Loading...
06-10-02 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Rail, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, June 10,2002 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of Minutes - May 13, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (SU 07-08) Applicant: Paul Pentel and Warren Rottmann Address: Lots 11 & 12, Block 4 Thotlands Twin View Terrace, located at 941 and 1021 Angelo Drive, both in Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicants are requesting a subdivision of the two parcels of land in order to redraw the property line between these parcels. This property line change will allow for a gazebo encroachment to be corrected. III. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit Amendment (CU-75 A) Applicant: Borton Volvo Address: 905 Hampshire Avenue South, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant would like to amend the existing CUP to allow for a car wash and oil change and lubrication bay to this automobile dealership. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (SU 04-03) Applicant: Linda Lund and Ann and Faison Sessoms Address: Lots 8 & 9, Block 7 Woodlawn Park, located at 4930 and 4940 Normandy Place, both in Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicants are requesting a subdivision of the two parcels of land in order to redraw the property line between these parcels. This property line change will allow for a garage encroachment to be corrected. -- Short Recess -- V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings VI. Other Business VII. Adjournment .~ . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 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, May 13, 2002. Vice Chair Shaffer called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. rs Eck, Groger, of Planning inutes of the e videotape Those present were Chair Pentel (arrived at 7:50 PM) and Com Hoffman, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present we, and Development Mark Grimes and City Planner Dan Olson meeting were transcribed by Lisa Wittman, Recording Se recording of the meeting.) I. Approval of Minutes - April 22, 2002 Plan Groger referred to page two, paragraph eight changed "Lake Street". . McAleese brought to staffs attention t 2002 minutes. Staff contacted Pente other business: el had an addition to the Apri/11, tied the following under section five, "Pentel stated she has conc Multiple Family Zoning Di telecommunications towers being allowed in MOVED by McAlees approve the April 22, by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to s with the above noted change and addition. I Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit (CU-96) innetonka Motor Car Sales, Inc. (dba Morrie's Mazda) 9010 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The Conditional Use Permit would allow for an automobile dealership on property in the Commercial zoning district. Grimes reminded the Commissioners that the above public hearing was a continuation from the Apri/22, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. He reviewed the site plan and reiterated that this use is similar to the way Avis Rental Cars used the site in the past. He discussed the concerns the neighbors had about lighting and stated that they have mentioned that if the lighting is the same as it was with the previous occupant they . would be okay with that. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 2 Grimes stated that the site would have 57 parking space and the hours would be 9 AM to 8 PM Monday-Thursday and 9 AM to 6 PM Friday and Saturday. He stated that the City reserves the right to review the lighting plan and discussed the conditions listed in his memo dated April 18, 2002. Debbie Tufts, 13700 Wayzata Boulevard, Minnetonka, representing the applicant apologized for not being at the April 11 Planning Commission mee . nd stated that Morrie's goal is to upgrade the property. She explained that the e selling late year, high-end vehicles. She stated that the vehicles would b the Minnetonka store and individually driven to the Golden Vall there would be no large trucks dropping off vehicles on this site. Eck stated that this is a relatively small site and asked Tufts stated that Morrie's goal is to provide person do that with a smaller site versus a large site. . h Imary objective is. ice and that it is easier to Hoffman asked what kind of upgrading the a they would be sandblasting the outside the interior. . g for the building. Tufts stated , adding a ramp and upgrading Hoffman asked how many vehic stated that their goal is to sell 3 have approximately 50 veh' have on the site at one time. Tufts ehicles per month and that they would probably lot. Shaffer opened the publi public hearing. . Hearing and seeing no one, Shaffer closed the Eck stated that if Shaffer state good idea. g issues are satisfied he would be in favor of this proposal. ges around the parking area to shield headlights would be a t he would like to add to condition number two that no cars are to scaped areas including setbacks. He also wants to add as. a twelfth condition th II applicable state, local and federal requirements shall be met including the City's building, landscaping and tire codes. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit which would allow for an automobile dealership on property in the Commercial zoning district with the following conditions: 1. The site and building layouts submitted with the CUP application becomes a part of this approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 3 . . 2. There shall be no more than 57 total cars on the site. All cars must be parked in designated parking spaces. At least 6 spaces shall be designated for employees and 10 spaces for customers. There shall be no parking on any landscaped areas including setbacks. 3. The hours of operation shall be limited to 9 AM to 8 PM Monday-Thursday, and 9 AM to 6 PM Friday-Saturday. There shall be no car sales 0 day although the offices can be used. 4. City staff must approve any outdoor lighting plan. The Ci require that a lighting consultant chosen by the City to the review would be born by Morrie's. After busines turned down to provide only security-type lighting. 5. No repair or maintenance work will be done on site 6. Any signage on the site shall meet the require 7. There shall be no signage painted on any shall be no signage painted or placed on building. 8. The display of balloons or other infl searchlights or laser lights is also 9. The building may be used for t The basement may be used approve the display of vehf 10. No outside speakers ar 11. Any outside trash co building. 12. All applicable sta building, Ian e right to n. The cost of ting must be car washing. e City's sign ordinance. r ow of any vehicle. There or outside of any window of the is prohibited. Any type of of up to three vehicles along with offices. The Director of Inspections must first e building. at this site. e screened with materials similar to that of the federal requirements shall be met including the City's 're codes. III. earing - Zoning Code Text Amendment Address: stitutional (1-1) Zoning Districts, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting to add "School District Offices" as a Conditional Use to the City's Institutional (1-1) Zoning districts. . Grimes stated that School District 281 is proposing to change the text in the City's Institutional (1-1) Zoning district to allow school district offices as a conditional use. He discussed the mold and mildew problems the applicants are having in their existing building and stated they would like to use Olson School for their district offices because it is in a good location and is vacant. He stated that it is Staff's opinion that offices at Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 4 . this location