoor play facility will be completely fenced in.
10. Other Effects of the Use: Staff does not anticipate any negative effects of the proposed
use.
.
.
.
.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit allowing RHT Office LLC to operate
an employee-only daycare in the facility located at 9400 Golden Valley Road. The approval of
a Conditional Use Permit is subject to the following conditions:
1. No outdoor signage may be used to advertise or otherwise promote the daycare.
2. Children attending the daycare must have a parent who is employed in the facility.
3. The number of children attending the daycare at any time must be no greater than ten.
4. The hours of normal operation shall be Monday through Friday from 7 am to 7 pm.
5. All improvements to the building must meet the City's Building Code requirements.
6. All necessary licenses must be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Health and the
Minnesota Department of Human Services.
7. All requirements must be met for the installation of fire safety equipment.
8. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times.
Attachments:
Location Map (1 page)
Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson, dated January 3,2008 (1 page)
Applicant's Narrative (2 pages)
Applicant's List of Proposed Site Specifications (2 pages)
Pictures of 9400 Golden Valley Road (4 pages)
Site Plans (4 oversized pa.ges)
Subject Property
(()
#ss
,'to
~~o
#'\.f<Jf:t
<:Jf!>
f11~..
~'HVAY' 5S
~
,
;,r.,.,
O~
1-~
"Q.
ili'..."
Map()~wiii~ JW;t.MS,., ~{C} ~OOiSQlS2Cf.15
.
28
900lI
8900
101'tl MIl: M
o
o
o
o
830'
o
o
o
o
o
900
935
SOlI
~
'g
I~
,C:;
1;0
,,.
I~
Iz
150
850
710
~
8J!i
~
8
o
o
o
o
o
o
000000000000000
oooooooc
o <> 0
o 0
130
640
o ,I;) 0
~ 1<I!0000 0 00
00008
lfHffi
~
lffiffi
-
9i.l.0
8900
MOO
9OllO
..---
81115
440-
432
42"-
. __ 90018933 891789138900 400
325 I 89~5 I I I I 890\
HAROLD AVE_
u
514ft
.
.
.
morandum
Fire Department
763-593-8055 I 763-512-2497 (fax)
To:
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning & Zoning
From:
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal
Subject: Conditional Use Permit RHT Office LLC- Daycare, 9400 Golden Valley Road
Date: 01/03/08
The Golden Valley Fire Department staff has reviewed the conditional use permit application
for the proposed daycare services located at 9400 Golden Valley Road. The following
comments and concerns are identified:
1. The proposed daycare operation shall meet the requirements for installation of all fire
safety equipment including, but not limited to, fire alarm system, fire suppression
system and placement of fire extinguishers throughout the center, and other
requirements set forth in the 2006 Minnesota State Fire Code.
2. The proposed daycare staff shall meet the requirements for emergency planning and
preparedness as set forth in the 2006 Minnesota State Fire Code.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065.
.
.
.
1...*1 gmQ~
Orion Associates Central Office: 44 North 28th Avenue, Suite D, Saint Ooud, Minnesota 56303 Phone: (320) 255-5151
FAX: (320) 202-9471
Metropolitan Office: 9400 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 Phone: (763)-450-5000 FAX: (763)-450-
5000 '
December 5, 2007
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427
Dear City Planners:
Orion Associates, Meridian Services and Orion ISO are related social services
agencies that provide a great variety of services to people with disabilities
Our agencies employ over 1500 people most of whom provide direct services to
the hundreds of families and individuals that receive social services.
RHT LLC owns the property that houses the administrative and management
employees for the related entities. We currently employ approximately 60 people
that use the office space at 9400 Golden Valley Road. Many of our staff are
young women who want to continue working but need child care in order to both
perform their very demanding social service work and care for their children.
Over the past two years, approximately 15 of our administrative and
management staff have had children. This is a large number of people, twenty
percent, in a field where it is a challenge to hire and retain qualified employees.
Our solution to this problem is to offer on site day care services. We believe that
beyond the practical aspects of offering this flexibility to our staff and the
opportunity to be close to their children, it also affords us a healthier workplace.
Our plan is to provide on site day care services to 10 of our employees. The
services will be available to employees only. We are familiar with regulatory
compliance since we are a licensed provider of many other types of services to
children and adults including child foster care and services licensed by both the
Department of Health and the Department of Human Services. Our daycare is
designed to meet all applicable regulations.
