Loading...
11-11-02 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, November 11, 2002 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of Minutes - October 14, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (SU10-05) Applicants: John and Barbara Wilson Address: Purpose: 4117 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN The applicants would like to subdivide their property into two parcels. A new home would be built on the newly created southern lot. III. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: The City would like to revise the Zoning Code to allow drive-in bank facilities as a Conditional Use in the Light Industrial zoning district. -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings V. Other Business A. Discuss possible revisions to the Residential zoning district. VI. Adjournment ~ . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 14, 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 October 14, 2002. Vice Chair Shaffer called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Purpose: Shaffer. ity Planner, Those present were Commissioners Eck, Groger, Keysser, Me Also present were Director of Planning and Development, M Dan Olson. Chair Pentel and Commissioner Rasmussen I. Approval of Minutes - September 23, 2002 Pia MOVED by Groger, seconded by Eck and motio September 23, 2002 minutes. nimously to approve the . II. Informal Public Hearing - Condi . Applicants: Address: Network) North, Golden Valley, MN e Permit would allow for a broker for wholesale 'Ie sales on property in the Commercial zoning Grimes discussed the request to display and sell up to five cars in the parking lot of the 1I0w Shopping Center. He stated that the Zoning Code allows car lot onditional Use Permit in the Commercial zoning district. He explained nt would be leasing approximately 150 square feet of office space and pe of use being proposed is considered commercial in nature and is con . tent tti General Land Use Plan map and other car dealerships in the Comme . I g district, but that no other dealerships are in shopping centers. He showed th missioners a site plan and pointed out the area where the cars would be parked. He stated that the applicant does have additional car storage space in Brooklyn Park so he would not have a need to store more than five cars at this location. He added that the applicant's current business is in Ham Lake and that he has spoken with staff in Ham Lake and they have stated that they haven't had any problems or complaints regarding the applicant's business. . Grimes stated that there are currently 95 parking spaces at the shopping center and that according to the type and mix of uses in the shopping center there would be adequate parking for the shopping center after Excel One moved in. He added that the . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 14, 2002 Page 2 proposed use would unlikely create any traffic problems. He discussed the proposed test drive route and stated that staff suggests that one of the conditions of approval be that there be no test drives on local, residential streets. He added that this requirement would be hard to enforce. He referred to his staff report and discussed the ten factors he considered as part of a CUP approval. Ed Johnson, applicant stated that he is looking to move his busine Golden Valley. He said he is a resident of Golden Valley. He s always plenty of parking available on the site and that for him time would be a lot for him. He discussed the landowner's whole parking lot. m Ham Lake to there is ars at one ave the Keysser asked how the cars would arrive on the lot. individually and that there would be no trucks or tr d they are driven Eck asked the applicant how he would draw he advertises in the paper and only sees cust to the site. Johnson stated that ctly by appointment. Groger referred to the applicant's exi stated that it requires the 5 cars to stated that that is a condition of put a fence up. Groger asked t be a factor in finding custo .. nal Use Permit from Ham Lake and bUilding or in a fenced in area. Johnson i ,m Lake, but that the landlord has never cant if he anticipates that drive by traffic would on stated no. Shaffer asked the applic Lake. Johnson state areas on both sid complaints. Sha Johnson sta e has been any vandalism at his location in Ham ed that at his Ham Lake location he has residential ess and that there have been no problems or the applicant if he clears snow off of the cars in the winter. 'terated that he would rarely have five cars in the parking lot. Keysseras appro Gri check a every year, e was a way for the City to monitor the site and the conditions of sated that generally the staff in the Inspections Department would re are complaints. He stated that Ham Lake reviews their CUP's Golden Valley does not. Groger asked how many test-drives per week the applicant has at his current location. Johnson stated he has two or three test-drives per week and that he usually goes with them. Shaffer opened the public hearing. Glen Busitzski, 2436 Mendelssohn Lane, stated that he didn't think car sales would be a good mix in this shopping center. He stated that he is not extremely against the . