Loading...
10-13-08 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, October 13, 2008 7 pm 1. Approval of Minutes September 22, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding Height of Buildings Allowed by Conditional Use in the High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4) Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider the height of buildings allowed by Conditional Use in the High Density Zoning District (R-4) ---Short Recess--- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 4. Other Business Presentation by Michael Schroeder (LHB) regarding the Douglas Drive Corridor Study Discussion - Setbacks for patios and other paved areas in the Single Family Zoning District (R-1) 5. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763.593.8006 (TIY: 763-593-3968) to makea request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22,2008 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, September 22,2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, and Schmidgall. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Eck and Wald were absent. 1. Approval of Minutes for along rned that the eferred to a way 55 from loners to participate Mayor Loomis was in attendance to discuss the Lilac Planting pr . . October 4. She explained that the idea to plant lilacs and othe Highway 55 came from Envision Golden Valley and Bridge funds for the plant materials and landscape plans came fr map of the area and stated that they will be planting on bot General Mills Blvd. to Winnetka Ave and invited the P i in the volunteer efforts. August 11, 2008 Regular Plann' McCarty referred to the third par that his intention was that he just taller) from the property . nd stated that he would like it clarified he proposed building be set back further (not alley Road. MOVED by Cera, seco August 11,2008 minute and motion carried unanimously to approve the above clarification. 2. Minor Subdivision - Quail Woods -1825 Quail Avenue Knaeble (Golden Valley Land Co.) 1825 Quail Avenue The subdivision would create three separate lots and allow for the construction of two new homes. The existing home will remain. Grimes referred to a location map and noted that the location of his proposed subdivision is at the southwest corner of Golden Valley Road and Quail Avenue near Scheid Park. He explained that the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 38,714 square foot lot into three new lots. He added that the existing home will remain, but the existing garage will be relocated. He stated that all three lots exceed the minimum lot size requirements and noted that utilities are available to each lot. He explained that when building permits are applied for, a tree preservation plan and grading and erosion control plan will be required for each lot. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposed subdivision because it meets all of the requirements of the zoning code and subdivision code. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 2 Kluchka asked if there are any covenants on this property. Grimes said he is not aware of any covenants on this property. Kluchka asked about the owner of the property. Grimes stated that the applicant has purchased this property from a trust. Peter Knaeble, Applicant, stated that his intent is to remodel the existing house which has been vacant for about a year. He clarified that the sale of the property closes at the end of October at which time he will rearrange the location of the existing driveway and garage and start renovating the existing home. He reiterated that all three lots exceed the minimum standards and that all three homes will meet all of the setback r~quirements. He stated that the property is heavily wooded and that the vast majority swill remain however one or two may be removed on each lot in order t e new homes. subdivided "i. Knaeble or buyers who Keysser asked the applicant if he plans to sell the parcels or if he is planning on building the homes on the lots and t stated that he is subdividing the property then sellingJhe lotS::~p would then build custom homes. Schmidgall as propose house . ding of the property. Knaeble will be done by the builders Keysser asked the applicant if he anticipates d said no and explained that the grading on the i when the homes are built. McCarty referred to Lot 3, the nort the proposed home. Knaeble sa' and the home would be appro that staff and the applicant will meet all of the new ,~~ sked about the square footage of fP:tii~t would be approximately 1,500 square feet ,50ailt~?3,000 square feet in size. Grimes added ure that the existing home and both new homes ents without any variances being issued. Kluchka suggested in the future for any dition of approval that states no variances will be granted es. licant if he is planning on "rouging-in" the utilities to the Ie said they will be "roughing-in" the utilities but not until the first G pplicant to discuss the trees on the property. Knaeble said they did a urvey. He explained that on Lot 1 there may be one tree removed depen 0 e placement of the house. On Lot 2 there may be a couple of trees removed ehind the existing house and on Lot 3 one or two trees may be removed in order to build a new house. He stated that they will be doing individual tree preservation plans for each lot. Keysser asked if there will be a rain garden installed on Lot 2 where the existing house is located. Knaeble said he is not planning on installing a rain garden at this point but he is waiting to see what the Bassett Creek Management Commission will require. Grimes added that this development is small enough not to require any ponding but it will require that best management practices be followed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 3 Keysser opened the public hearing. Roma Witzig, 1840 Quail Avenue North, asked if the developer could give some background information on his company, projects they've done in the past and builders they have used. She asked what assurances the neighbors have as to the quality of these proposed new homes. She said she is very concerned about these homes becoming rental properties and she wants to be notified when the proposed new homes are to be built. Lynn Gitelis, 4945 Golden Valley Road, said she will end up living n on this property. She said that some of the existing trees may not because they are dying. She said she is concerned about havi garage and cars right next door to her. She said she would p instead of three. She referred to the traffic in the area and turn left off of Quail Avenue onto Golden Valley Road thro said it would be great to see someone living at this p.~~~erty would rather see two houses built, not three. She saids cleaned up and she is also concerned about th Catherine Martignacco, 4846 Golden Valle R keeps her eye on Golden Valley. She said she is concerned, ands.t ers concerned, about these houses becoming rental properties anqt he v,tpuld s y object to any kind of twin home or rental property being built it"lesaidlShe agrees that two houses would be better than three and that traffic' cern. Sam Madrid, 4900 Fronten yard setback area next t stopped by the neighbo legally meeting the tba between his prope yard setbacks neighborhood. proposed~C!)14s.e 0 aid he is concerned about the impact to the side e said he realizes this project isn't going to be I next to Lot 1 and even though the applicant is irements he would like to see a larger setback area osed new Lot 1. He said he thinks the side and front nt with the other side and front yard setbacks in the at e would also like windows along the south side of the inimized for his privacy. no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. sed some of the other projects he has done in Golden Valley and other ssed his background. Kluchka referred to the other projects the applicant has done and asked if he just subdivided the properties to prepare them for sale or if he has built houses on the properties and then sold them. Knaeble said he mostly does infill developments where he subdivides properties and sells them to builders to build what they want. He explained that he doesn't know what type or style these proposed new homes will be, but the plans will be reviewed by the City and the City does not have any design standards so he doesn't know if the neighbors will be able to have input on the building design. He said he recognizes that this property has been abandoned and is run-down but it is his intent to Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 4 clean it up. He referred to the concerns expressed regarding traffic and said he doesn't see two more lots having an impact to the existing streets. He referred to the concerns about rental properties and stated that the property is zoned R-1 so single-family homes will be built but if someone wants to rent out their home in the future he has no control over that and he is not sure if the City does either. Kluchka questioned the proposed location of the existing garage. Knaeble said he is not sure yet where on the lot the garage will be placed but it will probably be attached to home and it will meet all setback requirements. Keyssersugg noted that just one and and let d stated property Grimes referred to the concern about the quality of the proposed n that the City does not require single-family homes to be review owners. McCarty said he would be in favor ofthis proposal with the be no variance requests made in the future. Keysser esti allow someone to ask for a variance. that there will Ity can legally not Grimes stated that a stipulation regarding not subdivision development