.
.
.
I have enclosed further specific information about our proposed daycare
operation. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding our
application.
Since ~.,.~.e.. "..IY, '.
I"~
I I, /
\ ~ -
Dr. Rebecca Thomley
Chief Executive Officer
RHT LLC
763-450-5045
Proposed Day Care Specifications:
.re Inspection: Child care center must be in compliance with MN Uniform Fire Code and a fire marshal must
inspect at least 12 months prior to licensure.
General rules about square footage:
Indoor: 35 square feet per child (not including crib space, closet, bathroom, office space...)
Outdoor: Minimum of 1,500 square feet ~ fenced
Bathrooms: one toddler sized training toilet, one adult sized toilet.
Sinks: one toddler sized double sink (in main area ~ for bathroom use and daily use) with appropriate height
single serve towel dispenser.
Kitchen: We meet the requirements ofa variance ofa commercial grade kitchen, however, we need a food
prep sink in the kitchen and a commercial level dishwasher that will sanitize dishes.
Refrigerator: We will need a small commercial grade refrigerator in the infant area for milk/formula storage.
Diaper Changing Area: We need a diaper changing table with wrist activated sink.
Space for sick child: We need to have an area to separate a child that becomes sick. This can be handled with
the cubical walls.
ersonal Storage Space: We must provide appropriate height level personal storage space (with coat hook) for
each child.
.
Meridian Services, Inc. Proposed Day Care Center
.e Meridian Services, Inc. Day care is 1004 indoor square feet in size.
The center will include an area for 4 infants and 6 toddlers. There is a minimum of35 square
feet indoors per.child and a minimum fenced outdoor area of 1500 square feet.
The center will also include the following:
. One toddler sized toilet
. One adult sized toilet
. Diaper changing area with separate sink
. One double toddler sized sink
. Refrigerator for formula / breast milk storage
. Separate space for child that may become ill
. Personal storage space for each child
. Food preparation sink
. Commercial dishwasher
The hours of operation will be 7 am to 7pm
eminimum of two staffwill be on duty. Infant Room 1:4,..., Toddler Room 1:6.
.
~. - .\....
<-~;,:- .~
.rj'/~
->-: ,~~~;?
~. \'
-t.
~
.
.
.
I
I
l. _
- -
.
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
January 11, 2008
To:
Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Additional Changes to Zoning Code Related to Infill Development
.
At the December 17,2007 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission met with City
Councilmember Bob Shaffer to discuss his concerns related to the proposed changes to the
zoning code related to infill development. As indicated in the minutes of the meeting, there
were several areas where changes were suggested to the proposed changes recommended
earlier by the Planning Commission. At the end of the meeting, I told the Commission that I
would consider the points brought up at the meeting and bring back some alternatives for the
Planning Commission to consider. These proposed changes relate to the determination of
grade, increasing the setback distance with the increase in building height and additional
definitions to help make the code easier to understand.
The following are changes to the infill suggestions after the December 17 meeting:
.
1. The setback requirement for houses and structures would be increased after the height
goes over 15 ft. For all lots over 65 ft. in width, the side setback would increase % ft. for
every foot of height over 15 ft. up to the maximum allowed height. For lots less than 40 ft.
wide, the side setback would increase % ft. for every two feet of height over 15 ft. up to the
maximum allowed height. This change would be require that all new houses and additions
to new houses be "stepped back" as the height increases. This was the major concern
addressed by Councilmember Shaffer.
2. The method for determining building height is clarified. The 'height is measured from the
grade established at the time of subdivision approval. If a house existed on a lot and was
torn down to make way for a new house, the grade of the house that was torn down would
be the established grade with up to a one foot increase permitted.
3. In order to prevent homes from becoming nonconforming that were legally built prior to the
adoption of the new side setback and height requirement, staff is suggesting that houses
built prior to Jan. 1, 2008 are considered compliant. However, any new construction would
have to meet the requirements of the current zoning code. This allows a house that was
legally built at 30 ft. height to be added on to if the addition meets the requirements of the
zoning code. If this section was not added, houses that were above the new height
requirement could only be expanded if a variance was granted.
.
.
.
4. A definition of average grade of lot is included that states that the grade is determined at
the building line facing a street. Staff will determine policy for determining the average. If
the lot is a corner lot, the average grade would be for all sides facing a street.