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 14, 2002 Page 3 proposal but is concerned as to how the City would monitor the site. He showed the Commission some pictures he took at Plymouth Avenue and TH169 and stated that the cars in the pictures all had for sale signs in the windows and that some of them had been at that location for over a year. He stated he could assure that residents in the area would be monitoring the site and that the proposal is not appropriate at this location. Bonnie Ostlund, 2456 Mendelssohn Lane stated that sh pattern being enforced. She stated that Ham Lak concerned that a car dealership would have a up for the possibility of other uses like the on e ue with the test drive Iden Valley and she is i t and would open the City posed. Andrew Garon, 2416 Mendelssohn Lane stated that this propos element the City doesn't need and that it would be an inappro concerned about the values of the homes in the area and t Pheasant Glen received a hearing notice. . Phyllis Bailey, 9201 Medicine Lake Ro next door was repaved some of the r could park their cars in there parki their parking lot past midnight w en the condominium parking lot d the shopping center owner if they y were told no and that any car parked in sed the public hearing. Eck asked Grimes if he h Plymouth Avenue an that he would be location and that omments about the pictures that were taken at imes stated he was not aware of the situation and . He stated that car sales are not permitted at that ot have a conditional use permit. s reservations about setting a precedent. He stated that the nd not terribly invasive, but it is not appropriate in a mostly n he would be voting against the proposal. Shaffer stat e was also concerned about allowing car sales at a strip mall and setting a precedent because then other shopping centers could ask for the same type of use. He stated he doesn't think this proposal is compatible in this shopping center. . McAleese referred to condition number two in Mark Grimes' memo and stated that the word "modes" should be "models" and he asked for a definition of "good condition". He stated that if he were going to approve a business of this type that this would be an ideal use, but this particular proposal is inappropriate for a shopping center that is in a mostly residential area. . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 14,2002 Page 4 Grimes suggested adding as a condition of approval that vehicles cannot be delivered by a car transport. Eck stated that this particular application is minimally intrusive and probably won't be noticeable at all by the neighbors, but in this particular case it is not a compatible use. Keysser stated that he is less concerned about the impact to the s is concerned about this type of use in a residential neighborhoo III. equest for a Conditional obile sales on property in Eck stated that he thinks another condition of approval sho would not be allowed to park on the site. McAleese sug regarding passenger vehicles up to a certain weight. MOVED by McAleese and seconded by Eck to ap Use Permit to allow for a broker of wholesale the Commercial zoning district with the follow' . . Change condition number two in M . Delivery of automobiles by trailer . Only passenger vehicles up to o to define "good condition", allowed. eight would be allowed to park on the lot. Upon a vote the motion was un was incompatible with the Iy denied. The Commission thought the use y didn't want to set a precedent. Zoning Code Text Amendment ity would like to revise three Sections of the Zoning Code to lIow for time extensions for P.U.D.'s, CUP's and Variances. Olson st~ff would like to revise the Zoning Code to allow for time extensions on PUD a Is for six months for final plat submittal, and one-year extensions for CUP's and variances. He referred to the draft ordinance written by the city attorney. Shaffer asked how the City has been handling extensions. Grimes stated that the City Council has issued extensions in the past but that there is nothing in the City Code regulating this. . Eck asked for clarification on what exactly staff is asking. Olson explained that for Conditional Use Permits and variance approvals applicants have one year to do the requested work or the approval expires. Eck stated that some clarification is needed in . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 14, 2002 Page 5 the draft ordinance. Grimes stated that the draft ordinance is more clear when the section of the code involving these items is read. Shaffer asked how many times an applicant could apply for an extension. Olson stated that the language allows an extension for up to 12 months. McAleese stated that when the whole section of the Code is read it sounds like applicants could only apply for an extension one time. Shaffer opened the public hearing. public hearing. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Keysser and motion carri staff's request to revise three Sections of the Zonin C for P.U.D.'s, CUP's and Variances. sly to approve for time extensions IV. Reports on Meetings of the Ho Council, Board of Zoning Ap Clevelopment Authority, City her Meetings Shaffer discussed a variance re Appeals denied. He stated tha City Council. r i ;rd stall garage that the Board of Zoning licant is appealing the Board's decision to the V. The Commission garages. ardships for variance requests and for third stall VI. . . . Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Planning Commission From: MarkW. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Minor Subdivision of Lot at 4117 Wayzata Blvd.- John and Barbara Wilson, Applicants Date: November 6, 2002 Background Jack and Barbara Wilson own the home and property at 4117 Wayzata Blvd. The lot also has frontage along Tyrol Trail to the south. They are requesting to replat their property into two lots. One lot would be for their existing home on Wayzata Blvd. and a new lot off Tyrol Trail that would be sold for a new house. Qualification as a Minor Subdivision This lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the property is part of an existing, recorded plat, creates fewer than four lots, and does 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 as required in Section 12.50 of the Subdivision Code. Staff Review of the Minor Subdivision If the minor subdivision is approved, both lots will be located on existing, platted streets with access to utilities. However, the access to the utilities is somewhat problematical due to the steepness of the property and the existing utility connections to the house on Wayzata Blvd. The utility issues are addressed in the attached memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE. The subdivision is not located within a floodplain or a shoreland area of the City. 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 which they are located. In the case of this minor subdivision, both Parcel A (north lot) and Parcel B (south lot) do not meet all requirements for lots in the Residential zoning district, including lot size and setbacks. The total size of the property prior to subdivision is 17,446 sq. ft. (The highway easement for the frontage road is nolincluded in their total square footage.) After the proposed subdivision, Parcel A or the north lot is 9,452 sq. ft. in area or about 500 sq. ft. less than the 10,000 sq. ft. . minimum lot size in the Residential zoning district. Parcel B or the south lot is only 7,994 sq. ft. in area or about 2,000 sq. ft. less than required in the Residential zoning district. If the subdivision was approved, the existing house and deck on Parcel A does not meet the rear setback requirement of 20% of the lot depth at several points. The front and side setback requirements of 35 ft. and 15 ft. would be met. The existing house meets all setback requirements for the lot that it is now located on with the exception of the side yard setback from the southeast corner of the house. At that southeast corner of the house, the house should be set back 15 ft. The actual setback is 14.2 ft. In 1994, Mr. and Mrs. Wilson received a variance for this existing condition in order that the conforming deck on the rear of the house could be built. For historical purposes, the house was built in 1956. In the early 1990's, MnDOT acquired the house along with several other homes along the frontage road. (MnDOT acquired the homes because of the widening of the road and to eliminate the complications of having families living in the midst of all the construction for several years.) Mr. and Mrs. Wilson purchased the home from MnDOT in late 1993 or 1994. The applicant has submitted several attachments for staff and Commission consideration. Attachment 3 indicates the potential location for a house. on Parcel B. Note that this house location would not meet side setback requirement and would be very close to the rear setback requirement. Staff would recommend that any new house located on Parcel B meet all setback requirements. Those are 35 ft. front, 15 ft. side and 20% of lot depth for the rear. The proposed Parcel B has adequate space to allow for the construction of a house that . meets the setback requirement. The major issue (outside of utility issues) is the creation of two lots that do not meet the minimum lot size requirement for the Residential zoning district. The argument made by Mr. and Mrs. Wilson is that there are 12 lots in the area that are less than 10,000 sq. ft. in area (Attachment 5) and that there are three lots in the area that are less than 7,994 sq. ft. in area. (Staff has not verified how many homes in the area are less than 10,000 sq. ft. in area. It does seem very likely that there is some lots this small in the area. South Tyrol Hills was platted in the 1930's when smaller lots were more popular.) They also argue that a home built on Parcel B would fit in with the area and not be out of character. In recent years, several homes have been built in South Tyrol on challenging lots, including the home under construction at this time on Alpine Pass and the home