would not be appropriate at this point with the way the Zoning Code is written. Grimes discussed the 1-1 Institutional purpose statement and the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the 1-1 Zoning District. He explained that school district offices would be considered a public use and that there are no conflicts with the Land Use Plan Map. Grimes stated that the District realizes that the Zoning Code t before they would be allowed to apply for a conditional use hearing is not about a specific use, it is only about changi hanged t this public Code text. . Grimes stated that the school district has had meetings them are opposed because of the increased vehic~~ compared to an elementary school. They are site if commercial offices were allowed in the proposed changes to the site including additi building in the future. Grimes stated th and agrees that they are important to area with the expectation that ther open space and trees. He state area and the look of the buildin placing conditions on a con a school. t ighbors. Many of sed by school offices ce about future uses of the District. Another concern are g and possible additions to the ands the neighborhood concerns ause the neighbors moved into this 001 building with a tremendous amount of he City's best interest to keep the nature me. With careful wording of the text and by permit they could keep the building looking like Grimes discussed th change would onl a typical element atio and stated that the proposed Zoning Code text district offices with a very low floor area ratio similar to I site. g on the site and stated that there are about 100 spaces now ~ have approximately 130 spaces. They would have to re-stripe d add 15 spaces to meet the requirements. Proof of parking could be rmined that there was not a need for the required amount of parking mal offices. Grimes referred to Glen VanWormer's, PE of Short-Elliot-Hendrickson Engineering (SEH) report and discussed the traffic generation from a typical elementary school of 400 students versus a 40,000 square foot school district office. He stated that the two traffic counts were very similar at 760 trips per day. He stated that the summary of the report is that the amount of trips would be relatively the same, but the type of traffic and peak hour trips would be different. . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 5 Groger stated that the wording of the floor ratio troubles him because it seems as though the City is rewriting the Code for this particular applicant and that would not be looking at it objectively. Grimes stated he has the same concerns but that he has talked with. the city attorney about this proposal. Staff does not know if this Zoning Code text amendment would work for other schools and churches, but it is the City's intent to ke e character of the area and the low density the same. Groger asked if these W that could be dealt with in a conditional use permit at some point. Grim s .l~ they could be, but amending the Zoning Code text would make it mor It~ nge the use. Eck asked Groger if conditional use p~Em' required. Groger~ would be be specific to floor ratio w permit rim school a 4:2-' ,"e number of ithin a lot or parcel. changes couldn't be made Shaffer asked for clarification of floor ratio. Grimes stat square feet of gross floor area per each square foot of la He explained that it would assure low density and fft. to the building that would alter the appearance . Rasmussen asked if a change were made to offices in the 1-1 Zoning District and the would be able to sub-lease the prope applicant decided to sub-lease the district. Rasmussen asked if th not to sub-lease it if the propert that the property is designa any other use would requ' Code to allow commercial ides not to use this site if they business. Grimes stated that if the would have to be to another school I . t couldn't use the property and decided be turned into a residential area. Grimes stated nal on the Comprehensive Plan Map and that ent to the Comprehensive Plan Map. t this proposal should be handled strictly as a change to the Zoning Code text would not be concern is that changing the text should consider what alley as a whole and that this seems to be looking at it n. Eck asked how he would change it. Groger stated that the required and that it could be handled with a conditional use ated that the School District could double the size of the existing eet the Zoning Code requirements for the 1-1 Zoning District. Tom Walerius, Business Manager, Robbinsdale School District, stated that Olson School was opened in 1972 and was closed in the 1980's then later reopened for other schools to use. He discussed current school district enrollment and stated that each of the schools in the district are under capacity so it doesn't look like they would be needing more elementary school space. He stated that they have looked at 11 different options besides Olson for the district headquarters and that it is cost prohibitive to remodel their existing building. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 6 . Walerius addressed the concerns about traffic. He stated that they are estimating about 750 cars per day compared to the neighbors' estimation of 850 cars per day. He referred to Zachary Lane School and stated that their traffic counts are 1740 trips per day but that they are on a busy street and a lot of the students don't walk to school like they would at the other schools. Walerius discussed the parking issues and stated that they would additional parking but they expect to use interior space and wo space from the play areas. He stated that the size of the builgi dtYi/ the only change they would have to make is the addition off} e they intend to make the gym and the playground availabl discussed the evening use of the site and stated that if building than as a school and that if they were to have I crowd, they would have it some place else. He di summer use of the building and stated that 01 but that it is the best option at the lowest cost Shaffer opened the p to add some away any ork and that e stated that e City. He h less as an office gs with a bigger e weekend use and one of several options Eck asked why the District is not propo . Walerius stated that it is not a vacant moved compared to Olson, which i innetka elementary school. the people there would have to be d easily modified. . Groger asked if they were inten location. Walerius said tha . that. se Olson School as their permanent office t but that the School Board still needs to decide Jeff Carson, 160 've, stated he has been a resident for 26 years and that this is the first ti ared before any government body. He stated he was not representi ople who were present, but quite a number of them. He stated that he was'lised by the traffic report that Grimes discussed, nor does he neces ily d' ree with the numbers, but he does disagree about the impact to the neighbo d thought the study should have included traffic on Douglas and Winnetka. stated he agreed with Commissioner Groger that this proposed change to the Zoning Code text is specifically for the School District and that it would be a busy business use. . Carson stated that the feeling of the people who have signed his petition is that this proposal is not an appropriate use. He stated that the way this proposal came at them is most unfortunate. Carson gave the Planning Commissioners a copy of a report he put together. He referred to the first letter from the District where they said that the use of Olson School would be temporary and that there was never a discussion with the neighbors about full time permanent use of the school. He then referred to a SunPost . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 7 newspaper article, which stated there would be about 30 administrative people moving to Olson. He referred to Mr. Walerius' comment about not going against the neighborhood wishes and stated that the neighborhood was told one thing, when the District really meant another. He stated that it makes no sense to zone for a particular request and that the City should zone for compatibility and for what is already in the neighborhood. Carson stated that some of the neighbors have told him that the District has said if they can't put their offices at Olson they will turn it into 001 for delinquents. He stated that he thinks that statement is a scare that their neighborhood is nice and quiet and they want to keep it that Carson stated that he thinks a dialogue happened betwe s Ai! and the City and the District fully expected their proposal to move right a q~f<!fto get a conditional use permit or to change the Zoning Code text. He state i{;nges the Commission to find another school in this district th'S't'% th the applicant is using would work for. He stated that he doesn't thin 'ty s Id do what the District is expecting because they misrepresented the d it is not fair to do it that way. ,m rimary concerns are traffic and ed where the traffic concern is re was when it was used as a school. hat the traffic that they intend right now 001 was open and that having a business aracter of the area. Eck referred to the neighbors' petition a using the site as a busy commercial 0 coming from if there is no more tra . Carson stated that it is impossib would be the same as when 01 dropped on the site does c Eck stated he wasn't sur that if a school open still oppose the p 0 believe the traffic erstood Carson's answer and asked if he was saying rrow and the traffic counts were the same would he n stated that there is a different flow and he can't ual. w he felt about the traffic back when the school was used for language immersion. Carson stated that it has never been a a ected the character of the neighborhood. Eck referre Carson's comment about the site being used for busy commercial offices and asked how having 150 workers is different in character from students contained in the same building. Carson stated that students don't go out for lunch and they take the bus. He stated that the District office is a busy place with people coming and going. He stated that it is the idea of an office use and that it is because it is the District who is proposing this that the proposal is being entertained at all. He stated that he couldn't imagine a proposal from another commercial business would be entertained. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 8 Hoffman asked when the neighbors originally signed the petition if it was against the use being temporary or permanent. Carson stated that by the time the neighborhood knew, the request was for permanent use. He stated that the School District apparently didn't mean it when they said they wouldn't do this if the neighborhood didn't want it. Paula Beugen, 1784 Maryland Avenue North stated she is supportive of the recommendation to change the Zoning Code text and the future c . 'onal use permit if the text is changed. She stated that the District is being force and any action ~.ould be a cost to the District. She questioned at wh~~ ~tion would be rectified. She stated that Olson School has been vacanor a f time and that it is creating negative conditions such as vandalism. Sh~h,> e thinks the District's use of Olson School would be a positive use 0 f}/:y and would provide for a cost effective option. More costly options would sifi~y from other programs. She stated that the character of the nei~~ would remain the same and that even though it would increase traffic, i rea able to keep it closed when it is needed for a valid public purpose. Beugen stated that a conditional use p neighborhood concerns are addresse meetings and that the neighborhoo the City involved and that the m and permanent possible use of picture and the community school was sold. She sta used for Adventure Club generated with those e conditions to make sure that she was at both of the did not have anyone from the District or . trict held did discuss both the temporary She stated that people should look at the overall hat the other potential uses could be if the as a school board member when Olson was uage immersion and that there was substantial traffic & Steven Heller, 15'" rive stated he appreciated the Planning Commission effort and that it is desire to keep the neighborhood as a residential area. He stated he specifically so their kids could go to Olson School. He stated that there h *Iil several different schools in that building and they have not had any pr ems Duses and that just because the Council can change the zoning doesn't y should. He stated that cars don't stop at the stop signs and that they increas e danger but the bus drivers are polite and stop at the stop signs and don't increase the number of accidents. He recommended that the Planning Commission does not recommend approval to the City Council. Steve Schulz, 7340 Olympia Street stated that the traffic study is flawed and that business people come and go and not all of them would arrive at 8:00 AM and leave at 5:00 PM. He stated that he thinks this process snookered the neighbors and that temporary is different than permanent. He stated that what is legal and advised by the city attorney may not make it right, but 104 people feel strongly about it and that is what is right. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 9 . Sam Courey, 1551 Pennsylvania Avenue North stated that it breaks his heart to think that Olson School might be turned into an office building because of the effort, blood, sweat and tears he has put into the nature area. He stated that if this were a proposal to drop an office building there it wouldn't have ever been given any consideration. He stated that the neighbors haven't been given the opportunity to engage the City Staff to work on their behalf and that he is very bothered that they are sayi e outside appearance would not be altered when they are adding parking e stated he is drastically against this proposal. Larry Dunbar, 1640 Kelly did an informal traffic and found that wi s deliveries, eveni approximate that allow considered retail ines area has not that it should reat deal of merit Jim Senger, 7105 Green Valley stated that the total cons!" been represented. He asked who paid for the traffic st have been the School District. He stated that he doesn' should be given to the traffic study. . Mary McCarthy, 1760 Kelly Drive stated that School District because they don't do thin s f misrepresenting what was happening u prepare. She stated that her son nea Adventure Club because people w is not a safe situation and that a Olympia and Duluth and she is neighborhood. econd time she has fought the stated they were ute so she didn't have time to hen Olson School was used for nveways to turn around. She stated that it ;,"~ocking Kelly Drive is going to back up on ed about the safety of the children in the tated that he supports the District's request and that he " oble School which is almost identical to Olson School >::/ and vans, Adventure Club, field trips, school related s and special events the total trips per day would be day. He stated that there is no place in the Zoning Code ces for a school so it should be surmised that it should be I"and that it would be an advantage to the City, restaurants and t e area. Susan Sen ,7105 Green Valley Road stated that the statistics from the school board are not true numbers. She asked why the traffic study wasn't done at 42nd and Winnetka. She stated that the traffic study was not done right and was not comparing apples to apples and that it needs to be redone. Shaffer closed the public hearing. . Pentel stated she was unclear as to why the Zoning Code has to be