agreements in the. a always choose to override a subdivision thinks there is plenty of room for goo needing any variances. e var ances has been put in that the City Council can ement. He added that he ese proposed lots without Knaeble said he thinks it woul because it is not required f would ask the City Cou regarding not allowing f zoning code requir ents t new homeowners to preclude variances other homes in Golden Valley. He added that he uage in the subdivision development agreement ecause no one can foresee what the future y Attorney's opinion regarding future variances. He homeowner asks for a variance doesn't mean they would get ave that condition out of the Planning Commission's approval g Appeals do their job regarding variance requests. d with McCarty and Kluchka that there should be a condition of variances will be allowed on these lots in the future. Grimes agreed and is no reason or justification for variances on any of these proposed lots. He explain that there is a state statute that says subdivision agreements are subject to the zoning regulations currently in place for two years from the time of approval of the subdivision agreement. McCarty stated that putting language in the subdivision development agreement about not allowing future variances doesn't mean that a homeowner can't come before the Board of Zoning Appeals and ask for a variance especially if it is for a hardship created by the City if the zoning code requirements are amended. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 5 Keysser suggested the Commissioners take a separate vote on the issue of adding a condition regarding allowing future variances. The following Commissioners voted yes to add a condition of approval stating that future variances would not be allowed: Cera, Kluchka and McCarty. Commissioners Keysser and Schmidgall voted no. Kluchka asked Grimes about the best way for the neighbors to mitigate the traffic issues. Grimes stated that there has been additional right-of-way given as a part of this proposal. He stated that this proposal would add approximately 20 trips per da xisting traffic, not counting the 10 trips per day for the existing home. He n City Engineer does not have concerns about the traffic being gener sal, but he could ask him to address the issue before this proposal g ouncil. 1. The City Attorney will determinejf plat. ried nanimously to y located at 1825 Quail Kluchka asked what the neighbors could do to be proactiv Grimes suggested they talk to the Director of Public \l\{orks their traffic concerns. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Kluchka an recommend approval of the request to subdivi Avenue into three lots with the followin . necessary prior to approval of the final 2. A park dedication fee i of $1,100 shall be paid prior to final plat approval. 3. A Subdivision Agree that will include' ues e for review and approval by the City Council d in the City Engineer's memo dated September 12, 2008. 4. No future v wed on any of these lots. Roma Wi would would b she never r venue North, asked the applicant when the existing home there is a prospective buyer for the house. She asked who ble for the upkeep of the property until they sell the lots. She added that ow few rights property owners have. Knaebles.aid e would be responsible for the properties when they close on the sale at the end of October. He said the renovations will begin right away and then the existing home and new lots will be sold. Grimes explained that there is a single-family housing maintenance code that these houses will be subject to follow. Knaeble stated that there will be a period of transition but that the existing house has been in transition for a year and a half already. He added that in 2006 when the streets were reconstructed in this area the City assessed the property owner for three lots, not two, so the owners expected there to be three lots in the future. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 6 ---Short Recess--- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings McCarty reported on the September 16 City Council meeting. He stated that the Preliminary PUD plan for Applewood Pointe was approved and that most of the discussion was related to the appropriateness of the size of the project on the property. Kluchka added the City Council did not approve the rezoning of the pro rty but rather sent it back to the Planning Commission to further discuss the lang requirements in the R-4 zoning district. No other business was discussed. McCarty stated that the Council also approved a variance re them regarding the height of a proposed new house to be 1;, Road. 4. Other Business 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: October 6, 2008 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Amendment to Section 