built several years ago at the west end of Tyrol Trail. Both of these homes are very close to Parcel B. . There also may be some concern about the steepness of the lot. The property is at an elevation of about 900 ft. along Wayzata Blvd. and it falls off to about 860 ft. along Tyrol Trail. This would require careful construction techniques. However, this type of construction is possible as illustrated by the home under construction on Alpine Pass. Another concern may be how close the new home would be from the existing home on Parcel A. The plan indicates the rear of the deck on the home on Parcel A would be about 37 ft. from the rear of the house on Parcel B. Normally, this would be quite close for two single-family homes. However, the difference in elevation would mitigate this lack of setback distance. Because the construction of a house on Parcel B will require the removal of some significant tree, the builder will have to meet the requirements of the City's tree preservation ordinance. As part of the construction process, they will also have to submit additional information to the Engineering Department regarding grading and erosion control. 2 . Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Subdivision According to Section 12.50 of the Subdivision Code, 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, both lots would not meet the minimum area requirement of 10,000 sq. ft. for a lot. In addition, the existing home on Parcel A would not meet the rear yard setback requirement of 20% of the lot depth. Because of these nonconformities, a variance from these conditions must be approved by the City Council in order for the minor subdivision to be approved. (See "Variance Criteria" section of this memo.) 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Enqineer determines that the lots are not buildable. The City Engineer has written a memo regarding this minor subdivision. Although he addresses several areas of concern, he does not indicate that the lots are not buildable. As stated above, with proper building techniques and design, Parcel B is developable. 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utility systems by the addition of new lots. The City Engineer has addressed these issues in . his memo. Connections to City sewer and water lines are possible but they will be costly. 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the QrantinQ of certain easement to the City. This matter is addressed in the City Engineer's memo. Certain drainage and utility easements will be required and shown on the final plat. 5. If public aqencies other than the City have iurisdiction on the streets adiacent to the minor subdivision. the aqencies will be Qiven the opportunity to comment. In this case, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) owns Wayzata Blvd. They have been sent a copy of the minor subdivision drawing. It is not anticipated that they will have any concerns about the creation of a second lot because there are no changes to be made to the Wayzata Blvd. portion of the plat. However, MnDOT would have to give permission to make any sewer or water connection in their right-of-way as indicated in the City Engineer's memo. 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 a park dedication fee. The policy of the City is that a park dedication fee will be required if the new subdivision creates any new lots for development. In this case, one new lot is created. The park dedication fee will be required to be paid at the time the final plat is approved by the City Council. . 3 . . . Variance Criteria from the Subdivision Code 1. As stated above, the approval of this minor subdivision will require variances to the Subdivision Code because the lots and existing house on Parcel A do not meet the requirements of the Residential chapter of the Zoning Code. The Subdivision Code states that the City Council may grant variances as long as there is a finding that the following conditions are met: 2. 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 of inconvenience shall not constitute a hardship situation for the purpose of determining if a variance is justified. 3. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 4. 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. 5. The Subdivision Code states that the City shall consider the nature of the proposed use of the land, the existing use of land in the vicinity, 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. Recommended Action In this case, the staff will not make a recommendation. There are arguments on both sides for the minor subdivision. Staff has generally been advocates for the creation of additional lots through the replatting of property even when the property would require difficult construction. Golden Valley and South Tyrol are desirable places to live and the proposed vacant lot would probably be purchased within a short period of time for a valuable home. One more home in the area would have a minimal effect on the existing street and other city systems. However, both proposed lots would not meet the minimum lot size requirement and variances from the subdivision code would be required. Also, the existing home would not meet the rear setback requirements after the subdivision was completed. If the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of the minor subdivision and subdivision code variances, the following conditions are suggested: 1. The Certificate of Survey dated 4/19/02 and prepared by Demars-Garbriel Land Surveyors, Inc. shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations of City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, found in his memo dated Nov. 6, 2002 to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development shall become a part of this approval. 