Loading...
06-12-00 PC Agenda r . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2000 A regular meeting ofthe Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota on Monday, May 22,2000. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Those present were: Chair Pentel, Commissioners Eck, Shaffer, Groger, and Hoffman; absent were Rasmussen and McAleese. I. Approval of Minutes - May 8, 2000 Pentel noted a change on page 4, section B. The statement reads, "Pentel commented ... The code does not require enough information to be brought to the Commission. It is not enough information for the Commission to make a decision." This comment would be better stated as follows, "The Planning Commission could make a better decision with more information at the PUD stage." MOVED by Eck, seconded by Shaffer, and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 8, 2000 minutes with the above corrections. II. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit (No. 83) Applicant: Rick Anderson (Rico's Kickboxing Club) Address: 1200 Mendelssohn Avenue North, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: To allow by Conditional Use Permit a kickboxing business as found under the Industrial Zoning District - Conditional Uses - Section 11.36, Subd. 4(A) All conditional uses as provided for in the Light Industrial Zoning District - See Light Industrial Zoning District - Conditional Uses, Section 11.35, Subd. 4(K) - Health, fitness and/or exercise facilities, including dance studio, gymnastic training, weight lifting studio, aerobic exercise and gymnasiums. Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes stated the request by Rick Anderson. Anderson is proposing to lease an existing building at 1200 Mendelssohn Avenue North to house his business, Rico's Kickboxing Club. He currently operates this same business at 725 Winnetka Avenue North in the Tower Square strip mall in Golden Valley, and is relocating to accommodate the "Area B" re-development that has been recently approved by the City Council. He showed the zoning map and pointed out the location of the proposed Kickboxing Club. Grimes said the City Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for this type of use in the Industrial zoning district: "Health, fitness and/or exercise facilities, including dance studio, gymnastics training, weight lifting studio, aerobic exercise and gymnasiums." Grimes said the building in which he plans to operate is an office/warehouse building with approximately 51,000 sq.ft. The business would use a space of approximately 4,500 sq.ft. The Kickboxing Club requires a small amount of parking, to allow for a maximum of 17 persons at Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2000 Page 2 one time. Most classes would be held in the evening; and therefore, would not conflict with parking from other businesses. The Code requires five parking stalls for the Club. The overall site has 135 parking spaces. This amount of parking is more than adequate for the tenants of the building. Mr. Anderson indicated that parking is located in the front and behind the facility. The parking lot on the north side of the property does not meet setback requirements; and therefore, is considered non-conforming. However, according to Section 11.90, Subd. 2, of City Code relating to non-conforming uses, this is not an issue since the building footprint is not proposed to be changed. . Grimes stated that Staff has noted four recommendations for approval, as follows: 1. The paved asphalt parking area shall be the only location where motor vehicles may be parked. No parking shall be allowed within the required landscape area. 2. Any signage for the building must meet the signage requirements of the City's Inspections Department. 3. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met. 4. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the conditional use permit. Pentel inquired about the signage limitations for this area. Grimes replied the proposed window signage is permitted and hopes it will be done tastefully. He noted that there is several of these types of use throughout the Industrial district and seems to be quite successful. Rick Anderson, 100 19th Avenue North, presented his proposal for the Kickboxing Club. The . hours of the club include: weekday classes in the evenings, beginning at 5:45 P.M., on Saturday at 9 A.M., and will be closed on Sunday. The signage will follow the stipulations of the City Code. He has a clientele that will follow the Club to the new location. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one; she closed the informal public hearing. Shaffer commented that parking should not be an issue, due to the hours of operation. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Hoffman, and motion carried unanimously to allow by Conditional Use Permit a kickboxing business at 1200 Mendelssohn Avenue North. III. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning Applicant: SVK Development, Inc. Address: 2205-2209 Winnetka Avenue, Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot 1, Marimac Addition and Outlot 1, Anderson's Addition Purpose: Rezone the subject properties from single-family residential R-2 (Two- Family) which would allow for the construction of townhomes on the vacant land and rezone the existing duplex at 2205-09 Winnetka Avenue North . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2000 Page 3 IV. Informal Public Hearing-Preliminary Design Plan Review for Golden Meadows Addition, Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) No. 89 Applicant: SVK Development, Inc. Address: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and Outlot 1, Marimac Addition and Outlot 1, Anderson's Addition Purpose: To allow for the construction of two-family townhomes on the vacant portions of property for the subject Golden Meadows Addition, P.U.D. No. 89. Director of Planning and Development Grimes presented the request by SVK Development for a P.U.D. that would include one existing single-family home, one existing two-family home and the future construction of five duplexes with a total of 10 units. He said there are 2.73 acres in the proposed PUD area, and since the proposal is primarily for two-family dwellings, the underlying zoning must be changed from Single-Family Residential to R-2 (Two-Family). Grimes