amended when the Council could decide to allow this use. Grimes stated that he has had lengthy discussions with the city attorney and he is uncomfortable using the other uses Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 10 . category in the 1-1 Zoning District because there are no standards to judge by and it is hard to determine what is reasonably compatible. Hoffman told Mr. Senger that he doesn't know who authorized the traffic study but that he has worked with Glen VanWormer in the past and has found him to be very fair and competent. He stated that he agrees that they should be comparing apples to apples. Shaffer as done. Pent access concerns the Code are Pentel referred to a past proposal to put an office building along through a residential area. She stated that she understands because using Olson School as offices is a change in use district offices mentioned in the Institutional Zoning Distri Rasmussen stated that she could support putting a sch Groger stated there was trouble in the approa to be for this particular proposal and it is not through the residential neighborhood. He sta neighborhood is a desirable thing and t there. He stated he could see where appropriate for this particular site. a dment because it seems by major streets without going ving a school in a arly wouldn't want to put an office ent might work, but it is not . Eck stated that there is clearly study didn't include a traffic ssue and he is bothered by the fact that the ir current District Offices. McAleese stated that he for this proposal. He school to somethi g different busines oubts that he would vote for a conditional use permit is a fundamental change from something that is a mercial use. He stated that he agreed that if it were a g to use this site it wouldn't be considered. issioners if any of them feel that a new traffic study should be that the real issue is not traffic, it is about the change in use. Grimes4~~,~it': t Glen VanWormer is one of the most experienced traffic engineers in the metro a~*a and that his figures are accurate to within 5 to 10%. McAleese stated that he thinks Glen underestimates the number of cars turning left. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to deny the applicant's request to add "School District Offices" as a Conditional Use to the City's Institutional (1-1) Zoning districts. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment . Applicant: City of Golden Valley Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 11 . Purpose: The City would like to revise the telecommunication requirements of the Zoning Code Olson stated that Staff and various Commissions have been working on this Zoning Code text amendment since last summer and that it has gone through several drafts and changes. He discussed the changes that the Planning Comm' . ners suggested at their May 13, 2002 meeting and showed them how he incorp into this draft, He stated that an exception was added to the residenti I 1I0w temporary towers to be put up in emergency situations. H ted ke with public works director, Jeannine Clancy about replacing light pol 0 poles so antennas could be put on them. She didn't think that w d idea and they have talked about deleting all references to light poles. Eck asked what it is that the Plann' to be taken out or added. Olso has to consider. Grimes stated brought to the Planning Co this public hearing and n to look at. a recommendation based e onto the Council in the format at taking out the consultant Pentel asked if the Planning Commission is su on this draft because it doesn't seem to be re it is in with consultant notes, italics, etc. Olso notes, italics, etc. is part of the process. . ssion is recommending if parts are going ose are things the Planning Commission is essentially the same document that was May. Pentel stated she would like to continue commendation until they have a more final draft ed with page 3, sections C and D where it allows Zoning Districts. She stated she is concerned that if conditional use permit for a tower that it would be difficult en to say no. She asked why the draft ordinance doesn't say 'als and why a list of the City's parks was attached. Olson stated on the attachment are neighborhood parks and that towers would ere. Groger stated he doesn't want to see towers next to residential areas. He stated he would vote against this draft and would like to have more discussion about the telecommunications ordinance. . Grimes asked Groger if he is suggesting towers should have a greater setback requirement. Shaffer suggested that maybe the setback requirement could be double the height of the tower or maybe that towers would only be allowed on arterials. Groger stated he is concerned about telecommunications towers being that close to residential areas. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 12 Pentel stated that part of the problem is that there is an incentive for the host. Grimes reminded the Commissioners that there are federal laws to make sure cities provide coverage. Eck stated that he doesn't understand the big deal about aesthetics when no one gives a second thought to the ugly power line poles that have wires goin rywhere. Pentel stated that there are concerns about the safety of teleco 'on towers. Grimes stated that the federal government has said that cities c that issue and that most of the antennas and/or towers are going to b or sides of buildings. Eck asked if the only change made to this draft ordinan towers could be added in emergency situations. the consultant notes, questions and comments Pentel's concerns about towers near residen . draft. telecommunication d he would remove all of d that Groger's and ould also be added to the next Pentel opened the public hearing. hearing. ring no one she closed the public McAleese stated that in regard "short term" means. ng temporary towers the City should define what It was the consensus of t telecommunications' ing Commission to table the discussion of the ce until their next meeting on June 10, 2002. -- Short Recess -- V. ngs of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City rd of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings s were discussed. VI. Other Business A. Open Space and Recreation Commission tour of Golden Valley parks-June 24,2002 Olson told the Planning Commission that they were invited by the Open Space and Recreation Commission to join them on a tour of Golden Valley parks on June 24, 2002. He stated that there is a Planning Commission meeting on June 24 and that if . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 13, 2002 Page 13 there weren't any agenda items the Commission could decide to cancel that meeting and go on the park tour. VII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:24. ~ . Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) From: Golden Valley Planning Commission Dan Olson, City Planner To: Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Minor Subdivision of the Lots at 941 and 1021 Angelo Drive - Paul Pentel and Warren Rottman, Applicants Date: June 5, 2002 Background Paul Pentel of 941 Angelo Drive, and Warren Rottman of 1021 Angelo Drive, are requesting that the property line between their two properties be redrawn to correct a gazebo encroachment. . Qualifications as a Minor Subdivision The two lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the properties are part of an existing, recorded plat, create fewer than four lots, and do not create the need for any additional public improvements. The applicants have submitted the required information to the City that allows for the subdivision to be evaluated as a minor subdivision. Staff Review of the Minor Subdivision Since this minor subdivision is located on an existing platted street with access to utilities, the application is pretty straight forward. The properties do not lie within a floodplain. The City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, PE has reviewed this minor subdtvision and has found it to be acceptable. The site plan submitted by the applicants have all of the required information as stated in City Code Section 12.50. ' The home at 941 Angelo was built in 1957 and the home at 1021 Angelo was built in 1959. Section 12.50, Subd. 3 of the Subdivision Code states that lots in a minor subdivision must meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. In this circumstance, the Residential zoning district requires that all lots must be 10,000 sq. ft. in area, have at least 80 ft. of width at the front setback line, and meet building setback requirements. Accessory structures are required to be setback at least 5 feet from a side or rear yard property line. After the proposed minor subdivision, these lots will meet all of those requirements. According to the . surveyor, the gazebo will be 5.15 feet at its closest point to the proposed new property line. 