4 . 3. A park dedication fee shall be paid at the time of final plat approval by the City Council. The amount of the dedication shall be determined by the City Council. 4. A house on Parcel B must meet the setback requirements for the Residential zoning district. Attachments: Location Map Photographs (2) showing the front and back of the existing home Jeff Oliver's memo dated November 6, 2002 Letter from applicant dated October 17, 2002 Survey (applicant's "attachment #3") Map showing properties of less than 10,000 sq. ft. (applicant's "attachment 5) . . 5 . N AY-Z,AIA BL ; i' .' ../'. "' WAYZATA BLVD Subject Property: 4117 Wayzata Blvd. I _j_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I . Front of House . . Back of House . . . . Memorandum Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) alley Date: November 6, 2002 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Jf!!5 4117 Wayzata Boulevard From: Subject: Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed subdivision at 4117 Wayzata Boulevard. The existing lot is an oversized lot with frontage on Wayzata Boulevard (1394 Frontage Road) and Tyrol Trail. The Wayzata Boulevard frontage is located between TyrolTrail and June Avenue. The existing home on this lot has driveway access from Wayzata Boulevard. The elevation of the driveway is approximately 35 feet above the elevation of Tyrol Trail. The proposed new lot will have frontage onto Tyrol Trail, which was reconstructed in 2002 as part of the Pavement Management Program. As outlined in the Special Assessment Policy, the existing home on Wayzata Boulevard was not assessed for the 2002 PMP project because the frontage was back yard frontage. However, the subdivision will result in a new lot with frontage on Tyrol Trail that was not assessed. Therefore, staff recommends that the new lot be charged an assessment for the frontage on Tyrol Trail at the $2,600.00 per unit rate assessed to all other properties in the South Tyrol PMP project. This assessment is payable prior to final approval of the subdivision. A right-of-way permit will be required for the installation of the driveway at the time the new home is constructed. Due to changes to Tyrol Trail west of Alpine Pass, the driveway must be located as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant. Sanitary sewer service to the existing home is provided from a service off of Tyrol Trail that crosses the proposed new lot. There is no sanitary sewer service available from Tyrol Trail to serve the proposed home. Because the Plumbing Code prohibits multiple homes from using the same sanitary sewer service, a new service for one of the homes will be required. In the late 1980s, the City Council passed a resolution prohibiting the open cutting of reconstructed streets for a period of five years following completion of the project. Any "unavoidable" cuts need to be authorized by the City Council, and the applicant would be required to perform rehabilitation to an area adjacent to the cut that could include an overlay of up to a block of adjacent roadway. G:\Developments-Private\4117 Wayzata\Review 110502.doc '. . . . There is an existing sanitary sewer line within Wayzata Boulevard in front of the existing home. However, records indicate that a service line was not installed for this property. Based upon the above discussion, staff recommends that the sanitary sewer service to the existing home be revised. This revision should include installing a new service line into the Wayzata Boulevard sewer main, and connecting the new home to the existing service on Tyrol Trail. The installation of the new service into Wayzata Boulevard will require a permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and utility and right~ of~way permits from the City. Water service to the property being subdivided is provided from Wayzata Boulevard and Tyrol Trail. City records are unclear as to which service is connected to the existing home. The applicant must demonstrate the ability to connect the proposed home to City water without additional cuts into Wayzata Boulevard. The subdivided property will be required to include easement dedication consistent with City Code requirements. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Gary Johnson, Building Official G:\Developments-Private\4117 Wayzata\Review 110502.doc . . . October 17, 2002 Mr. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development The City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road GoldenValley, MN 55427 RE: App&eation for Subdivision Dear Mr. Grimes: We have been residents of Golden Valley for 7+ years and are proud of our community and have appreciated and enjoyed the many advantages of living here. Also, we care a great deal for the ~'look" and ~'feel" of our neighborhood and want to do our best to keep it as charming as it is. We purchased our property in the summer of 1994 from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. It had been abandoned for several years because of the construction of 1-394. After eight months of construction and rehabilitation, our "dream home" was ready. Our time, money and effort were well spent and the house really did become our home in February of 1995. We have enjoyed our home and we also enjoy our community as well. Our request is that we be allowed to divide our large lot (18,000+ square feet) in South Tyrol Hills in order to make a saleable and buildable lot in addition to the portion on which our home is located. The portion we wish to separate is largely unusable for us. To support our request, we are providing the following documents: Attachment 1 - Application for Minor Subdivision. Attachment 2 - A check made payable to the City of Golden Valley in the amount $100. Attachment.3 - Certificate of Survey of property showing requested change. Please note the proposed parcel is conforming in all respects except for the 10,000 square foot requirement. Attachment 4 - Certificate of Survey showing existing property with elevation lines and trees indicated. Attachment 5 - Map of South Tyrol Hills area with existing properties of less than 10,000 square feet highlighted. This seems to show a precedence allowing the variance in square feet. As you can see on the enclosed surveyor's drawings, the lot lends itself very well to division for the following reasons: ~ The current lot is naturally divided already-the portion on which our house is located faces Wayzata Boulevard and is basically flat, with a slight slope in the back yard to accommodate the walkout basement. The portion we wish to set as a "new" building site is flat on the street side (South Tyrol Trail) with an upward grade at the rear. (Please see Attachment 4.) ~ By the surveyor's drawings, it would appear that the lot may indeed have been in two parcels at one time. The configuration of the present lot lines indicates this possibility. . >> The "new" lot bas the distinct advantage of having a view of the pond on South Tyrol Trail. It would be likely that the owner or architect or builder would be inspired to erect a home suitable for the location and also the general "look" of the neighborhood. Such a home could and would be a positive addition to the tax base. of our community. >> Although the size of the proposed lot is less than the 10,000 square feet currently required, other properties in the neighborhood are also less than 10,000 square feet. The "new" lot would be larger than three existing lots. Therefore, its size would not appear to be "out of step" with the other homesites. (please see Attachment 5.) We look forward to the opportunity to appear before the Zoning Board and/or the Council to discuss this application. Please let us know when you would like for us to attend the session. In the meantime, please feel free to call us if you have any questions. Our home phone number is 763-381-0812. Please leave a message and we will return your call the next day. Thank you for considering our application. rely yours, , ~I I. 1" .~k- - ~~/~~ ohn F. and Barbara M. Wilson 4117 Wayzata Boulevard Golden Valley, MN 55416 . , . ~' l1-avk M~ 3 . , ._'".-..:.-__.__._-_.-..,~. "~.,, . --~-- .-_. -.---- Lp<l:lJ D~',,"';::;":\ . , --..._.._-------_._-~-----_._--- ------ Th"l r"r! 0' 1.01' E'{lhl (0) ,,"(j Nine (9). Rlock HUN' (31. 'Tyrol H,".. 1I1',",ppin COII;'ly. MUlI""OI~', lI"'l:IIhl'lI '" 'ollllw" (;nll1l111'n(;ill'l "I "'e Nnrllrp.,rl COrn!'r ollol Njno (9); IIr!'n('!' WI"I ,j,IY""vI'n nnlllwI'nly livp hllnfh.'lIl1" 11'1'1 C'N (;1,:",'); II "'nI:l' :;",,11, .'1 ,i\llrl "'UI"" 10 if poinl in" hilI' "Iflllin(j Iromlho ",0'1 fJortl'I',Iycm"I'I of Lnl l:ighl (Il) to" point inlho SOullrwe'lmly linl' "'I'Ieol, (h"""II"nle!'1 (10') SOlrthellslerly lrom Ihe NOrthweSl comm Ih!',oof; Ihence Southweslerly ~Iong s~id 11IsI described line 10 s"id pojnl in Ihe SOlrthw"'SIl'lly line of lol I'ighl (8); thenco SOlnh\laSlO,ly 10 Iho 100"" Southorly comer IhAroof; Ih",ncA Norll"mslmly 10 tho 1110", E'''II'I1y cornor Ihorool; thonce Norlhweslorly 10 Ihe most Northerly corner Ih'-"reaf; thence Northwoslerly to beginning; and Th"t part 01 Lot Ten (10). Block Three (3), 'Tyrol Hills, Hennepin County, Minnesota', described a fOllows; Commnncillg at a poinl twenly- savon feet (27') South of the North line of Lot Ten (10) and ninety-lour and forty.flvo hundredlhs leel (94.45') West as measured al right angles "010 Ihe t:aSl /lne of Lot Ten (10), said Block Three (3), said point also being on the South