Attachments
Memo from Mark Grimes dated December 12, 2007 (2 pages)
Planning Commission minutes dated December 17,2007 (3 pages)
Underline/Overstrike version of the code pages reflecting past and current proposed changes
(7 pages)
.
.
.
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
December 12, 2007
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Reconsideration of R-1 Zoning Code Changes Related to Infill Development
At the August 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held an informal public
hearing to consider various changes to the Single Family (R-1) Chapter and one change to the
definition chapter of the Zoning Code. After the hearing, the Commission voted 6-1 to
recommend approval of the changes to the City Council. This recommendation was originally
scheduled to go to the City Council at a public hearing on September 4,2007. At the
September 4,2007 meeting, the Council voted to continue the public hearing in order to allow
the Council to go over the recommendation from the Planning Commission at a Council/
Manager study meeting. Due to some staff absence and other delays, the infill
recommendations did not get to a City Council/City Manager meeting until November 13, 2007.
At the November 13 meeting, Council Member Shaffer outlined his concerns about the
changes proposed by the Planning Commission related to height and volume of houses. He
provided drawings and models to demonstrate his concern. The direction from the Council was
for Council Member Shaffer to meet with the Planning Commission to consider altering the
Planning Commission's recommendation related to height and setback. Also, the Council
asked the staff to better define the method for determining the grade of a lot.
Council Member Shaffer believes that new height suggested by the Planning Commission of
28 ft. for a pitched roof house and 25 ft. for a flat roof house is fine. However, he is concerned
about from what point the measurement is taken. He is suggesting that Golden Valley consider
that the grade of a lot be maintained at the grade when the subdivision was approved or the
same grade as the house was when it was demolished to make way for a new home. With this
requirement, new houses or additions could be built to the full height allowed by code but the
height would start from a historical point.
Council Member Shaffer would also like to consider a change that would increase the side
setback when a house if over a certain height. For instance, the code could state that a home
that is 17 ft. high may be placed right on the side setback line. For each foot of height over 17
ft. to the maximum allowed height, the setback would have to be increased by % ft. for each
foot of height over 17 ft. As an example, for a house on an 80 ft. wide lot, if the maximum
height house of 28 ft. was to be constructed, the side setback would be 12.5 ft. plus 5.5 ft. (1/2
ft. for each foot of height over 17 ft.) for a total side setback of 18 ft. There may have to be
some adjustment made for lots less than 65-75 ft. side.
.
.
.
Council Member Shaffer also believes that it is important to require that walls over a certain
length are articulated. He may have a suggestion on the one proposed by the Planning
Commission. The proposal suggested by the Planning Commission states that for walls over
32 ft. in length, there must be a shift of at least 2 ft. in depth, for at least 8 ft in length for every
32 ft. of wall.
After meeting with Council Member Shaffer, the Planning Commission may want to amend the
infill changes approved back in August 2007. Staff would suggest that a new informal public
hearing be held to get public input.
Attachments
Minutes from the November 13, 2007 Council/Manager meeting (1 page)
Underline/Overstrike version of the Code pages reflecting original Planning Commission
recommendations (5 pages)
Minutes from the August 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting (4 pages)
Golden Valley Survey Requirements (1 page)
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 17, 2007
1.
rs Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluch
ember Bob Shaffer, Direc
tern Joe Hogeboom a,
hauser was abse
A regular meeting of the Planning Commis 'on was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
uncil Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley R d, Golden Valley, Minne~ota, on Monda
De ber 17, 2007. Chair Keysser called e meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Those pre t were Planning Commissio
and Schmidg . Also present was Co unci
and Developme , rk Grimes, Planning
Assistant Lisa Wittm ommissioner W
.
Eck referred to the
the word "were"
ing In-fill Housing Issues
e Planning Commission's report on In-Fill Housing and
He said he thinks that lessening the height requirement as suggested
ke a big difference. He suggested that the volume of a house and the
volume be en houses is what will make a bigger difference. He gave the
Commissioners drawings and showed them models that illustrated massing and the air
space between different types of houses on different sized lots.
.
Shaffer said he is also recommending that the proposed language regarding side wall
articulation be removed or be made applicable to all floors of a house and that the entire
side yard setback needs to become larger as a house gets taller.