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: . 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the appropriate zoninq district. In this case, all of the buildings on the two proposed lots conform to building and accessory structure setback requirements for lots in the Residential zoning district. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Enqineer determines that the lots are not buildable. In this case, there are already homes on each of the two lots. 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 new lots. In this case, sewer and water lines are available to provide service for both homes. The existing street system is more than adequate to provide access to both homes. 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the qrantinq of certain easements to the City. The final plat would show all necessary easements as required by the City Engineer. 5. If public aqencies other than the City have iurisdiction of the streets adiacent to the minor subdivision. the aqencies will be qiven the opportunity to comment. In this case, no other agencies haye any jurisdiction. . 6. The City may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney due to dedication of certain easement. 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. The policy of the City has been that there will be no park dedication required if the new subdivision does not create any new lots for development. In this case, there will be no new lots created by the minor subdivision. Therefore, no park dedication will be recommended. Recommended Action The staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision. It would seem to be in the best interest of the City to allow this minor subdivision to eliminate the gazebo encroachment. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Minor Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. The Certificate of Survey submitted by the applicants, dated April 17 , 2002 shall become a part of this approval. Attachments: . . Location Map . Memo from Jeff Oliver, PE to Mark Grimes dated May 3, 2002 . Photographs of the two properties . Certificate of Survey for both properties 2 . OLSON MEMORIAL HWY . . . Memorandum Public Works 763.593-8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax) Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer ~ Review of Pentel Addition Date: May 3, 2002 To: From: Subject: Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat of the Pentel Addition, which consists of a lot line rearrangement at 940 Angelo Drive. This proposed development must comply with the easement requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Therefore, the plan should be revised to include the appropriate front, rear and side lot line easements. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator G:\Developments-Private\Pentel Addition\ReView 050302.doc . . , . . , . . .. . . . Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095 /763-593-8109 (fax) To: Planning Commission From: Mark Grimes. Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Amended Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Allow Expansion of Borton Volvo, 905 Hampshire Ave.-Borton Volvo, applicant Date: June 5, 2002 Introduction and Background Borton Volvo is requesting an amended conditional use permit (CUP) in order to expand their existing dealership at 905 Hampshire Ave. In December 1998, the City Council approved a CUP for Borton Volvo to operate a dealership at this location. In accordance with the CUP, Borton remodeled and added to the existing building on the property and opened the dealership in 1999. The dealership has been operating in a successful manner since that time. Due to the success of their business, they would like to make two additions to their facility. One addition to the northeast side of the building would be made immediately and provide more service facilities. A second addition at the southeast side of the building would be added sometime in the future when additional service bays are needed. An amended CUP is necessary because the site plan is changing due to the two proposed additions. Anytime a site plan that has been approved by a CUP is changed, an amendment to the CUP is required. The process to amend a CUP is identical to the process to obtain a CUP. Description of Amended CUP I am attaching a copy of my memo to the Planning Commission dated November 4, 1998. This memo covers the original request for the auto dealership. Also attached is a copy of the site plan that illustrates how the dealership exists today. In order to accommodate the additional building on the property, Borton is proposing to eliminate about 15,000 sq. ft. of inventory display. This means that they will be displaying about 50 fewer new and used cars on the site. The space that was used for inventory display will either be used for the building additions or parking needed for employees or the service bays. . An analysis of the parking has been provided by Borton and is shown on the site plan. Staff has reviewed this analysis and it does indicate that they exceed the parking requirements set out for car dealers with service bays. There is only one correction to the analysis. The parking for the five future service bays has not been included. Five service bays would require 20 spaces (four spaces per bay). Although this is not shown on the site plan, the site plan indicates that they exceed the parking requirement by more than 20 spaces. (I have visited the site several times over the past few weeks. Each time I have counted 40-50 vacant parking spaces in the parking lot.) The northeast addition to the building is proposed to be built right away. This will be used to provide a wash bay, quick lube bay, two prep/detail bays and larger parts department. The southeast addition would provide for five service bays. This addition is planned for a future date. Parking and access along the south side of the building would remain as indicated on the original site plan until it is constructed. The revised site plan has been reviewed by both the Inspection Department and Engineering Department. The site plan may have to be revised so that the driveways around the building meet the turning radius requirements for City emergency vehicles. The Engineering Department did not see a need to comment on the site plan. There will be no change in the access to the cell tower site that was included in the original CUP. . Code requires that buildings in the Industrial Zoning District cover no more than 50% of the lot with building. With the two proposed additions, coverage is only about 15% of the site. (The site is about 115,000 sq. ft. in area with a building footprint of about 20,000 sq. ft. There are no setback issues related to the proposed additions because they will be constructed more than the required 20 ft. from a side or rear property line). Analysis of Ten Factors Required By Planning Commission for CUP The Planning Commission is required to make findings and recommendations to the Council on the following factors. These findings are the same or similar to the findings made with the original CUP application: 1. Demonstrated need for the proposed use: Borton has determined that there is a need for more service bays and car wash to serve their clients. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: An auto dealership with service is consistent with the other uses found within the Industrial designation on the General Land Use Plan map. . 3. Effect on property values in the neighborhood: The expansion of the car dealership should not have a negative impact on property values in the area. The existing dealership has been a good addition to the area. Any addition will be consistent with the existing architecture. 2 . . . 4. Effect on any anticipated traffic generation upon the current traffic flow and congestion in the area: The added service bays should not greatly increase traffic in the area. In fact, traffic may be reduced due to the decrease in car inventory on the site. 5. Effect of any increases in population and density upon surrounding land uses: The addition to the car dealership will not increase population in the area although there will be several more employees. 6. Increase in noise levels to be caused by the proposed use: The additional service bays should not cause any noise issues in the area. The City has received no complaints regarding the noise levels at the existing dealership. All work is done indoors. 7. Any odor, dust, smoke, gases, and vibration to be caused by the proposed use: The proposed additions should not cause any of these problems if properly operated. No complaints have been received by the City regarding these problems with the existing dealership. 8. Any increase in flies, rats, or other vermin to be caused by this proposed use: The addition to the dealership should not cause any of these problems. The existing dealership has had no such problems that have been reported to the City. An enclosed dumpster is located on the site. 9. Visual appearance of any proposed structure of use: The applicant has stated that the additions will match the existing white masonry found on the service portion of the existing building. The existing building has been well designed so staff believes that the addition will be an asset. No additional landscaping is proposed for the site because the additions are going to be placed in existing parking areas. 10. Other effects upon the general public health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents: Staff does not believe there are any other negative effects of this proposed use. Recommended Action The staff recommends approval of the amended CUP for Borton Volvo to allow two service additions. The site plans that have been submitted indicate that there is adequate space on the site to allow for the additions. The service additions have been determined to be needed by Borton to meet customer needs. The existing Borton dealership has been well accepted by the community and has been a benefit to Golden Valley. The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The site plan prepared by Phillips Architects and Contractors and dated 5/6/02 shall become a part of this approval (Sheet A-1). Until the southeast addition to the building is added, the site plan prepared by DCA Architects (no date) (Sheet A-1) 3 . . . and a part of the original CUP shall remain in force for the area south of the building. 2. Parking on this site shall meet the requirements of the City Zoning Code. 3. The existing lighting for the site shall remain the same as before the new additions with the exception of removal of lights. The Director of Inspections shall approve any changes to the lighting plan. 4. No outside speaker systems shall be used on the site. 5. All signage shall meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. No signage shall be placed or painted on vehicles for sale except for signage required by the state or federal governments. No inflatable devices used to draw attention to the facility shall be used. No signs shall be painted or placed on the windows of the dealership. 6. A drainage and grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department as part of the building permit process. 7. There shall be no display of vehicles in any required setback area. 8. Any other local, state or federal requirements shall be met. Attachments: Location Map Memo from Ed Anderson, June 5, 2002 Applicant's Narrative dated May 2, 2002 Original CUP Permit Memo from Mark Grimes dated November 4, 1998 Photos of location (3) Site Plans for current proposal Site Plan from original CUP request 4 ...... _.- -. -................ -.................... -......................... << . Memorandum To: Dan Olson, City Planner From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Date: June 5, 2002 Re: 905 Hampshire Avenue South Listed below are the review comments for Borton Volvo located at 905 Hampshire Avenue South. . 1) Provide a proper 45-foot inside turning radius for fire apparatus. If you have any questions please call me at 763-593-8065 . . . . PHILLIPS Architect6 & Contractor6, Inc. May 2, 2002 Narrative for: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Application For Motor Vehicle Sales Building & Site Alterations Borton Volvo 905 Hampshire Avenue Golden Valley, Minnesota OWNER: Bergh International Holdings 5428 Lyndale Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55419 Attention: Kjell Bergh or Pat Sutter Phone: 612-827-3666 Fax: 612-827-1103 APPLICANT: PHILLIPS Architects & Contractors, Ltd. 1250 East Moore Lake Drive, Suite 205 Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Attention: David Constable Phone: 763-571-1911 Fax: 763-571-3112 Present Zonin~: Industrial Site: The site is fully developed in parking lot and building. The addition of building will reduce the amount of parking but the total hard surface will the same total. The circulation drive/Fire lane will remain for access around the entire building. There will be no change in landscaping and no change in the location of parking lot lights. The parking requirements change slightly but still have more than the required number of spaces. 1250 East Moore Lake Drive, Suite 205, Fridley, MN 55432 PH (763) 571-1911 Fax (763) 571-3112 pac@phillipsarchitects.com . Borton Volvo Amendment to Conditional Use Permit May 2, 2002 Proposed Use: The proposed use is for an automobile sales and service facility which remains the same as the prior use. No additional uses are requested. The owner would like to include a car wash (Volvo customers only), prep/cleanup area, lube bay, and additional service bays at this site. Description of Request: Borton Volvo would like to add a car wash and a separate oil change and lubrication bay. The existing quick lube bay will become an additional service bay. Other areas to be added are a parts area and two prep / detail bays. The building to be designed to add five (5) service bays at the south side of the building. . Exterior Materials: The exterior materials will match the existing white masonry service portion at the east part of the building. The 18 foot high walls will be four courses of white rockfaced block, with the remainder of the wall white single scored block with a 4 foot high band of white corduroy block on the upper part of the wall to match existing. Summary: Borton Volvo respectfully requests approval of this Amendment fo the Conditional Permit by the Golden Valley City Council and Planning Commission. Submitted this 2nd day of May, 2002. PHILLIPS Architects & Contractors, Ltd. . ~ "'~~ David N. Constable A.I.A. Architect . CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 98-75 Date of Approval: December 1. 