right-of.way line of Wayzata BoulllVard; thence South parallel with lhe EaSlnne of LO! Ten (lO), a distance of twenty-seven and thlrty.five hundredths feet (27.35'), more or less, 10 Ihe Southwesterly line 01 Lot Ten (10); thence Northwesterly along said SouthweSlerly IIno a diSlance 01 twenty-nine and fll1een , hundredths lel!! (29.15'), mor.e or less, to Ihe NorthweS1erly comer O! said Lot Elghl (8); thence Nonh on a line drawn at right angles 10 the North line of LOI Ten (10), a distance of three leet (3'), more Or less, to the South right-of-way line of Wayzata BoulllVard; thence EaSl along said right-ol.way line a diSlance of fr/teen and eighty-nine hundredths feet (15.89') to the point 01 beginning; and That triangular portion or Lot Ten (10), Block Three (3), 'Tyrol Hills, Hennepin County, Minnesota', described as follows; Beginning althe mosl Northerly comer 01 Lot' Eight (8) In said Block three (3); thence Northwesterly along the WeSlerly line of Lot Ten (10) 10 the most Westerly corner 0/ said Lot Ten (10); thence East along Ihe North line 01 said lot to an Interseellon whh a line drawn North Irom the point 01 beginning and parallel with the E8S1 Une of said Lot Ten (10); thence SOuth parallel whh said EaSlllne to the polm of beginning; and Thatpart ot Lot Seven (7), Block Three (3), 'Tyrol Hins, Hennepin County, Minnesota', described as fOllows; Commencing al a point on the Northwesterly line of Lot Seven (7), d'rstant lOfty leet (40') SouthweSterly Irom the NorthweSlerly corner thereof; thence Northeasterly along said Northwesterly line a distance of fr/teen and thirty-fIVe hundredths lel!! (15.35'), more,or less, to a point distant ninety-lour and lorty-live hundredths (94.45') WeS1 ~ measured at right angles 'rom the East line of Lot Ten (10); thence South parallel whh the East line of LO! Ten (10) a distance 01 fr/teen and seventy-five hundredths fl'l!\ (!5.75'); thence Northwesterly on a strnlgl~ fine a distance 01 nine and lorty-one hundredths leet (9.41'), more or less, to Ihe point 01 beginning; EXCEPt Thai part 01 LOI Eight (6), Block, Three (3). 'Tyro! Hills, Hennepin County, Minnesota', described as lallows; Commencing al the SOuthe8S1erly comer of lot Eight (8); thence SouthweS1erly along the Southeasterly line thereol a diSlance of twenty-lour and sixty-fIVe hundredths lel!! (24.65'), more or less, 10 a point dlstaol ninety-lOur and forty-RYe hundredths leet (94.45') West as measured at right angles Irom the Eas! line of Lot Ten (10); thence North on a line parallel with the East line 01 Lot Ten (10), a diSlance 01 forty-one and seventy.fIVe hundredths lel!! (41.75') to Us interseellon with the Northe8S1erly line of Lot Eight (8); thence SOlnheasterly along the Northeasterly line of LOI Eight (8), a distance 01 twentyfrve and eighty.live hundredths feet (25.85'). more or less to the point 01 beginning ~ o X 000,0 Denotes iron monument Denotes existing elev. Denotes surface drainage .. All according to Ihe recorded plat 'thereof. . - Ot:.NOTE ~ -fREE' 2> Subject to, restrielions. 'eservatlOns and easements of record, ff any. = .' . ,. " . /g,e 9.:r Ed.r/ .0"... . . ." .; 'i" '# ":~, t..... -: . _ MJ.:.b<. 1ot.'; .. .... x 10<1-.8 --'-- \~j/2V"b ~d) l t\i ,f~~ gj?.4PVQ'y 4Z7. /C' "" ,09~WQY '~~.1"(",,~,,/ I "I .. / , "',"" <-- !..'..( ~ :' J. . \. , ;. '" , """ TREE INVENTORY 1 36"Cottonwood 2 12" Oak 3 22" Oak 4 22" Oak 5 24" Oak 6 14' Oak 7 12" 8 14" Oak 9 16" 10 14" Oak II 12" Oak 12 12" Oak 13 16" Oak 14 2S"Oak 15 18" Oak 16 12" Oak , , L/ I ,,' "', ,-, L ,..... ~~ ~~ ~~ 8'}'J.2 : " . ........ .....~~ 'oo . " -~~o '0-'1'4.1 ~ ~ ';( 9"'.!i' ~\ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ X D~ ~",.~ \ \" ~~ '''J.~ )< 7;;" , ~ ~ /P. /' ~ .N/. ~ Fr€. 9"4.J 1., - _.. <:'~, ~ .~~ \. y. '-'l 1 r / . ~ "':' E..-,:r6-/N / J; "-~r ,,- ""~ ~ 'r~'~, '" ~~ T.n?.....ne'E ..1'/c:>ne '\a .") ~. ~) ~V$<:."' ';y ?,It-:~-:'= 191$.1 "" "" ~ ~ ~ , \. ' .~.:'. '\ ,:.' y: 199.$ \ , . , II 9Dt.' ~.. .- -r:-- ... --:- .. '''if.'} LW-..../._,t . ~ ~ \i , , /'" :t 901.0 ')I' 10J.g ~~'v 91>' ~ A ~ ' ~ ~1f~~ ~ ~ ~~\ '-, .' ~o \. LOT AREAS T ota I Area Net Area 20,324 Square Feet 17,446 Square Feet ~ ~ .............. PA.et!tt ,4: I~~~ ~.F~ PA'JE't'e~ 8: ~ 9~~ 5 S'9.,ct. >-. J-- . /1S ! <:) '< " , " , " ~":''''' ~~ " '\ ~ -:, ~ .~~" ~. ~'x IH,3 I , ! I ! I I ~ , '" " -, .. \ , ..... '... I "'J VJ "> t:t.'t \. t' ;\" fbSS/$LE ,t/tJt./S~ .' ~I.v .. 7UCK t/N'!:JER6'''IR,465@ 86'9..3 j ,. /IJP ()F 9IF"f./,v0A7'/0A/(iJ,?'78.!J , ... 15% OR/VlFW'.4Y ~.4oe , ~ ho.' )( &,'1,' rick! l,f,. c:: \, r D:-, \ )(10..') \ 1 1 (~2,'J. (\'5 -8+f~3-B-:-' f2EVIS~D: 'O/"{o~ DEMARS-GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. I hereby certify that this survey. plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am Q duly Regist(;,ed Land Surveyor undp.r the Laws of the State of Minnesota. File No, 11628 B CERTlF1CA TE OF SURVEt J030 Harbor Lane No. Plymouth, MN 55447 Phone:(76J) 559-0908 Fox :(76J) 559-0479 l!J~(0 David E. Crook Date: 41rqlo!2- Book-Page J 19-4 PO,c.? Minn. Reg. No. 22414 Scale 1 "-30' JACK WILSON . . . := /-.;,~,: (.