McCarty asked if that means the entire structure would have to be set back further from
the side yard property line. Shaffer said yes.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Planning Commission
December 17, 2007
Page 2
Shaffer stated that existing structures would be "grandfathered in" and new additions
would have to meet any new setback requirements. He said that increasing the volume
would mean more than reducing the height and the idea is to pull houses away from each
other so he is proposing that if a house is over 15 feet in height, the side yard setback
requirement should increase 6 inches per foot over 15 feet.
Keysser asked if the City has seen examples of large homes being built on 75 foot wide
lots. Schmidgall asked how many "monster" houses have been built. Sh hought 5 or
6 "monster" houses have been built, but that there will be more. He s ving
different requirements on 40-foot wide lots.
Keysser questioned the costs involved in having to "set back"
when remodeling a house. He said he is not sure what is wrr:, ith
located next to a bigger house. Shaffer agreed that there willt:.>e c
to set back a second story addition but he is trying to teet h
that when houses are out of scale is when the City re lain ;
on
se being
d in having
s. He stated
Rich Baker, 224 Janalyn Circle, stated that the
neighborhood. He said he knows it is difficult to
questioned how that would be done. Sha
volume of a house and explained that
actually measuring the volume. Gri
have impervious surface require
home.
vis I impact on the
volume of a house and
difficult to measure the
e volume of houses without
roposed new ordinance does
elp determine the size of a new
McCarty stated that the P
Report and the residents
recommendations i their
visualized in 3-D in
. sion spent a lot of time on the Infill Development
d ;~fi meetings seemed happy with the
haffersaid he thinks the recommendations have to be
understand the issues.
ut fewer people being able to build and it being more
'r homes and that is not fair to property owners. Shaffer stated
adding language to their codes similar to what he is
e working with it and have been alright with it.
ks the biggest issue is houses that are torn down and rebuilt with
e added that it is more efficient to "build up" and it is better for the
d for water run-off.
Cera agreed with Shaffer and stated that if a second story addition is required to be set,..
back further it would affect the scale of the house. Keysser said he agrees that Shaffer's
proposed language would work for new construction but not for remodels or additions.
Shaffer discussed the issue of grading and "building up" the grade in order to make a
house taller. Kluchka noted that the Planning Commission's proposed language stated
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Planning Commission
December 17, 2007
Page 3
.
that the grading on a lot can only be "built up" as high as necessary to get the proper
drainage.
Grimes stated thaUhere are so many unique lots in Golden Valley that it is difficult to
measure the grade. Shaffer suggested measuring the height of a new home from the
existing grade or setting the new house based on the current grade of the lot because
proportions of new houses start to match if they are built where they originally started.
Keysser stated that there are a number of lots that need fill brought in
the drainage work properly. Shaffer agreed and stated that in those t
homeowner might have to request a variance.
3.
mes
at the time
ial grade.
de and it would
Cera suggested looking at the grade on a lot during the sub
stated that new plats now require subdivision agreements an
a lot is subdivided. Kluchka said he likes the idea of m suri
Grimes stated that the City would have to require a s
have to be checked before and after constructio
Shaffer reiterated that height isn't the issue, it's volum
to give the Planning Commission ideas thfthe;!hih~~ coul
that will work. .
e explained that he is trying
e incorporated into the code
.
Eck referred to the language reg
sentence. Grimes explained tha
o omes and questioned the last
"grandfathers in" existing homes.
Keysser summarized the
new language for the PI
grade from the exist" g gr
additional side yard
articulation on
side yard prop
put in the e
es discussed. Grimes said he will draft some
into discuss the following items: measuring
t, structures higher than 15 feet will require 6 inches of
r each additional foot over 15 feet, sidewall
oofs, and second stories being setback further from
dded that he will work on some drawings that can be
gs of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
rd of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
ort on the November 20,2007 City Council Meeting.
4. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
.
5.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 pm.
-thiS '4e.f5;l)(\ WW -fD~ Pll).nni~ LoW\~. 1-/4,o~
.
Previous proposals/revisions are underlined and overstriked in black
~ew proposai~l[eyisions are ~n~,irlfned and/or 9ierstr!kesf ~!1d iii~l.hIJg!1t~d in
yellQv!