1998 bY the City Council in accordance With Sec. 11.10. Subd. 2. and Sec. 11.36 of City Code Issued To: Borton Volvo Approved Location: 905 Hampshire Avenue South. Golden Vallev. MN Approved Conditional Use: To allow for the use of an autodealershio in the Industrial Zonina District Conditionals of Approval: . 1. The site plan prepared by DCA Architects (Sheet A-1) and dated November 9, 1998 shall become a part ofthe CUP. 2. Parking on this site shall meet the requirements of the City Code for auto dealerships and auto service. 3. A lighting plan shall be submitted for review prior to issuance of any building permits. The Director of Inspections shall approve the lighting plan. 4. No outside microphone systems shall be used on the site. 5. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan to be approved by the Qirector of Planning and Development. At a minimum, it shall meet the requirements of the City's landscape standards for new developments 6. All signage shall meet the requirements of the City's sign code for the appropriate zoning district. 7. A drainage and grading plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to issuance of any building permits. 8. There shall be no display of vehicles in any required setback area. 9. Borton Volvo will work with the City and County to eliminate the property line, which now runs down the middle of the property. 10. Any other local, state or federal agencies shall issue all necessary permits. . Issued By: ptyou from all other city code provisions, es. Warning: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development . . . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: November 11 ,1998 William S. Joynes, City Manager Mark W. Grimes Director of Planning and Development Public Hearing -- Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Allow an Auto Dealership at 905 Hampshire Avenue South - Borton Volvo, Applicant At the November 9, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council issue a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order that Borton Volvo may open an auto dealership at 905 Hampshire Avenue South. Attached is a copy of staff's memo to the Planning Commission dated November 4, 1998. This memo details the proposed auto dealership and outlines the recommended conditions for approval. As indicated in the attached minutes from the November 9 meeting, the Commission adopted the eight conditions found on Page 4 of the November4, 1998 memo. In addition, the Commission added two conditions to their recommendation. First, that no cars or vehicles be displayed in any required setback areas; and second, that the property line that currently exists on the property be removed. Staff will be meeting with the County to discuss the removal of the property line. This would not occur prior to the action by the City Council on the CUP. Recommended Action The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that would allow Borton Volvo to open an auto dealership at 905 Hampshire Avenue South. The Planning.Commission recommends the following conditions be made a part of the CUP: 1. The site plan prepared by DCA Architects (Sheet A-1) and dated November 9,1998 shall become a part of the CUP. 2. Parking on this site shall meet the requirements of the City Code for auto dealerships and auto service. 3. A lighting plan shall be submitted for review prior to issuance of any building permits. The Director of Inspections shall approve the lighting plan. 4. No outside microphone systems shall be used on the site. 5. Any other local, state or federal agencies shall issue all necessary permits. 6. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan to be approved by the Director of Planning and Development. At a minimum, it shall meet the requirements of the City's landscape standards for new developments . 7. All signage shall meet the requirements of the City's sign code for the appropriate zoning district. 8. A drainage and grading plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to issuance of any building permits. 9. There shall be no display of vehicles in any required setback area. 10. Borton Volvo will work with the City and County to eliminate the property line, which now runs down the middle of the property. . Attachments: . Planning Commission Minutes dated November 9, 1998 . Staff Memo dated November 4, 1998 . Plans (enclosed separately) . Ordinance No. 192, 2nd Series . I I I I . I I I I i 2 . . . . ./ . . . Bey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Dan Olson, City Planner Informal Public Hearing on Minor Subdivision of the Lots at 4930 and 4940 Normandy Place - Linda Lund and Faison and Ann Sessoms, Applicants Subject: Date: JuneS, 2002 Background Linda Lund of 4930 Normandy Place, and Faison Ann Sessoms of 4940 Normandy Place, are requesting that the property line between their two properties be redrawn to correct a detached garage encroachment, and to allow the homeowners at 4940 Normandy Place to replace their existing detached garage. Qualifications as a Minor Subdivision The two lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the properties are part of an existing, recorded plat, create fewer than four lots, and do not create the need for any additional public improvements. The applicants have submitted the required information to the City that allows for the subdivision to be evaluated as a minor subdivision. Staff Review of the Minor Subdivision Since this minor subdivision is located on an existing platted street with access to utilities, the application is pretty straight forward. The properties do not lie within a floodplain. The City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, PE has reviewed this minor subdivision and has found it to be acceptable. The site plan submitted by the applicants have all of the required information as stated in City Code Section 12.50. As part of this minor subdivision, the homeowner at 4940 Normandy is proposing to replace their existing detached garage. This garage would conform to the 5 foot required accessory building setbacK if the minor subdivision is approved. The homes at 4930 and 4940 Normandy were both built in 1948. Section 12.50, Subd. 3 of the SubdivisioniCode states that lots in a minor subdivision must meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. In this circumstance, the Residential zoning district requires that all lots must be 10,000 sq. ft.;n area, have at least 80 ft. of width at the front setback line, ./ and meet building setback requirements. After the proposed minor subdivision, these lots will . meet most of those requirements. The following are the nonconformities for each property: 4930 Normandv Place: The lot will have 72.9 feet of frontage measured from the minimum required front setback line. This lot does not meet the minimum required frontage. The lot also does not meet the front yard building setback requirement of 35 feet (the distance is only 34.75 feet to the home). The detached garage will not meet the side yard setback of 5 feet. It will be 0 feet at its closest point to the west side yard property line. No variances have been granted for this property. 