11.24, Subd. 5(C) of Zoning Code (High Density Residential Zoning District) Regarding Permitted Height of Buildings without a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) On September 16, 2008, the City Council held a public hearing on a Planned Unit Development (PUD) preliminary plan for the Applewood Pointe development. After the hearing, the City Council voted 4-1 to approve the preliminary plan that outlines the construction of a senior cooperative building and assisted living building at the northeast corner of Golden Valley Rd. and Douglas Dr. Prior to the approval of the preliminary plan for Applewood Pointe, the Council held a public hearing on a change to the zoning map for the parcels that are proposed to make up the Applewood Pointe development. Although the entire site for Applewood Pointe is designated on the General Land Use Plan map for high density residential uses, the parcels that are to make up the Applewood Pointe development are zoned either Low or Medium (R-1 or R-3) Density Residential. As part of the discussion after the public hearing on the rezoning, there was concern regarding the allowed height of buildings in the R-4 zoning district. Currently, the R-4 zoning district permits principal buildings up to 8 stories in height or 96 ft. Several City Council members expressed concern that 8 stories was too high and that the permitted height in the R-4 district should be reduced. Rather than approve the rezoning of the Applewood Pointe parcels, the Council tabled consideration of the rezoning and referred that matter to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was asked to review the permitted height in the R-4 zoning district. The rezoning of these parcels would then come back to the City Council prior to the consideration of the final plan of development for the Applewood Pointe PUD. At the current time, the R-4 zoning district permits buildings to be constructed up to 8 stories in height or 96 ft. in height without a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). After some discussion, the City Council asked that the Planning Commission consider a change to the Zoning Code that would reduce the permitted height of buildings in the R-4 zoning district without a CUP. The City Council generally felt that 8 stories or 96 ft. was too high for a permitted use in the R-4 district. They discussed having a lesser height requirement and permitting higher buildings with a CUP. 1 One of the concerns of the City Council was if the Applewood Pointe development did not continue, the properties would be rezoned to R-4 and an 8 story tall building could be constructed without a CUP or PUD. Based on the input from the City Council, the staff is recommending that the permitted height of buildings in the R-4 zoning district be reduced from 8 stories or 96 ft. to 5 stories or 60 ft. If someone wanted to build over 5 stories or 60 ft. in height, a CUP would be required. Also, the height of a building could be over 5 stories or 60 ft. if it is a part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Changing to allow buildings over 5 stories or 60 ft. by CUP is appropriate due to the location of those areas designated for High Density residential uses on the City's existing and proposed General Land Use Plan maps. Many of these areas are either adjacent to or across the street from low density residential zoning districts. At the current time, there are only four parcels that are zoned High Density (R-4) Residential on the zoning map. Each of these four parcels is already occupied by a larger apartment building with density of over 12 units per acre. However, the General Land Use Plan map (existing and proposed) designates 16 properties as High Density (over 12 units per acre). Of the 16, only 4 are currently zoned High Density Residential (R-4). In coordination with the adoption of a new General Land Use Plan map early in 2009, the staff will be preparing an amendment to the zoning map that will change the zoning of the properties that are designated for high density housing on the General Land Use Plan map to High Density (R-4) Residential zoning. The current zoning of the properties that should have the R-4 zoning designation is Medium Density (R-3) Residential. This proposed new permitted height seems a logical progression from the Medium Density Residential Zoning District (R-3) that allows buildings to be up to 4 stories or 48 ft. in height before a CUP is required. The Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) allows buildings up to 30 ft. in height. There is no Conditional Use Permit for buildings taller than 30 ft. in the R-2 district. Within the Low Density Residential Zoning District (R-1) buildings are permitted to be no taller than 28 ft. in height with no CUP process to allow taller buildings. Recommended