9 11.03
activities of daily living, such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking,
seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working; or (2) having a disorder of
thought or mood that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize
reality, or ability to cope with the ordinary demands of life; and (3) requiring support to
maintain independence in the community.
Source: Ordinance No. 264, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 12-13-01
3. "Affected Persons" - Any or all persons who own property located within
500 feet of the subject premises under zoning review.
4. "Alley" - A public or private way affording only secondary means of access
to abutting property.
5. "Apartment" - A room or suite of rooms in a multi-family or multi-use
building arranged and intended as a place of residence for a single family or a group of
individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit.
.
6. "Apartment Building" - Any building or portion thereof which is designed,
built, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or which is occupied as the home or
residence of three or more families living independently of each other and doing their own
cooking in the said building, and shall include flats and apartments.
7. "Automobile Sales" - An open or enclosed area (building or structure),
other than a street, used for the display, sale, or rental, of new and used motor vehicles in
operable condition.
8. "Automobile Wrecking" - The dismantling or disassembling of used motor
vehicles or trailers, or the storage, sale or dumping of dismantled, partially dismantled,
obsolete or wrecked vehicles or their parts.
8.5 "Averaqe Grade of a Lot" - The a.veraqe qround elevatio-n of a house or
structure taken at three points alonq a buildinq line facinq a street. If the house or structure
faces more than one street. the averaqe qrade shall be for all sides facinq the street.
9. "Basement" - That portion of a building with at least three walls having at
least one-half (1/2) or more of their floor-to ceiling height underground.
.
10. "Buildable Area" - That area of a lot which is exclusive of all yards and
within which the principal building must be constructed.
Source: Ordinance No. 585
Effective Date: 1-14-83
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
245
(6-30-04 )
.
.
.
S 11.03
12. "Building, Hoight of" Tho vortic:::ll distanco :::Ibovo "gr:::ldo" :::IS dofined
horoin to tho highost point of tho coping of :::I fbt roof, or to tho dock Iino of :::I m:::lns:::lrd roof
or to tho :::I'Ior:::lgo hoight of tho highost g:::lblo of a pitchod roof or hippod roof. Tho
mO:::lsuromont m:::lY bo t:::lkon from tho highost adjoining sidow:::Ilk or ground surfaco within 3
fivo (5) foot horizont31 dist:::lnco of tho oxtorior w:::I1I of tho building, 'Nhon such sidO'.valk or
ground SUrf3CO is not moro th:::ln ton (10) foot 3bovo grodo. ;12. "I~ui~q-Horqlii
D01O"r'min3tion" Tho vortic~:il dl'St3nc-o-from tho 5vor3~qr:::ldo pl:::lno 3t tho buildinq-f::idii'Q
tho streot to tho 3vor:::lqo heiqht of tho hiqhost pitchod roof or tho hiqhost point of :::I fbt roof
structure. On lots th:::lt h:::lvo moro th:::ln one side bcinq tho streot, tho dist:::lnco for hoiqht is
from tho :::IVor3qO qr:::ldo pbno of :::III sidos th3t bco the streot.
~ 2. 93U1idinq Heiqht Determination" i"heve-riical distance- or heiQ'hCof a
Structure shall be measured from the qrade at the front buildinq line (street side) to the!
averaqe heiqht of the hiqhest pitched roof or the hiqhest point of a flat roof structure. The
qrade of a lot is established at the time of subdivision approval by the City. If the qrade
was not established at the time of subdivision approval the City. the Director of Public
Works shall establish the qrade prior to construction of the structure. In the case where a
house or structure has been removed from a lot for the construction of new house or
'structure. the qrade for the new house or structure shall be no more than one foot hiqhel'
, I
than the averaqe qrade that existed for the house or structure that was removed. In the
Case of a corner lot, the averaqe qrade is taken from all sides of the house or structura
facinq a street.
13. "Business" - Any occupation, employment or enterprise wherein
merchandise is exhibited or sold, or which occupies time, attention, labor and materials, or
where services are offered for compensation.
14. "Car Wash" - A building and/or premises used principally for washing
and cleaning automobiles, using either manual or automatic production line methods.
15. "Cemetery" - Land used or intended to be used for the burial of human
dead and dedicated as a "cemetery" for such purposes.
Source: Ordinance No. 585
Effective Date: 1-14-83
16. "Child Care Facilities" - A service provided to the public in which children
of school or pre-school age are cared for during established business hours.
