Loading...
11-10-08 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, November10,2008 7:30 pm 1. Approval of Minutes October 13, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing - Property Rezoning - 3335 Scott Avenue North - Z005-02 Applicant: Charmaine Wahlstrom Schodde Address: 3335 Scott Avenue North Purpose: To consider rezoning the property from Single Family Zoning District (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) ---Short Recess--- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 4. Other Business 5. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats Upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006(TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 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, October 13, 2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittma 'ssioner Keysser was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes September 22, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Eck referred to the Quail Woods subdivision proposal Planning Commission could legally add condition meets all of the City's requirements. Grimes sta subdivision proposals in the past. He added tha property in the subdivision development a future. He said he would review the iss idn't think the subdivision that s h been placed on ould also be placed on the Id be amended in the ey. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by.J~luQh the September 22 minutes as s~~mitted. carried unanimously to approve 2. Informal Public H Buildings Allow District (R-4) g Code Amendment - Regarding Height of ~I Use in the High Density Residential Zoning sider the height of buildings allowed by Conditional Use in h Density Zoning District (R-4) is is an informal public hearing regarding the height of buildings ning district without requiring a Conditional Use Permit. He expl d tha is issue came about because of the Applewood Pointe PUD proposal. The prdp~~i~~ nvolved in the Applewood Pointe proposal are designated on the General Land Use Plan Map as High Density and the corresponding zoning district for that designation is R-4. He stated that the City Council held a public hearing regarding the rezoning of the properties that are proposed to make up the Applewood Pointe development and there was concern about allowing an 8-story or 96-foot high building without some sort of City review. Because of this concern the City Council wants the Planning Commission to review the language regarding height in the R-4 zoning district. Grimes stated that staff is reQommending the language be changed to allow 5 stories or 60 feet in height and that anything taller would need a Conditional Use Permit. He stated that Commissioner Eck questioned if the height regulations should be linked to Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 2008 Page 2 the Conditional Use Permit process because Conditional Use Permits can be revoked if the conditions aren't met and the height of a building can't be revoked. He questioned if the height issue should be considered a variance issue instead. Cera asked about the height regulation in the R-3 zoning district. Grimes stated that the R-3 district allows buildings to be 48 feet in height before requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Grimes questioned if there are different construction techniques when g story building to a five story building. McCarty said yes, a four story b . probably be a wood frame building whereas a five story building w I switch to metal frame construction. he City that are over 60 s the tallest building in the Grimes noted that taller buildings would likely be built using tm that Commissioner Eck has a good point about using the CU would get the City Attorney's opinion. Eck reiterated th a CU some type of condition and if an applicant fails to m t revoked. He questioned how a CUP could be re Schmidgall asked about the number of buil feet in height. Grimes stated that the Cal City. Waldhauser noted that the propertlies,lj\pplewood Pointe development are all adjacent to single family homes:i>~rime~referredto the zoning map and stated that there are several R-4 prop . 'at are adjacent to R-1 properties. Schmidgall said he thou the Zoning map to tch a that don't match the discuss makin e bring the two ere trying to get the General Land Use Plan map and d that there are several properties on the Zoning map ignation. He asked if the Planning Commission could h each other. Grimes said yes, he is planning to lanning Commission for review. lewood Pointe development is a PUD. Grimes stated that ns lewood Pointe is being considered as a PUD is because the . gs share parking and access, the proposed setbacks are less than ue of the land dictates the use of the property. Waldhauser said it ensity is also what drives a development to use the PUD process. Kluchka asked about other differences between the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts and questioned if the setback requirements should be increased in the R-4 zoning district. Grimes stated that the setbacks in the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts were recently reduced in order to create a more "urban" setting. Cera suggested having different