Action Staff recommends amending Section 11.24, Subdivision 5(C) regarding Conditional Uses to the following: Principal structures in excess of five (5) stories or sixty (60) feet in height. Attachments Section 11.24: High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4) indicating proposed amendment (3 pages) Portion of the unapproved minutes of the September 16, 2008 City Council meeting (1 page) Existing General Land Use Plan Map (1 oversized page) Proposed 2010-2030 General Land Use Plan Map (1 oversized page) Existing Zoning Map (1 oversized page) 2 9 11.24 Section 11.24: High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4) Subdivision 1. Purpose The purpose of the High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4) is to provide for high density housing (over twelve (12) units per acre) along with directly related and complimentary uses. Subdivision 2. District Established Properties shall be established within the R-4 Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.24, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.24 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the R-4 Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter. Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses The following uses and no others shall be permitted in the R-4 Zoning District: A. Multiple-family dwellings B. Senior and Physical Disability Housing C. Foster Family Homes D. Essential Services, Class I and II E. No more than one (1) kitchen area shall be permitted in each dwelling unit. Subdivision 4. Accessory Structures The following accessory structures and no others shall be permitted in R-4 Zoning Districts: A. Enclosed parking structures similar in construction and materials to the principal structure B. Storage structures similar in construction and material to the principal structure, not exceeding five hundred (500) square feet or ten (10) feet in height. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-4 Zoning District to exceed a height of one (1) story, which is ten (10) feet from the floor to the top horizontal member of a frame building to which the rafters are fastened, known as the top plate. Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 3 9 11.24 C. Underground parking structures D. Private indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, including but not limited to swimming pools and tennis courts. Subdivision 5. Conditional Uses The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: A. Residential facilities serving twenty-five (25) or more persons B. Group Foster Homes C. Principal structures in excess of eight (8) five (5) stories or ninety six (96) sixty (60) feet in height. D. Retail sales, Class I and II restaurant establishments, and professional offices within principal structures containing twenty (20) or more dwelling units when located upon any minor or major arterial street. Any such sales, establishment or office shall be located only on the ground floor and have direct access to the street. Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots In the R-4 Zoning District a lot of a minimum area of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet shall be required for any principal structure. A minimum lot width of one hundred fifty (150) feet at the front setback line shall be required. Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility All structures in the R-4 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code. Subdivision 8. Easements No structures in the R-4 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. Subdivision 9. Maximum Coverage by Buildings and Impervious Surfaces Structures, including accessory structures, shall not occupy more than forty five percent (45%) of the lot area. Total impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot area. Subdivision 10. Principal Structures - Multiple-Family Multiple-Family Dwellings in R-4 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-4 Zoning District. Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 3 9 11.24 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be twenty- five (25) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Side and Rear Yard Setback. When directly abutting any R-1 Zoning District, the required side and rear yard setback shall be forty (40) feet. In all other instances, the required side and rear yard setback shall be twenty (20) feet. Subdivision 11. Enclosed Parking Structures and other Accessory Uses Enclosed parking structures and accessory uses in the R-4 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for all enclosed parking structures and other accessory uses in the R-4 Zoning District: 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be twenty- five (25) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Side and Rear Yard