Source: Ordinance No. 712
Effective Date: 6-23-88
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
(6-30-04 )
246
.
.
.
9 11.21
C. Home day care facilities licensed by the State of
Minnesota serving 12 or fewer persons.
Subdivision 5. Conditional Uses.
A. Residential facilities serving from seven to 25 persons.
B. Group foster family homes.
Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots. No dwelling or accessory structure shall be
erected for use or occupancy as a residential dwelling on any tract of unplatted land which
does not conform with the requirements of this Section, except on those lots located within
an approved plat. In the R-1 zoning district a platted lot of a minimum area of 10,000
square feet and a minimum width of 80 feet shall be required for one single family
dwelling.
Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility. All structures in the R-1 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-1 Zoning District shall be
located in dedicated public easements.
Subdivision 9. Building Lot Coverage. No lot or parcel in the R-1 Zoning
District shall have a lot coverage of more than 30 percent for a lot or parcel over 10,000
square feet in area, 35% for a lot or parcel between 5,000 square feet and 9,999 square
feet in area and 40% for a lot or parcel less than 5,000 square feet in area. This
requirement excludes swimming pools. Total impervious surface on any lot or parcel shall
not exceed 50% of the lot or parcel area.
Subdivision 10. Principal Structures. Subject to the modifications in
Subdivision 12, below, principal structures in the R-1 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-1 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 25 square feet in size and for
handicapped ramps.
1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be
35 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. Open frontporches,
with no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front property line along a street right-
of-way line.
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
264
(6-30-04)
.
.
.
S 11.21
(a.) In the case of a corner lot, the side with the narrower
street frontage shall be considered the front of the lot.
2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be 20 percent
of the lot depth.
3. Side Setback. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot
width at the minimum required front setback line. The distance between any part of a
structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements:
_ _n _ _ _ _ }3.)Tn tho C3S0 of lots h3vi"ii"Q"3 'liidth of 100 foot or gro9.tor,
,tho side sotb3ck sh311 be 15 foot; (a.) In the case of lots havinq a width of 100 feet Oli
qreater. the side setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in heiqht shall be 15 feet. The side
'setbacks for any structure qreater than 15 feet in heiqht shall be 15 feet plus one-half foot
for each additional one foot (or portion thereof) of structure heiqht over 15 feetr
.(1).) In tho C3S0 of lots-h3\/ing3 \\7jdth gro:itor fh3n-65 foot
r --- ..- -
3nd loss th3n 100 foot, tho side Y3rd sotb3ck sh311 bo 12.5 foot; (b.) In the case of lots
havinq a width qreater than 65 feet and less than 100 feet. the side setbacks for structures
h 5 feet or less in heiqht shall be 12.5 feet. The side setbacks for any structure qreater.
than 15 feet in heiqht shall be 12.5 feet plus one-half foot for each additional one foot (or
portion thereof) of structure heiqht over 15 feet.
{cl"in tho C3S0 of lots h3ving 3 width of 55-foetor-loss, tho
North or\^lost side Y3rd sotb::lck sh311 bo 10 porcont of tho lot width, 3nd tho South or E3~t
bdo Y3rd sotb3ck sh311 bo 20 percont of tho lot width (up to 12.5 foot). (c.) In the case of
lots havinq a width of 65 feet or less, the side setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in
heiqht alonq the north or west side shall be 10% of the lot width and alonq the south or
~ast side shall be 20% of the lot width (up to 12.5 feet). The side setback for any structure
Qreater than 15 feet in heiqht alonq the north or west side shall be 10% of the lot width and
alonq the south or east side 20% of the lot width plus one-half foot for each additional two
feet (or portion thereof) of heiqht over 15 feet.
(d.) If 3 princip31 structuro is gr03tor than 40 foot in dopth
310ng 3 side Y3rd adj::lcont to 3nothor property th3t side Y3rd sotb3ck ch311 incr03se by
one foot for e3ch 3ddition31 ton feot of structuro dopth or portion thereof. (d.) For any new
construction. whether a new house. addition or replacement throuqh a tear-down. any wall
lonqer than 32 feet in lenqth must be articulated. with a shift of a least 2 feet in depth. for
at least 8 feet in lenqth. for every 32 feet of wall.
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.