guidelines depending on what is adjacent. Grimes explained that the zoning code used to divide the districts according to density but it was decided by the Planning Commission and City Council to implement height requirements and lot coverage Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 2008 Page 3 requirements instead. He said that staff would do additional research and talk to the City Attorney regarding the issue of height and Conditional Use Permits. Schmidgall said he likes the idea of allowing 60 feet in height for buildings in the R-4 zoning district but he thinks Commissioner Eck is correct about not tying the height to the Conditional Use Permit process. Cera said he thinks the Planning Commission should look at the setback requirements in the R-4 zoning district and whether taller buildings should have to se riance or a PUD instead of a CUP. Grimes questioned what the hardship woul:pplicant wanted a taller building. McCarty said he would like to eliminate any referen height. Waldhauser said she can't imagine anything over 4 stories in residents in an adjacent single family area. She questioned keep the R-4 zoning district. . Waldhauser opened the public hearing. See' comment, Waldhauser closed the public o one wishing to Kluchka said he is reluctant to chan City has an R-3 zoning district a taller then it seems superfluous there is higher density alloW!EJ' for the Applewood Point p proposal is approximatel Rjft'zonling,!EJistrict right now. He said if the r'lPFln ask for a variance to build something R-41:?ipning district. Waldhauser stated that zoning district. She asked about the density s said the density for the Applewood Pointe McCarty stated that so he thinks th nee partment buildings in the City have a higher density 'R-4 zoning district. rger front yard setbacks if a property is across the street erties like they are for side and rear yard setbacks. Grimes or smaller front yard setback in the R-4 zoning district is because i een the properties with 60 feet of right-of-way and 35 feet of front a on the properties across the street. Schmidg stioned why the Planning Commission should review the setback requirements. Cera said he would like to address the issue of massing and the transition of large high rises next to residential neighborhoods. Grimes suggested looking at each lot zoned R-4 individually and then discuss setback language. Schmidgall said he is in favor of changing the allowed height in the R-4 zoning district to 60 feet. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 2008 Page 4 Grimes referred to the language in the R-4 zoning district and suggested removing Subdivision 5(C) regarding requiring a Conditional Use Permit for buildings over 8 stories or 96 feet in height and adding Subdivision 10(8) stating that buildings shall not exceed 60 feet in height. He suggested the same amendment to the R-3 zoning district. McCarty said he would prefer to allow taller buildings because there would then be more green space. He suggested allowing 72 feet of height for buildings in the R-4 zoning district. Schmidgall said he doesn't think the Planning Commission is suggestin building over 60 feet in height would ever be built he would just like b 60 feet in height to have to go through the review process. Waldhauser said she is concerned about the massing issue. Planning if they are talking about Cera suggested waiting to discuss building height until they about the rest of the language in the R-4 zoning distri McCarty said he thought the City Council gave th"sisstlie Commission strictly to discuss height. He said he:,cis conf rezoning the Applewood Pointe properties Schmidgall said his understanding wa allowing a 96 foot tall building in th would be required. II was concerned about before a Conditional Use Permit Grimes explained that the yet. Waldhauser questio Pointe approval process the zoning of the prerty been the opinion of zoning district d be '. Id not rezone the Applewood Pointe properties itYiCouncil can go to the next step in the Applewood zonir'lgthe properties involved. Kluchka asked why if the proposal is a PUD. Grimes stated that it has ey that the PUD use should match the underlying ith the General Land Use Plan map. tanding is that the struggle to keep Applewood Pointe off this concern is about allowing buildings in the future to be 96 iring a Conditional Use Permit. pplewood Pointe properties are not yet rezoned maybe they should ecision to rezone them to R-4. Cera asked Grimes how long it would take staff to research the issues that have been discussed. Grimes said approximately one month. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Cera and motion carried 6 to 1 to amend the language in the R-3 zoning district to state that buildings shall not exceed 48 feet in height and that in the R-4 zoning district buildings shall not exceed 60 feet in height. Commissioner McCarty voted no. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 2008 Page 5 ---Short Recess--- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other meetings were discussed. Schroeder referred to a study. He explained at t pedestrians and bic A. Presentation by Michael Schroeder (LHB) regardi Corridor Study 4. Other Business Hogeboom introduced Michael Schroeder from LHB, the con Douglas Drive Corridor Study. Schroeder explained that the Douglas Drive Corr' community and is ready to start working on som Drive is a county road and there is no mone v.... ble at improvements in the corridor so this is tr m,i as listened to the ns. e noted that Douglas point to make significant Waldhauser stated that it has been v.e.ry been interested in this study andvyhafsh done in the corridor they want to re i properties. ~!~p see how many people have eard people say is that whatever is ances the quality of the single family t entation and discussed the boundaries of the is trying to accommodate existing users, especially safety is a prime concern. Schroeder dis on Octob explaine.d t corridor. Ider and community input from a workshop conducted ~.ferred to a map that showed potential for change and ill help define the policies that will affect the future of the d the next steps in the study process including the beginning of cepts, pedestrian and bicycle networks, roadway options, future traffic stormwater management concepts. Hogeboom stated that they are planning to have an open house in December 2008 or early 2009 and they hope to wrap-up the study early next year and bring it to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval early in 2009. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 2008 Page 6 B. Discussion - Setbacks for patios and other paved areas in the Single Family Zoning District (R-1) Hogeboom explained that the issue regarding setback requirements for patios has been brought to staff's attention due to a recent variance request. He stated that currently the Zoning Code has a 3-foot setback requirement for driveways, but not for patios or other paved areas. He stated that he would like the Planning Commission to give staff direction on what they would like see regarding this issue. Schmidgall stated that a 3-foot setback requirement for patios seems asked about the rules regarding parking on grassy areas. Hogebo people are allowed drive over any type of surface they just can't on a driveway. n requiring a 3-foot setback for patios versus Eck asked about the definition of a patio. Hogeboom stated t doesn't define "patio" so staff uses the dictionary definitiQI1. Grimes noted that a deck or platform less than e. t could also be built right up to the property line. Schmidgall asked about shared drivewa ity does allow shared driveways. Waldhauser asked about retaini said retaining walls can located in setback areas. Kluchka questioned the the setback requirement Hogeboom said he he is concerned..abo foot wide lots in Golde person to ipning setback requirements for sidewalks. Grimes said ,9haCsetback for sidewalks because there are many 40- eiaind a sidewalk setback would not leave much room for a Cera stated he thinks that would be considered a hardship. o work on potential language to add to the Zoning Code and lanning Commission for their review. 5. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm. Lester Eck, Secretary Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: November 5,2008 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Amendment to Zoning Map from Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential (R-2) for Property Located at 3335 Scott Ave. N. (Lot 1, Block 2, Dahinden's 3rd Addition)-Charmaine Wahlstrom Schodde, Applicant Background Charmaine Wahlstrom Shodde recently purchased the house at 3335 Scott Ave. N. Staff was told by the owner that the house had gone into foreclosure and was purchased from the bank. The applicant purchased the house with the understanding that it could be used as a two family dwelling. The property is designated on the General Land Use Plan map for Low Density development as is the area surrounding the house. The Low Density designation allows housing that is less than 5 units per acre. The property has been zoned Single Family Residential (R-1) for the past 30 years. Within the R-1 zoning district, only single family homes are permitted. The surrounding area is also zoned R-1. In order to allow this property to be used as a two family home, the property must be rezoned to the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) zoning district that permits two family homes as a permitted use. In terms of the General Land Use Plan map, a two family dwelling is considered Low Density because it is less than 5 units per acre. The building was constructed in 1958 as a legal two family home. At that time, the City of Golden Valley permitted two family homes in the low density residential zoning district. In fact, there are six or seven two family homes located within a block of the subject property. Over 30 years ago, the City changed the zoning code to permit two family home construction only in a separate R-2 zoning district. Those existing two family homes (probably less than 25 city-wide) became non-conforming uses within the revised R-1 zoning district. Under the non-conforming use status, these two family homes could continue to exist. An owner could improve the two family home through maintenance and repair but not expand the two family home within the R-1 zoning district. In the case of the 3335 Scott Ave. N. property, it continued to operate as a nonconforming two family home until 1998. At that time, a family converted the structure to a single family home by modifying the interior layout of the structure. 