Setback. The required minimum side and rear yard setback for enclosed parking structures shall be forty (40) feet when abutting an R-1 Zoning District and twenty (20) feet in all other instances. The required minimum side and rear setback for other accessory uses shall be fifteen (15) feet. B. Location. No enclosed parking structure or accessory use shall be located closer to the front property line than the principal structure or within ten (10) feet of the principal structure. Subdivision 12. Parking Space Reduction Applicants providing sidewalks on all street frontages may pursue the following non-enclosed parking space reduction: A. Underground parking. The provision of one (1) stall of underground parking per unit shall result in a ten percent (10%) reduction in the number of required non-enclosed parking spaces. B. Public Transit. Scheduled public transit route available within one thousand (1000) feet of the primary entrance accessed by a public sidewalk shall result in a ten percent (10%) reduction in the number of required non-enclosed parking spaces. Source: Ordinance No. 373, 2nd Series Effective Oate: 07-13-07 Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 3 Regular Meeting of the City Council September 16, 2008 DRAFT Public Hearing - Ordinance #409 - Rezoning to High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4) -1100 Douglas Drive North, 1170 Douglas Drive North, 1200 Douglas Drive North, 1300 Douglas Drive North, 6200 Golden Vallev Road and 6212 Golden Vallev Road MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to refer the Rezoning to High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4) - 1100 Douglas Drive North, 1170 Douglas Drive North, 1200 Douglas Drive North, 1300 Douglas Drive North, 6200 Golden Valley Road and 6212 Golden Valley Road back to the Planning Commission to look at the R-4 Zoning District, which currently allows up to 96 feet, and to make a consideration or determination about what the approved height should be without having to come forward with a conditional use permit, and request staff to compare the Zoning Map and the General Land Use Plan for consistency. ~ =l lIIL~. .. '" >- < if = ~ .11 IIw = .. tle'nin.. --Yt--.J; ~ 1- i.J'~ ,?1 ~PUbIl E '" .-- is U5~ r"'~ '\"Yi' ~ .._.Ii___. CITY OF NEW HOPE ..----------..- ,,":llrdlf~ ,lV'l.ll\lll 1~~mHffiE Jt: 0: :-:M')V~ :Woods im~ L3i>:Cl' ~nllJ]IIU~.1 I H+tWr~ .. ~ ~ iPYii 4M" '."!~ Gf.I. ar . ,. _ok : I~ ~' cn ::<1M .j.:' .<>:" H << iT 'Lf;;) ~ ~ "V ~ ~.w.yf e ood Hills Envir:km;;;.1 <~-', ~ Education Ceo :i'M- / . INTERST~ 394 CITY OF ((i)((]) IL 'm .l'~ ,~~~., . O. '~.. ..1._' [Wll.~. ~ . Elemen ~ a School ~l . 11_ ~I ~~!!~lfm Q cttf.F:Pt: BASSETTS ) :10 -.:..,., o Golden Valle\' Golr Club' (Pm'ate) H-IHII CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK J/J) JEIV fY AlILlLIE' 17' GENERAL LAND USE PLAN RESIDENTIAL D Low Density (Less than 5 units per acre) o Medium Density (5 to 11.9 units per acre) _ High Density (12 or more units per acre) COMMERCIAL D Office _ Commercial (also includes Office) INDUSTRIAL D Light Industrial (also includes Office) _ Industrial (also includes Office) ~ 1-394 Mixed Use D Open Space - Public and Private Ownership D Schools and Religious Facilities D Public Facilities - Miscellaneous _ Semi-Public Facilities - Miscellaneous D Open Water D Wetlands National WeUand Inventory - not field verified (Minor adjustments made to some weUands) ~ Railroad Existing Local Trail .............. Proposed Local Trail Regional Trail - - - - - Proposed Regional Trail _PED Pedestrian Bridge Road Rights-ot-Way -.------. Municipal Line 1 inch = 1,833 feet 0 Thibault ASSOCIATES ~ - .......,... H_. Golden Valley May 1999 Comprehensive Plan 1999 - 2020 Cty d Gdd.... V..., 7110O GoId_ VI!hy Road Gdd.... V...,. MN 554:l7~5M ,........... _c1.goId_-,.rm.ua Hey DRAFT 2010-2030 GENERAL LAND USE PLAN Residential D Low Density (lasslhanS..,bper.cr.) If;.f:,;.J Medium Density (S..I1.9unbper.....) _ High Density (12or.....un..per.cr.) Commercial DOffice _ Retail/Service (.lsoinckJde.OItIce) Industrial D Light Industrial (_""*,,,esOttlc.) _ Industrial (also inckld.. Ollie.) ~ Mixed Use o Open Space - P1tic.ndPrivateO-.....p ~ Schools and Religious Facilities D Public Facilities - -- _ Semi-Public Facilities - .............. o Open Water Wetlands NalianalWedands Invenlory_""'field_ad ~ Railroad Road Rights-of-Way Private Streets Municipal Line O.Ie, NcNtJmbeIl 2007 s",",." ~,.,,~ COIny ~ omc. bPrDperryL.irle& j'2(07) ~ ONR fer Wedand. ~Cly 01 Gool:Mn V.hy fa eIIott.. ...