B. Hoight Limit3tions. No principal structuro shall bo orectod in tho R
1 Zoning District to oxcood D hoight of t'.\'o and 3 h31f stories or 30 foet as dofinod in tho
City's building codo, \Nhichevor is less. No princlp31 structure sh311 bo croctod in thO R 1
ZoninqDistrict to e.xce-ed -; hOiqht or28 foot for pitched roof housos and 25 feet for flat
'roof houses oxcopt for those structures constructed prior to October 1. 2007. In the case
bf structures construed prior to October 1. 2007. the buildinq hoiqht shall be 30 f{)ot. The
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
265
(6-30-04 )
.
.
.
S 11.21
buildinQ"FiOiqht is doflned-3s foITo'J'.'s: The vcrtic31 dist3-nce :ibove- qr3'de to the hiqhest roof
structure of 3 fl3t roof or to the deck line of 3 m3nS3rd roof or to the 3'1er3qe heiqht of the
hiqhest q3ble of 3 pitched or hipped roof. The me3surement of qr3de sh311 be t3ken from
the hiqhest 3dioininq side'N3lk or qround surbce '.vith 3 5 f{)ot horizont31 dist3nce of tho
exterior w311 of the buildinq 'Nhere such sidew31k or qround surbcc is not more th3n 10
~eet 3bo'Je qr3de. (Refer to Section 11.03, Definition 12 "Buildinq Heiqht Detormin3tion"
for det3ils on me3suremcnt.)
:8. HeTqht Limitafions. No principal structure shaIT 1;e -erectecnn the R-
~1 Zoninq District to exceed a heiqht of 28 feet for pitched roof houses and 25 feet for flat
iroof houses!
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
265-1
(6-30-04 )
.
9 11.21
E. Each property ic limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of the
following accescory structurec: detached and attached garages, detached sheds,
greenhouces, and gazebos. Swimming pools arc not included in this requirement. E. Each
property is limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of the followinq accessory structures:
detached and attached qaraqes, detached sheds, qreenhouses and qazebos. Swimminq
pools are not included in this requirement. No one detached accessory structure may be
larqer than 800 square feet in area and any accessory structure over 120 square feet in
area requires a buildinq permit.
F. Size of Accessory Structures. No accessory structure shall be
larger in size than the principal structure. (See Subdivision 4.A(1)).
G. Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback
and location requirements for accessory structures. Setbacks shall be measured from the
property line to the pool's edge. Decks surrounding above ground pools shall meet
setback requirements.
H. Decks. Free standing decks or decks attached to accessory
buildings shall meet the same setback requirements for accessory buildings. (See
Subdivision 14.)
I. Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall
not be allowed in the front yard of a single family home.
. J. Decign. 1\11 accessory ctructurec conctructed after the conctruction
of the principal ctructure must be decigned and constructed in a manner consistent with
the design and general appearance of the principal ctructure. J. Roof. Gambrel and
Mansard roofs are not permitted on any accessory buildinq with a footprint of more than
120 square feet.
Subdivision 12. Pre-1982 Structures. For all existing structures
constructed in the R-1 zoning district prior to January 1, 1982, the following structure
setbacks shall be in effect.
A. Front Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be
no closer than 25 feet to the front yard property line.
B. Side Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be no
closer than three feet to the side yard property line.
C. Rear Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be
no closer than ten feet to the rear yard property line.
Subdivision 13. Height and Side Setback of Pre-2008 Structures'-For all
'existinq structures constructed in the R-1 Zoninq District prior to January 1, 2008, if the
side setback and heiqht were compliant with the Zoninq Code at the time a buildinq permit
was issued, the location and heiqht are considered conforminq to current Zoninq Code.
However, new construction and additions to such properties must comply with current
requirements of the Zoninq Code.
.
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
267
(6-30-04 )
.
.
.
S 11.21
Subdivision 17. Driveway Requirements. Driveways in the R-1
Zoning District are governed by the following provisions:
A. Materials. Driveways built or reconstructed on or after January 1,
2005 shall be constructed of concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers.
B. Setbacks. Driveways built on or after January 1, 2005 shall be
setback three (3) feet from a side yard property line, except for shared driveways used by
multiple property owners pursuant to a private easement.
C. Coverage. No more than f.ifty forty percent (W% 40%) of the front
yard may be covered with concrete, bituminous pavement, stone or pavers.
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
(12-31-04)
269