1 Until the bank foreclosed on the house within the past year of so, it was used only as a single family home. City Code states that once the nonconformity is discontinued for a period of more than one year, the use has to conform to the requirements of the zoning code. In other words, the house lost its legal nonconforming status as soon as the property was converted to a single family home for more than one year. In 2007, staff was made aware by a complaint that it appeared that the house was being marketed as a two family house. I sent the realtor a letter telling the realty firm that the house could only be sold as a single family home. The realtor indicated to me that it was understood that the house could only be sold as a single family home. Since that time, the house went into foreclosure. During last winter, there was water damage to the house due to lack of heat in the home and the water service being left on. Earlier this fall, the City received a complaint about work being done at this location and that it appeared the work was being done so that the structure could be used as a two family home. I went to the site and found that work was being done at the house without a building permit and that it appeared the work was being done to convert the structure back to a two family home. The City issued a stop work order. The owner was told that a building permit must be issued for work at the house and that any work cannot be done at the house to convert it into a two family dwelling. The applicant (Charmaine Shodde) was told that the only way the property could be used for a two family dwelling is to request a rezoning of the property from R-1 to R-2. In early October 2008, an application for rezoning was submitted. If the rezoning is approved, Charmaine Shodde plans to live in one side of the two family dwelling and her daughter and family plan to live in the other side. (The City has allowed some repair work to continue at the house that was caused by the water damage. The owner understands that the work done in the lower level does not approve the rezoning and is necessary whether or not the rezoning is approved or denied.) Review of Request The zoning code does not give specific areas or issues for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider when reviewing a rezoning request. Essentially, the zoning code states that the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezoning request. This is different than the consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or Planned Unit Development (PUD) because in both those cases, the zoning code outlines specific findings that must be made prior to recommending approval or denial of the request. In this case, there are several issues the Planning Commission may want to consider prior to making a recommendation. First and foremost is the General Land Use Plan map. This map indicates that the property is designated for Low Density Residential Uses (5 or fewer units per acre). The survey provided for the site indicates that the lot on which this structure is located is 21,643 sq. ft. in area. If there were two units on this lot, the density would be about 4.2 units per acre. Even with the existing nonconforming two family homes in the area, the overall density of the neighborhood is below 5 units per acre. Second, the current zoning of the area is R-1 and it has been zoned that way by the City Council for over 30 years. During this time period, the only way a new two family home could be built was by rezoning to R-2 or through the PUD process. 2 By creating the R-2 zoning district over 30 years ago, the City stated that in order for a two family home to be constructed, they would have to be located in a different zoning district than the R-1 district with a larger lot size, increased setbacks and other requirements. In this case, the lot and house exceed all the requirements of the R-2 zoning district in terms of lot size, setbacks and parking. (Within the R-2 zoning district, lots for two family homes must be at least 11,000 sq. ft. and meet certain minimum setback requirements. A copy of the R-2 zoning district is attached for your review.) Third, the Commission should consider the existing area and whether or not a two family home is appropriate for the area. In this case, there are five or six others within a block or so area of the subject structure. Is it best to have a cluster of two family homes within the same area? Maybe the rezoning should be considered for a larger area than just one lot. Fourth, the structure was originally constructed as a two family home and does appear to be one from the outside due to the two front doors. (There are also two addresses on the front of the house which will have to be removed if the house is not rezoned to R-2.) However, this structure was used for almost ten years as a one family house by changing interior walls to allow it to work as one living unit. The structure does have a standard size two