~_ N A '" 1.600 '-''' ,.. F:~ming\p~n201o..2030 ; :1 Hey Official Zoning Map CITY OF NEW HOPE I IIII~ 111I\ , fIE ~ - o ">- .... u \ , ~ ~ D ~ CD City d Golden V"f1t F'tannng Department 1800 Golden Valey Road Gdden Vel.ey, ~ Ss..27....S88 763-593-8095 WHW.d.gokten-val.,.mn.uI Zoning Districts D Single Family (R-l) D Moderate Density (R-2) Residential ~21 Medium Density (R-3) Residential _ High Density (R-4) Residential ~ 1-394 Mixed Use--l-~ Subdistrict A . : - LowRise.upto3stonlll _ Commercial ~-~ Subdistrict B : MdRisll. upto6 stories D Light Industrial ~-_ Subdistrict C HiI1l Ria.. up to 10 stories _ Industrial D Business & Professional Offices Institutional ::=~~:'~~~~R:""'~~. D (1-1) Sub-Districtlchun',... school., etc) D (1-2) Sub-DistrictOibr".', mu....ms.ndeoll...., ole) ~ (1-3) Sub-Districtl""~"llhom".priYoI.clubo,"d L--J clinlCS, etcl ~ (1-4) Sub-Districtlgcll coo....,...... <laygrounds and L--J govemment otricn, etc) _ (1-5) Sub-Districtle.m..on... etel o Planned Unit Development (PUD) 'A'... 1-394 Overlay Zoning District (Zones A, B, C) Flood Plain Management Zoning Overlay District 5M .... -CJIIc:MI Rood .zon. ProMI .-,d Map" on" wiIh thI cty - The ooIec:tion of Iood profIu CICJftIIiNd in.. Flood ~ Study, ~ 1 0I2.m 2 012........... Co&ny, Mmnola. 1I;.i1dldiclN.. ct... ~..... 2. 2004, inckding It. Rood tnannce FbI. MapI tor.... Cty d ~ v.hJ, ,... 2705JC0194 E. 27053C0213 E. 27t6JC0214 E. 21053C0332 E. 27053C0J!51 E. 27053C03I52 E Ind 2705JC0354 E. d_ed s.ptember 2. 2004. 6' Shoreland Overlay Districtl...-...""".................. <.!::::!/ b Mtbeck chtllnCl t'om protected-ws) PrinI 0..: tV'ffi08 N ~""'-"'Y""""""",,""_"""'(lOO8I A CiIy 01 GoIdwI v....,. "".. ottw,.~ .... I."" 3.200 ,... Approved Amendments: Official Zoning Map Ordinance Number I ~:%';:~n~te I COrTments ORDINANCE NO. 271, 2ND SERIES This 1110 certify that this is the Official Zoning Map referred to in Section 11.11 01 the Zoning Chapter 01 the City Code 01 the Cily 01 Golden Va.ey. Adopted this 22nd day of November 2002. ~~ $(f/-obo.... j;. /. ~"\ ~:-.. ~.C~.' ('o~ (; ~c.~ ,,~ ~ d"'''''\' '" ",.l'~A ". I "\... ~<; 6 ~ -~;1'\~~" c/~)f~ UNOA R. LOOMIS. MAYOR AU..,. --""~ DONALD G.TAYLOR. CITY CLERK "__"" Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: October 6, 2008 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Douglas Drive Corridor Study Update Presentation In July, the City officially began the Douglas Drive Corridor Study. The study, which is partially funded through a federal non-motorized transportation grant, focuses on land use issues, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit options along the Douglas Drive corridor. The Douglas Drive Advisory Committee, comprised of city staff, council members, and planning commissioners, has been formed to guide the study. The first phase of the Douglas Drive Corridor Study involved the identification and input of various stakeholders along the corridor. Several meetings were held to help recognize future growth needs of corridor businesses and organizations. Meetings with area residents were also held to help discover local concerns and needs. Residents offered their future visions of the corridor. The study is expected to be completed in early 2009. At that time, public hearings will be held to incorporate the study into the Comprehensive Plan. LHB, Inc. has been hired by the City to assist with the Douglas Drive Corridor Study. Michael Schroeder, Project Manager, will present an update on completed work, and familiarize Planning Commissioners with the various aspects of the study. Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: October 6,2008 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Discussion on Patio Setbacks in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District Currently, there are not setback requirements for patios in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District. For most patio designs, building permits are not required. To reduce potential for conflicts between neighboring property owners, the Planning Department requests the Planning Commission's opinion on perusing the creation of a patio setback requirement. In 2005, a provision was added to the Zoning Code, requiring a three foot setback for all new driveway construction in the City of Golden Valley. This requirement was enacted, in part, to mitigate negative impacts to neighboring property owners. Staff believes the same potential for negative impacts to neighboring property owners exist with patios as well. Recently, a resident informed the City of his intent to construct a new extension to his existing driveway along his property line. After being denied a Grading and Erosion Control Permit, the resident redefined his driveway extension as a "patio." This matter has caused an ongoing dispute with the neighboring property owner, who is adversely impacted by this project. Staff recommends examining the possibility of requiring a three foot setback for patios, consistent with setback guidelines for driveways. Staff looks to the Planning Commission for direction in this matter.