4940 Normandv Place: The lot will have 77 feet of frontage measured from the minimum required front setback line. This lot does not meet the minimum required frontage. The lot also does not meet the west side yard building setback requirement of 11.5 feet (the distance is only 9 feet to the home). The existing shed will not meet the accessory building setback requirement of 10 feet from another structure. It is 2 feet at its closest point to the detached garage. No variances have been granted for this property. . According to the attached proposed survey for the properties, the applicants are requesting that the new property line be redrawn in such a manner as to just bring the garage at 4930 Normandy completely within that lot. The attached narrative from the applicants explains their position in asking that no building setback be required for this garage. The Planning Staff would like to see a minimum 3-foot setback for that garage. City Engineer, Jeff Oliver PE, has reviewed this proposed minor subdivision and has noted that the applicant is not proposing drainage or utility easements along the new property line. The applicants have supplied staff with a copy of a maintenance easement, signed by both applicants in 1987, which allows the owners to perform maintenance and make repairs to the garage, fence, and driveway. This easement agreement will remain in effect if this minor subdivision is approved. 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: . 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the reauirements of the appropriate zonina district. In this case, each of the two proposed lots has nonconforming buildings that do not meet the requirements for lots in the Residential zoning district. Therefore, a variance from these conditions must be approved by the City Council in order for the minor subdivision to be approved. The nonconformities are stated above. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Enaineer determines that the lots are not buildable. In this case, there are already homes on each of the two lots. 2 . . . 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if it is determined bv the City Enaineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utilitv systems bv the addition of new lots. In this case, sewer and water lines are available to provide service for both homes. The existing street system is more than adequate to provide access to both homes. 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may reauire the grantina of certain easements to the City. The final plat would show all necessary easements as required by the City . Engineer. 5. If public aaencies other than the City have iurisdiction of the streets adiacent to the minor subdivision. the aaencies will be aiven the opportunity to comment. In this case, no other agencies have any jurisdiction. 6. The City may ask for review of title if reauired by the City Attornev due to dedication of certain easement. 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 reauirements. The policy of the City has been that there will be no park dedication required if the new subdivision does not create any new lots for development. In this case, there will be no new lots created by the minor subdivision. Therefore, no park dedication will be recommended. Variance Criteria from the Subdivision Code As stated above, the approval of this minor subdivision will require variances to the Subdivision Code. The Subdivision Code states that the Council may grant variances as long as there is a finding that the following conditions are met: 1. There are special circumstances for conditions affecting said property so that the strict application of the provisions of the Subdivision Code would create an unusual hardship and deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Economic difficulty or inconvenience shall not constitute a hardship situation for the purpose of this Code. 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood in which said property is situated. The Code states that the City shall consider the nature of the proposed use of the land, the existing use of land in the vicinity, and the number of people who will reside in the subdivision, and how traffic conditions will be affected by the additional development in the subdivision. The City may prescribe conditions to the variance. The Planning Commission is expected to make a recommendation on the variance request. 3 . Recommended Action The staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision and the variances needed to permit the non-standard lots. It would seem to be in the best interest of the City to allow this minor subdivision to eliminate the garage encroachment. However, staff recommends that a minimum 3-foot building setback be required for the garage at 4930 Normandy Place. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Minor Subdivision and Subdivision Code variances with the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. The Certificate of Survey submitted by the applicants, dated January 29, 1987 shall become a part of this approval. Attachments: . Location Map . Narrative from applicants · Photographs of the two properties . Certificate of Survey for both properties . . 4 DAWNVIEW TER ~~/'VIY~ VQ.~Q C~A UV~ .~I VVVV 1t11'f J.Jn~ 1\..cJ..l'lD'-I.I\.~.c.Lt1.r..L'fJ.~ ~ VV.c. . May 20, 2002 Mark Grimes City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Mr. Grimes: This letter is a follow up to our conversation on May 17, 2002 regarding the proposed minor subdivision of Lots 8 and 9, Block 7 in Woodlawn Park. We would like to request a variance from the Planning Commission. BackQround The existing garage on Lot 8 is encroaching on Lot 9. There is an easement agreement, for maintenance purposes, recorded for these properties. However, now that the owners of Lot 9 are proposing to replace the existing garage on Lot 9, we've been told that we need to resolve the encroachment issue related to the garage on Lot 8. . Information in support of our request for a variance As owners of these lots, we would like to change the property line just enough to bring the existing garage on Lot 8 fully within Lot 8. The owners of Lot 9 do not want to give up any more of their property than necessary. Per the proposal we jointly developed and submitted, as owners of lots 8 and 9, we would somewhat straighten the property line as it relates to the street, but owners of both lots "give up" an equal share of land. Our proposal does not provide the existing garage on Lot 8 a sufficient set back - but we acknowledge that when the garage on Lot 8 is replaced, it will have to be moved so that it meets setback requirements in effect at that time. Oyr proposal reflects the strong sense of community in Qur neighborhood. We acknowledge the problem that exists with the garage on I Lot 8. We're proposing to do this in a manner that resolves. the encroachment issue now, will resolve the setback issue when the garage on Lot 8 is replaced, and allows us to maintain or improve our properties in away that is not detrimental to others. Please let us know if you need any additional information to support our request. Sincerely, . ~~au{} r~T~ Lo+.~ ~ - . . I ,~ . LOT SURVEYS COMPANY. INC. - . ~~~~~~~ NO. 349:~32 SCALE I" 20' 0- DENOTES IRON LAND SURVEYORS REGlS'l'ERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNBSOTA 7601. 73rd Avenue North 56Oo3ON MlnDNpOlil, ~ 15428 hl'urglll'll Cn1tftntt I '-- I Q C?~o c\ :S..~ d l ~ r, 'j , o ~ ~ ..:9 .~ \>. () 'ou .~ 'J \1 , '1.', ~.. \ i CC>-- .,. --'"(\. N P -( t--lo\Z-'"^" ? \..-"" C, \S. All of Lot 9 except that part lying East of a line drawn parallel_ , tQ .~ distant .. feet Westerly RllSUl'ed at right angles fraa the <eastiftly liRe thereof. and that part of Lot 10 lying Bast of a line drawn parallel to and distant 6 feet westerly aeasured at right angles fraa the easterly line thereof, Block. 7, Woodlawn Park, ac:cordinB to the plat thereof on file or.-of, record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Co\Dlty. n. onIr -.nil __.. fIum... OIl NiCCIId or InfIlnnIaon pnMded br cIent. . Wlt,..,..".......... "'.-...ct .._.....01. lUlWyoftlle . ~.oIt1le__dIIaItIed 1Ind8llll tile loaIIonol III ~8Illl. .. 8IlCoo..cll>l_".'" fIum or OIlllllld land. ......br-....~....oI January _ 87 ~~ - - U-T_-,NL_ ~ . . . . . .