car garage in the rear yard that was built in the early 1970s. Fifth, if the City chooses not to rezone the property, they have not taken away the right of the owner of the property to use it in a reasonable way. The property has been used as a single family home for the past nine or ten years as permitted by the zoning code. Therefore, the City would not be "taking" any rights away from the owner of the property by not changing the zoning to R-2. Summary and Recommended Action The structure was legally constructed in 1958 as a two family dwelling and was used in such a manner until 1998. At that time, the house lost its nonconforming status by being converted to a single family home for a period of nine or ten years. There are five or six other two family homes in the immediate area that were probably built around the same time. The City has received complaints or concerns about this house and its conversion back to a two family home. In 2007, staff did tell the realtor of the status of the structure and that it could only be sold as a single family home. The bank should have contacted the City and asked about the zoning of the property prior to the foreclosure sale. This house and lot would meet all the requirements of the zoning code for an R-2 property and the property would be low density in character. If the City would decide not to rezone the property, the applicant could share the house with family members but the house cannot be divided into two separate units. (The zoning code defines a family as any group of people related by blood or marriage.) Staff does not have a recommendation on this request. The use of the property for either a two family dwelling or single family home appears to be appropriate for this location. Staff has tried to layout factors for consideration that can be used in making a recommendation. 3 Attachments Location Map (1 page) City Code Section 11.22: Moderate Densi~ Residential Zoning District (R-2) (4 pages) Letter from Kevin Boedigheimer, 5240 33r Ave. N. (1 page) Photos of property (2 pages) Survey of property (1 oversized page) Existing Land Use Plan map (1 oversized page) General Land Use Plan map (1 oversized page) Zoning Map (1 page oversized page) 4 B; 3336 I Subject Property II 3398 :il29 3390 )368 33$5 :t3lI4 :n16 o 3310 o 3385 o 5315 ~ i -< ... g 3360 (') 3320 :il21 Z II:: Q IJ :5 ~ 33Sll 3.301 5lSll :illl 33.RD AVE N 5225 3250 o 3249 51:J.9 3249 3245 3240 :II: ~ ~ 3240 3230 (l) 3218 34TH AW'N 33Sll 3330 3345 3320 :illS 3312 3307 3300 3301 3248 5007 3244 i 3281 fil ~ 3240 ~ 3271 :z 3230 3261 3220 3251 9 11.22 Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) Subdivision 1. Purpose The purpose of the R-2 Zoning District is to provide for single and two-family dwellings at a moderate density (up to eight (8) units per acre) along with directly related and complementary uses. Subdivision 2. District Established Properties shall be established within the Two-Family (R-2) Residential 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 11.22, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.22 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 Two-Family (R-2) Residential 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 other shall be permitted in the R-2 Residential Districts: A. Single Family dwellings B. Two-Family dwellings C. Townhouses D. Foster Family Homes E. Home occupations, as regulated by Section 11.21, Subdivision 15 F. Essential Services - Class I G. No more than one (1) kitchen area and one kitchenette shall be permitted in each dwelling unit Subdivision 4. Accessory Uses The following accessory uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Zoning District: A. Accessory structures, including private garages as defined in this Chapter. Subdivision S. Conditional Uses The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of4 9 11.22 Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: A. Residential facilities serving from seven (7) to twenty-five (25) persons B. Group foster family homes Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots In the R-2 Residential Zoning District a lot of a minimum area of eleven thousand (11,000) square feet shall be required for any principal structure. A minimum lot width of one hundred (100) feet at the front setback line shall be required. Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility All structures in the R-2 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-2 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. Subdivision 9. Maximum Coverage by Building and Impervious Surfaces Structures, including accessory structures, shall not occupy more than thirty percent (30%) of the lot area. Total impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area. Subdivision 10. Principal Structures Principal structures in the R-2 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-2 Zoning District. Garages or other accessory structures which are attached to the house or main structure shall also be governed by these setback requirements, except for stair landings up to twenty-five (25) square feet in size and for handicapped ramps. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be thirty-five (35) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. Open front porches, with no screens, may be built to within thirty (30) feet of a front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be twenty percent (20) of the lot depth. 3. Side Setback. The required side setback shall be fifteen (15) feet. Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of4 9 11.22 4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the rear yard setback, use the longer lot line. To determine the side yard setback, use the shortest lot line. B. Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning District to exceed a height of thirty (30) feet as defined in the City's building code. C. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty (30) inches into a required setback. D. Decks attached to principal structure. Decks over eight (8) inches from ground level shall meet the same setbacks as the principal structure. Subdivision 11. Accessory Structures Accessory structures shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the R-2 Zoning District: 1 Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback and side setback as the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least ten (10) feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory structure as long as the ten (10) feet of separation can be met. 2 Front Setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than thirty-five (35) feet from the front property line along a street right-of- way line. 3 Side and Rear Setbacks. Detached accessory structures shall be located no less than five (5) feet from a side or rear yard property line. 4 Separation between Structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. B. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning District to exceed a height of one (1) story. One (1) story may not exceed Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 4 9 11.22 ten (10) feet from the floor to the top plate. Attic space in accessory structures shall be used only for storage and/or utility space. C. Garage Construction Required. No building permit shall be issued for the construction of a new principal structure in the R-2 Zoning District not including at least a one (1) stall garage per dwelling unit. Single family dwelling units shall require a two (2) stall garage. D. Accessory structures including detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses and gazebos shall be limited in size to a total of six hundred fifty (650) square feet per dwelling unit. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. E. Decks. Free standing decks or decks attached to accessory structures shall meet the same setback requirements as accessory structures. F. Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback and location requirements as accessory structures. G. Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall not be allowed in the front yard of any single or two-family dwelling. Source: Ordinance No. 371, 2nd Series Effective Date: 07-13-07 Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 4 Kevin Boedigheimer 5240 33rd Avenue North Golden Valley, MN 55422 612-226-4945 Golden Valley City Planning Commission City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 763-593-8095 RE: Rezoning 3335 Scott Avenue North, Charmaine.Wahlstrom schodde, Applicant Dear City Planner, I am unable to attend the public hearing on November 10th at 7:30 pm so I am submitting this objection in writing. It is my opinion that we have too many resident duplexes in this neighborhood and any further development or rezoning seriously threatens the cohesiveness of our community and the value of our homes. I live across from a historically problematic duplex and do not wish any further encroachment of multi-unit dwellings in my neighborhood. Furthermore, a rezoning of this property would set a precedent that would almost guarantee more duplex development in my neighborhood, further eroding the value of my property. In these economic times, with all the over development of condominiums, town homes, single-family homes, there is just not enough demand to justify turning this single family home into a duplex. I strongly urge you to consider this objection and to deny the rezoning of this property. Best Regards, r~ Kevin Boedigheimer .... /' /1 r ,~ ,~. I :.f I .,::\ ...~ ' : ~ ~ .t. 1 ~ ) ,,\ \\, f \ ~ t \ i...- l. () T CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY r"\ l.J FOUND 1/2 INCH IRON i PIPE N19"14'24"E, 2.45- FEET FROM CORNER _ POSI11 ON -- """"- -- 0' LOT 1, BLOCK 2, DAHINDEN'S 3RD ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNlY, MINNESOTA r..... ~-< l..... f' \..1 I f'\ .... \.) I , t{ g,' ~ l. () T f' I l.. ^ " ~.l ...... " " .4., /1; ~ N <' f"\ l..l r"\ l.J f'\ ~ I \.) 1\1 I . NO'O'20"W ~I 2,32t-, - lTI'ILITY ~mNrplMl F'CA T""OF 15"AtimDm'$~RlJ AOl5l11'Cm ~ N90.00'OO"W 185.94 (185.96 PLAT) \ WOOD - ~OUTBUILDING l I) 'T' _, 1 / SET CAP 144109 ,,; INSIDE FOUND 1/2.......... INCH IRON PIPE f) lit... ,.. I ,,- r__ ".- ^ h" t. "'" , \ ...... . , A ,.- I ,., , "'''' , r__ ^ ., t'l'" U 1\1 I' , \ I.. r.... ,.- ., ,.- " .' 