~ . I...~ _ C/~/::- L e S-"~) ~7~..t'l"l.J ,- .., / c: (I. ': . ,:. 'l~ ' 4H-ctdvh~ s- .ff g- ~ ...j If? ()) Cif) "Golden Valley 2002 PMP SOUTH TYROL AREA SCALE: 1 INCH = 400 FEET N 1: SOURCE: Engineering Division . . . Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Zoning Code Text Amendment - Drive-In banks in the Light Industrial zoning district Subject: Date: November 6, 2002 Background Recently, the Planning Commission reviewed a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D~ application for a drive-in bank facility at the corner of Winnetka Avenue North and 10 Avenue North. At the November 4, 2002, the City Council approved the Preliminary site plan for this P.U.D. This property has an underlying zoning classification of Light Industrial. Currently, drive-in bank facilities are neither a Permitted nor a Conditional Use in that zoning district. At the August 12, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, staff had suggested that the City's Zoning Map and General Land Use Plan Map be amended to Industrial for this property to allow drive-in bank facilities (drive-in facilities are a Conditional Use in the Commercial and Industrial zoning districts). However, after consultation with our City Attorney, it was felt that amending the Light Industrial zoning text to allow drive-in bank facilities would be a better alternative. Staff is recommending at this time that the Zoning Code be amended so that drive-in bank facilities be allowed as a Conditional Use in the Light Industrial zoning district. This change seems in line with similar uses in the Commercial and Industrial zoning districts. The parking requirements would be the same as offices in the Light Industrial district (1 parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor space devoted to office use). The following is the language that would be added to City Code Section 11.35, Subd. 4 (S) (Conditional Uses in the . Lighfl ndlJstrialionin~fdisffIct): · Drive-in bank facilities located on a collector or minor arterial street. This change to the Zoning Code would be forwarded to the City Council at the same time as the P.U.D. General Plan of Development for the drive-in bank facilities and Winnetka Avenue and 10th Avenue. Action Requested Recommend to the City Council the above Zoning Code Text Amendment. ~ .. . . . Hey Memorandum Planning 763.593-8095/763.593.8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: Discussion of possible revisions to the Residential zoning district Date: November 6, 2002 Background At the September 23, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission briefly discussed possible revisions to the City's Zoning Code, including revisions to the single family zoning district. Also, as you are aware, the City Council at their meeting on October 15th overturned a Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) denial of a variance for a third stall garage. At that City Council meeting, the Council directed the Planning Commission to review setback requirements in the single family zoning district. Before a draft ordinance can be prepared showing revisions to the Residential zoning district, staff would like direction from the Planning Commission as to what changes they would like to see to the Zoning Code. The following are the issues for which the staff would like direction: 1. Side yard setback requirements: Currently, the setback requirements are as follows: · I n the case of lots having a width of 100 feet or greater, the side setback shall be 15 feet. · In the case of lots having a width greater than 70 feet and less than 100 feet, the side setback shall be 15 percent of the lot width. · In the case of lots having a width of 70 feet or less, the North or West side setback shall be 10 percent of the lot width, and the South or East side setback shall be 20 percent of the lot width. Should these setback requirements be reduced? Some have argued to accommodate 2nd and 3rd stall garages (without the necessity of a variance). We could also have a lesser side yard setback on one side (the side with the garage). 2. Front yard setback requirements: Currently, the requirement is 35 feet. Should this be reduced in certain circumstances, such as the addition of a front yard porch or deck? . . . 3. Lot coveraQe: Should we establish lot coverage requirements? 4. Corner lots: Should there be a lesser setback for one side of a corner lot? Currently, for corner lots, two 35-foot setbacks are required. 5. Accessory buildinQs: Should we delete the requirement that a detached structure has to be located completely behind the principal structure? One possibility is to require the building to be located completely behind the front wall of the principal building. 6. Temporary outdoor storaoe: Should we add specific requirements for temporary outdoor storage (PODS, dumpsters, etc.)? Planning Commission Action This agenda item is for your discussion. If the Planning Commission decides what Code changes should be made, staff will begin working on preparing draft ordinances for the Commission to review.