1\/1 .' " ...._ "I .... ~ I "'T'" !'J I '" ..., ,... , '" I , "^,,, i,l r"\ " .. L.J A I I -.., I , ,,\ ^ i \01..1., t ,.... I t, 1.,_ 1.._ (.... "^,,, .;; r"\ ~: i,l ", " ,\ L.J I.. .. I I (" ., ,.. ..... ..... '..1' 1\/1 t. '... . I " I" L._ ,,.. \ ~ FOUND IRON PIPE (AS NOTED) SET 1/2. REBAR W/CAP 1+4109 POWER POLE ~ 1) THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITHOUT THE BENEF1T OF A TITLE INSURANCE OOMMITMENT. EASEMENTS SHOWN ARE PER PLAT OF' DAHINDEN'S 3Rt) ADDmON. 2) ADDRESS OF THE SUBJECT PRoPERTY: 3335 AND 3337 SOOTT AVE. N., GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 P.I.D.: 07-029-24-23-0013 3) PAROEL ARE'A: 21,643 SQUARE FEET 4) BEARING BASIS IS ASSUMED. . o q Q SoQ,., In 'Nt o 30 FIRE HYDRANT o~ ~ OVERHE:AD UllU1Y UNE ~ ~ WOOD roICI; ~ CHAlNUNK FENCE ~ CHARMAINE SCHODDE 4605 COUNlY ROAD 101 CORCORAN, MN 55340 ~ OONORETE SURFACE BITUMINOUS SURFACE I hereby oertify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direot supervision and that I am a duly Uoensed Land Surveyor under the lawe of ,e eta.te of Minnesota. k~~ VAN NESTE SURVEYING PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING SERVICES 85 WILDHURST ROAD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 PHONE (952) 686-3055 TOLL-FREE FAX (866) 473-0120 WWW.VANNESTESURVEYING.COM $/QNED : I -' r . ..... .. r .. .', ,1(" TI'CIYfs"W. Van Neete, Mlnneeota Prof...lonal..Surveyor '44109 MIchl an Prof_lonal Su r:t.eess .lOB * 2008030 ISSUED: 10-30-2008 DRAWN IV: 1WVN REV: SCALE: ,.. 30 FEET v SHEET 1 OF' 1 CITY OF NEW HOPE -," . ~ - .... ,it -r;, .~ .}.~ ; I I !:i ~ .~. <~ ~ ---~~---y ,jLt; , ' . '~,. I '. N'. ~ It- :;'-:ST. LOUIS PARK -71/ s'3~ 5U7f+f ~.N. CITY OF ((lr({])!LlJ]) IE'I~ TY-AlILILIE' Jr EXISTING LAND USE September 3D, 1998 RESIDENTIAL c=J Single Family ['3:J~ Two-Family, Townhouse .. Multiple Family I"""""'""'Condanoiu....,GoupO<arto..) COMMERCIAL .. Retail, Service c=J Office INDUSTRIAL t~4 General Industrial PARK & OPEN SPACE t.,).'>;~l Park and Open Space ~=.~) .. Open Water L=:J Wetlands (__"_,""'Oo1d.._ PUBLIC & SEMI-PUBLIC .. C 't F 'I't' lConnu;ty~,CkyHoJlUbnwy ommum y aC11 les ='~=~H';:..,.~ ~ Institutional l"""""",Rel1gIouoF"",.,..:=:'..,H_c.._,Itie.) P777/l Other IMnDOTDIotrictOfllceand.....Palod,HeMopInComlyR..." l:LLLL.J Northern Statea Po.wr Substation, Northwestern Bell Uttlity hllrral Hl.IT'8ne SocIety) ~ Railroad (9Jrl;n_Norihom,SooUno,Oh"-_1 ~3 Transit (T....."""'WOh......., Pari<&_,'-"""'.,....) IT] Vacant ("",", V.... paoool. owned" tho Cky, HRA. Hen....nCounty ~ aStatedMnnesota..l8beled accordnglyl ~ === Road Rights-of-Way - Streams, Creeks 8 Trail in park =-_11" Ume.- - Other Trails ~ - Pedestrian Bridge --- City Limits 1 inch = 1,833 feet (i) lJ1~~}lJJ _'1__, 0....... '''..--- 11M". 1 ~~j=~"'-'~Tl' ,. ~JP.1l"11lJJll = it I~I-. ;! ElMlLd~o..lt~! ~~O!I, I~, 3r~W, 11't/k J1J ill ~I ~l1~' ! , C?"~II.LI~;7'i', ;~mm in~ 1 [) i .~~ ~ i : ero,..,o J ~3&c ~~ ~I II PED:~ BTR ~1Ba)'LW...:..i..:J;:t'~ If t'-~li :1 ~m ~+l+:~c ~: .. l' ~J ' ~I CITY OF NEW HOPE .._.._.._.._.._....:~!2:.~.::..:.~~:AL _.._ ._.._.._..:' ~ B~a ~ 00 !'-: .:. I' ~ : , ~n 'U-L I '~"lllIJ~IIJI '" .- ~ T : ' _iJ m t .:1- I I T 1 J. -t ~ : ..". 1: Noble -... .._.._...o:l'Ul....o\WolllW._.._.._..1 ' '~1.1- JliJ::?'.1 mrr . --' -~ Bri tEleme ~', {IJ[ I""'\~ ~' ' . l L... Wl 1 Oo:r: .7=" ',H . 'B td School" ;~~ \_ ~It.'\ . / >:" . i~ I "" .~i1J Immllllm _ ;r I'" . """'.. ~ 0 ~, ,i\'l. ~:!JI -~, ,..,M~~ ~~~~ \B:BE:JE@~ h 0 u.. III M.ddleSchool .( ~ ~J+ _ ~/S~ ~ ~ Na ~dAl ~~~.'II ~~ 1 ~ ~ -:: wds ". . Q:"-I:. ffi.L ,:f.Ii'~' (b..L ~~;lf ,m[f ~"~ 11 ~ C:\ J _ 'Park' :~ ; I~i~,- ~llr-'ie' .,~" 1m] i II ~ " , ! ',' :' n ~~r;:;k.. _f It~; ~ r=:., ~!,~ ,'~. I ~ i>< ::: q;~ Q ~'HfffI-fFR . " D L lLu.) MnID~/ ~ ~ ~'\.~ ~~' t.l ... ,~, '. _____....., lJI) L r,FrHP':... ., ""- '" ~I - ~~~1" , ~, IIHW'fflJRl<K 'sm' Elr.Wi~ar~~ ' ~l ~ .STREEPI ~ ~J::,~ n, i: ::: l:t~~neBin Il ~ 'I....... it', ~ - on II -I .Q ~. . l..L p l:J"2" .~,~ 1 '-l ~~Q&u~JJtd Il..- ~'''QIJt+~m :l + f+ ISigurd~Bn4 on!! :~,.ti.L1 f l.\PED ....:.;~ 11 ry- ~ , ~~' ~iW:- i E ~~mD r~ ." ~~" ~;:'ifumjr~ ~ ! ~~.<W~' ) ..~ ~'*~L g~" d" '-J '"'' . · i'iJ8!l'1 ~ L. "'''''\7 1m <' ';<1"~ 1lJj~ '.~,.L. ~ =.~ Ie, .~,,~ 'Z<. .\~.ll 'i JIII~l:Jllfl ~,il ml'" 'Illln,), mEiiIrm' ~.~, rJ'~ ,~~ml v'1 t ~~, ~~n j i ""If[l' ~ esley II :.:11 .;U - ~Emm.C: lu'-';~ . j ~- 'I f., r Theodore '~ ! ~ - - ' f-'i = ---. :~! ":,,,'" , H \ 4J Wirth ....i z "'J Par ~ ,IL'- 'Ii I ... J Golf Course I II: z J ~- ~ B ~rclfJlp';~ ~ L.i- ~JIdmffiI ~.J Z'llill~~~~ f I ~ I.~ I ~ . . ~fj "I l ,:" (Pub"c) ~,"'~'i ... i:E (9 ~ ~Wft- r::::; 1m prYMOtrrH A'V1!NU1t ,! ;;aj I' ~ ~ I \ 0<<'\ I' ~ ___" I -t:l,l '- ~" -.'0<<',\ . ~/+' J ,ILIt ~;:'J ak ~ Q t I .t-- ~ '0, ~ S -~~ -~ -.r'<<~' ~ PtYMDUn il! ~ -. - ~ C:~~J-I'n ~ ~ + CREEK S t ~, \,m . _~~~' ~!II u ~~ 10 II ~~..., ID?'- BASSETTS P} ,,~ 10," ~rO .ib~,2' I~! ~ _ 0 ,. ,1r;.'d@.P"!f'~~ ~' ~Workr' "'. ~"-+ r-. ...,,~,----, WJ I \ North H"""l't, r~:J \::c._ - ~ .", }~4~:'''''P . e J ~ :.,...:; .' 'Il~ ~ ~ - , \~ _ 'F....,~h,W.rth" -..:; ;; - , ,'" J{, "r~ " ' . . :i" .', '.::r", J - \ \ ~, - ~'11'= 5. rro"TH AVEN~ ~Q...F ~ " . -...... ' l'~"""- 'c, '~ I 1';< I( ~ ~\: o f.~~ · , ~ 1~ t>_., ,\I ::;: " ~:!,' . LIbrary , , ,;'; ,-' _', :4,.Lln..on P.c'f'c-M~ '" '\:::T '" ":"""1 ." Golf Club ~.'J,~ '. .. "~ "'. r 1 Wirth . ~........ -I'll, ~~' " ' GovemJ~ ~ (Pnvale) ~2~1t!: ^:..,,' .IL _J -. r.J.;~~1 · ~ - . '= Park -C:-\ I: ~ , ""'a"o.. licen ~ } ill , ~ 'I o. 't' ~ 1 l:: F 01 ~ - _..1 U J _ U I ..., I osl ~ ", [~~~~ -g. \ FROmAGE'RD____ r--:: ~ ,. if?. _ . ~,~~..... .---:! .- ~ r.;=== ~~ ,,_GOlD ~~~ ~J- -'" r. FR NTA .. _ ~ If'--- - ~ .....i'... MlOnesota r, I' '1 .. J.1.HlNTAOE J~ t-I ~~ -l a~ ~ ~ ~':;::;~11:~l'\ ~~~i\ \'~ ~:~i~I~'rt1 ~wIRTrcDf4 (fi1~ 1 ~ .:: Cr:J111-~~..,.r-~\ .:i..~~ r~~/I- erl ;. s' te~ .. ~- - --:, ~~mr-I@"'" LAKE - ,.tl ~..Li = r-l AR cLl\.VE,N,Ul' , .r ~::;..o'~ 0 .:::+ P.~enr J,.-rr- ~~\. : ~~ ' te ' ~ - I - 'ri -c. Breck ~.~l""":"Cl' 111 III ' 0 ~ .~1S , .-:=- ~)( j':! ~ i'1 · ~l wm;:= ~~ j SChOOI,.~ -; ....-1-- >~ fF. - ~! ~ /.~ J ~ ~~)()~ e ~ f fl '~ ~ '':;~'; jJL:]re~,:-,r (Natche -, ,~g tj ! ~ "7" ~'.-.J l) P 1 n . I Pari ~ j ~O{J ' ~ t "'...,,~ )"''((\r; <w~t..~1"' Ii ~",m i;l. · ~jm ", ~':~, ~ It,N .-.0'...01 ~, I ~ "V Ii Golf CourseD 1-~~I~~Yi""!~@VVl~J~ lko...R ~E'{WlfiOD'IA ,... I~I I '(A ",,'"" a ~, L (Public) ~ ;; l~I'" I f PwtV.p.i~ I' ' LJ . "~ ~ ~ .,.. m:!R[I'I(( m. ~~rr.-" . . .-. .. ,'- - <( 7 >:'., 7 SchoQI~ Laurel ~ ,.... : :.. i-- i1 <:J ~'f, . r: l< :'l 'OJ I .l, .L~. 1- Avwue". ,"', ,_ ~"' ~\~ , ~~Iti~~~~I/.1?el v,ene J IP\OOth..lCorllaw,n. King " ~~ ...., ~ ~ DriTi11"'I - f ~Ll - ri ~;~~m """... Oreen~t L~ .-if GRkk "L,- u 'l "" r _ C::!:!I ~:J-l ,1_ If I':: .,='~e 0'3, ,,)I..:l\ f_, ~ ''''''": ~~I'~> ~~ ~!=l -.1 If' Ili >( , Em )!.j ~ ~ -. 1 ~ ~ ">- ~ - - ~ ~!JI rm', W3 ~~ t=- I );1. OT-!~~ T~r-, -ct 0"" 1) 'I \ t!~ ~ L I -,", 'I W'~~~Jr\ ~ ~~'I ~ · A ~~~ q ,E~.B . ._.._1_ .._.._..~i"f!_.. ..-.- .._u ..-..-. __ ~ -. _L We)i~ood Hills Envirdnmental JI[ CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK .~W ~., ,,' ' .' " EducationCente? 'INTERSTAT~ 394 ....'\\\.. ~ ' ~ ~ ~t =1 [11 1 -m~~: ~ ~JltJ~K~Wl "_.'~~M"'"__':'''''''~~_'-._l .ssSS ScoJ..f- ~ A-\)(.. N. CITY OF G({J)JLD EN TY ALLEY GENERAL LAND USE PLAN RESIDENTIAL [=:J Low Density (Less than 5 units per acre) ~l Medium Density (5 to 11.9 units per acre) .. High Density (12 or more units per acre) COMMERCIAL [=:J Office ~ Commercial (also includes Office) INDUSTRIAL CJ Light Industrial (also includes Office) .. Industrial (also includes Office) ~ 1-394 Mixed Use CJ Open Space - Public and Private Ownership [=:J Schools and Religious Facilities CJ Public Facilities - Miscellaneous .. Semi-Public Facilities - Miscellaneous [=:J Open Water [=:J Wetlands National Wetland Inventory' not field verified (Minor adjustments made to some wetlands) ~ Railroad Existing Local Trail Proposed Local Trail Regional Trail Proposed Regional Trail Pedestrian Bridge Road Rights-of-Way ----- _PED Municipal Line 1 inch = 1,833 feet o Thibault ASSOCIATES tJrt>.11o....... --- ............. Ilowi.. Golden Valley May 1999 Comprehensive Plan 1999 - 2020 ~1!>3'S Sa*+ M~.N. il "'0 C'" i1>-Z 1-- -"' V"' o \ '" ~ 1 \ IAE Hey Official Zoning Map i ! CITY OF NEW HOI'E 9 7 116 M dicin ake ,'" ' CIlY 01' ST. lOUIS I'ARK City of Golden Valley Planning Department 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 763-593-8095 www.ci.golden-valley.rTV1.us ;;: "' o ... ?- 1ft: Zoning Districts D Single Family (R-l) D Moderate Density (R-2) Residential D Medium Density (R-3) Residential - High Density (R-4) Residential ~ 1-394 Mixed Use--,-~ Subdistrict A . - : Low Rise. up to 3 stories Commercial ~-~ Subdistrict B D I Mid Rise - up to 6 stories Light Industrial ~-_ Subdistrict C - High RISe - up to 10 stories Industrial D Business & Professional Offices Institutional =~~::'~=l===~::"~~l _ (I-I) Sub-District(chu"'hes,ochoors,etc) D (1-2) Sub-District Oibraries, museums and colleges, etc) D (1-3) Sub_District(n~rSjnghomes.privateclubsand clinics, etc) D (1-4) Sub-District(golfcourses. parks, playgrounds and government offices, etc) _ (1-5) Sub-Districbcemete,;es, e>o) 0 Planned Unit Development (PUD) 'A'... 1-394 Overlay Zoning District (Zones A, B, C) Flood Plain Management Zoning Overlay District See the .Olftcjal Flood ZOOll Proll" end Map. on ... wIh the City. The coIect1on of tood profile. CDralned.,!he Flood Insurance Study. Volume. t of 2 and 20' 2, Hennepin County, Mimesota, llI.u;.lic:tion&, dated September 2, 2004. indudng the FloocIlnsurlnce Rite Mapa lor ttIe cty of Golden Vlley, pane. 27053C0194 E, 27053C0213 E, 27D53C02,. E. 27053C0332 e, 27053C0351 E, 27053C0352 E Incl27053C03S4 E, OIled September 2, 2004 @ Shoreland Overlay Districte::=~=::n~~==rs) Print DBte: &'11108 N Sources' A Henneptn County SurveYOlS Omce fo, Pro~rty Unl$ (r008) City of Golden Valley for .11 otM,'.yers 0 /lXl 1,/lXl 3.200 'HI Approved Amendments: Official Zoning Map Ordinance Number City Council Comments Adamlon Date ORDINANCE NO. 271, 2ND SERIES This is to certify that this is the Official Zoning Map referred to in Section 11.11 of the Zoning Chapter of the City Code ofthe City of Golden Valley. Adopted this 22nd day of November 2002. """....~ <>,,:>>-<<,ct-DiEi(; 'ir-~":' cI~\f~ ~O ~ .::-).. .r . .,::,'* J-; 5~ i ,~"'%..t" \"\ LINDA RlOOMIS, MAYOR ;:S~ .... _.r ..:.t ~ \ of',1Y, () ~},: .c- Attest. ~..,~ \,J!~-; DONAlD G.TAYlOR. CITY CLERK 4t4".:tm1'",(i\ I:lMapa\ZoningMap.pdl'