said the five two-family homes with 10 units are "for-sale" homes. He said the existing single-family home at 2125 Winnetka Avenue was recently moved to its present location by SVK Development. It will soon be on the market for sale as a single-family residence. The existing two-family home at 2205-2209 Winnetka Avenue was recently purchased by SVK. The . proposed PUD would create a new, smaller lot for the existing two-family dwelling. Grimes stated that the General Land Use Plan Map that was approved by the City Council in 1999 designates this area for Low-Density residential uses. The Plan indicates that low density residential is 0-5 units per acre. Because the proposed PUD would have less than five units an acre, the General Land Use Plan does not have to be amended for this use. There is an industrial/commercial area that exists north and east of the intersection of 23rd and Winnetka. This area includes the Public Storage site, northeast of the proposed PUD. There are four two- family buildings located along the east side of Winnetka Avenue, across from the proposed PUD. These units were built in the early 1980's as part of a small PUD. This is about the same time the existing two-family home, within the proposed PUD, was constructed. The four double homes along the east side of Winnetka directly abut only one single-family home to the south. Grimes said that the existing single-family homes, located on the block, are about 12,000 to 15,000 sq.ft. in area. The homes on the surrounding blocks have similar lot sizes. He explained the history of the block. Grimes stated that the proposed rezoning would allow, through the PUD process, ten additional housing units that would have access from Valders. It is estimated that these ten units, accessed by Valders Avenue, would generate 100 additional trips each day. The local street system has the capacity to handle the additional traffic. However, those homeowners, along Valders between 23rd and Winnetka Heights Drive, would experience 100 additional trips with some going north and some going south on Valders. . Grimes said staff is generally not in favor of cul-de-sacs. However, this is a unique situation where a cul-de-sac provides for the best access solution for either double-homes or single- family homes. Staff does not recommend access to this development from Winnetka Avenue. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22,2000 Page 4 The County Public Works Department is opposed to providing access to this development from . Winnetka Avenue due to high traffic counts on Winnetka Avenue. Grimes stated that this development helps the City to meet one of its Livable Community goals. The proposed town homes would start at a selling price of $250,000. Golden Valley has a need for this type of housing, a maintenance-free living situation. He suggested the Commission address how to make this development more compatible with the neighborhood. Pentel said that none of the proposed townhomes around the cul-de-sac meet the 35-foot setback. The houses on the southern portion may meet the rear setbacks. A variety of these homes do not meet the side yard setback. Grimes commented that four single-family homes could be accommodated in the proposed PUD area. Because a cul-de-sac is required, the lots have to be reduced. Pentel noted that all units have to be sprinkled and a fire hydrant needs to be provided per the memo from the Deputy Fire Marshal. She noted the proposed storm water holding pond on the north side. Groger commented that Valders has a 50-foot right-of-way, and the new street would be 28 feet wide. Grimes noted that the City is leaning towards narrower streets, which slow traffic and are more pedestrian friendly. Groger said that he is concerned about the lack of parking on the small cul-de-sac. If anyone has a party or social gathering, people will have to park in front of the homes on Valders. . Grimes said the town homes would have two-car garages, and the driveway has the width for another two cars for parking. He added the cul-de-sac has space for 3-4 parked cars. Groger noted that most of the single-family lots in the neighborhood are typically 100 feet in width. He said it seems odd to allow someone to move a house into the neighborhood that does not meet the standards of the neighborhood. Grimes said the lots meet the minimum lot size requirement. Dick Curry, SVK Development, presented the proposal. There is room for nose-in parking along the cul-de-sac. There are also several areas where there could be additional parking. The development is not very dense according to MET Council standards. Curry described the type of architecture construction of the town homes. The layout and style would be similar to the housing complex of 72 units in St. Louis Park. He showed an elevation of the twin homes. He noted the front gives the appearance of a single-family home, which is compatible with the neighborhood. The units provide housing for those that do not want to, or cannot do, outdoor maintenance. SVK Development currently owns and maintains the subject properties. Curry said the units would sell from $225,000 to $300,000. Pentel inquired about restoration on the existing townhome. Curry said these two units require a great deal of renovation. He said interior would be done first and then exterior work would begin. Curry added that this property would remain as rental property. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2000 Page 5 . Kathleen Thorsell, 2041 Valders Avenue, said that she is not opposed to having a development in this area. She has lived in Golden Valley for 34 years and was always aware of the possible construction of a street with single-family homes. She is in favor of affordable housing, but was surprised with the proposed price of these homes. She visited the development in St. Louis Park, which was attractive. Thorsell said that the additional traffic generation causes some concern. She does not feel that this development fits into the character of the neighborhood. Edward Muszynski, 7925 23rd Ave North, voiced concern about the creation of a storm water holding pond behind his home. He believes the resale value of his home will decrease if a pond is created. He also visited the development in St. Louis Park. He noted that there was virtually no on street parking in the development. He is not in favor of the development. Curry mentioned, in response to a question, that the rental property could possibly be transformed into a triplex. Grimes noted that the PUD would have to be amended if another unit were added. Michael Jorgenson, 2200 Valders Avenue, is concerned with the traffic situation. He said there would be no room to park on the 28-foot wide street and would prefer a street with access to Winnetka Avenue rather than a cul-de-sac. The proposed homes are not complementary to the existing neighborhood. He also visited the development in St. Louis Park and felt that there was a lack of parking. Curry said that he lives in the development in St. Louis Park. There are nose-in stalls for . parking and very seldom does he see a problem with parking. Scott Kevitt, SVK Development, said the driveways should accommodate four parked cars. SVK will follow the City Code as to orientation of the houses on the sites. SVK would also follow the City guidelines for on-street parking. John Blythe, 2140 Valders Avenue, voiced concerned with the unmet setbacks. He would like the neighborhood to remain single-family housing. He is also concerned with the additional traffic generation. Susan Stenson, 2225 Valders Avenue, voiced concerned with the increase in traffic and appearance of the neighborhood. Joy Gerber, 2135 Valders Avenue, moved into the area in 1965. The developer seems to be asking for the exception to the rule on all issues for the development. The City has a code for a reason. The buildings do not fit into the layout of the neighborhood. Pat Harmon, 2050 Valders Avenue, said that Valders drops down in elevation and the land is swampy in the proposed area. She inquired how the developers plan to build on the swampy ground. Pentel said the builders use cut and fill. Kevitt said the townhouses would be built slightly higher, at 3 feet above the curb. The houses on the south side would not be a total walkout, but would be "look-outs" where the lower level would have windows, not a door. The units on the north side are higher. . Shirley VanLasberg, 8130 23rd Avenue, stated concerns about the additional traffic generation. More accidents are occurring in the area. The additional traffic will only add to the increase in Jan Fritze, 2105 Valders Avenue, inquired about the current code setbacks versus what is being proposed. Grimes said that there is a 35-foot setback from the street. The proposed homes have a 15-foot setback from the street. The side yard requirement is 15 feet. Most of the lots could meet the side yard setbacks. The rear setback equals 20% of the lot depth. The lots seem to meet the rear setback. Mark Thorsell, 2041 Valders Avenue, said that he was denied a 1-foot setback in the past. The proposed architecture is not congruent or complementary with the existing neighborhood. He is not opposed to developing the area, but the architecture and density is not complementary to the neighborhood. The existing multiple dwelling is proposed to be rented. Most of the dwellings in the neighborhood are owner occupied. His last concern is with the lack of parking for the development and along Valders Avenue. Karin Glasgow Van Vleet, 8071 Winnetka Heights Drive, stated a concern about the proposed density of the development. She would like the neighborhood to remain single-family. It is a quiet residential neighborhood without lots of traffic. Grimes commented that the developer has committed to the construction of the street. He said that a sidewalk had not yet been proposed. Grimes stated the City Engineer has prepared a report regarding the engineering issues of the . development. The drainage will go into the pond. There are existing storm sewers to the north and east. Run off would be directed to the pond and then into the storm sewers. If single-family homes were put into this area, the pond would have to be created. Joy Gerber, 2135 Valders Avenue, inquired if the cul-de-sac would be large enough to accommodate emergency vehicles. Grimes said the Public Safety Director and City Engineer have reviewed this issue. The cul~de-sac will be large enough to accommodate fire trucks, emergency vehicles, garbage trucks and recycling trucks, with cars parked along the side. Pentel told the audience the City Council would review these items at its meeting of June 20. She said those property owners who received a notice for the Planning Commission meeting would also receive a notice for the City Council meeting. She added that despite the Commission's decision, the applicant could take the proposal forward for Council consideration. Pentel said the Commission is responsible for reviewing the preliminary design phase and make recommendations to the City Council. Jim Gerber, 2135 Valders North, stated his concern for the resale value of their homes. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Pentel stated that the rezoning and Preliminary Design Plan would be voted on separately. Greger said that rezoning was a difficult issue. He questioned whether the properties could be appropriately zoned in the R-2 district for multiple-family housing. If the street provided access . onto Winnetka, there would be less impact to the residential neighborhood to the west. This . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2000 Page 7 proposal was reminiscent of the discussion for a proposal of double bungalows on three lots along Winnetka, which was voted down. He is in favor of encouraging a variety of housing types throughout the City. The City also has the obligation of protecting and enhancing existing neighborhoods. The subject property is entirely surrounded by single-family homes. It would be a disservice to the existing neighborhood to change the character of the area by allowing a multiple-family housing to be built. Hoffman agreed with Groger's statements. After hearing the neighbors' concerns, he also cannot support the issue. Eck stated that the traffic issue is not a serious issue. The additional 100 trips would be spaced over 12-16 hours; and therefore, it would amount to a small number of additional trips per hour. He believes that this proposal is not in the character with the existing neighborhood. Shaffer said that this parcel may never get developed. If the area were to stay single-family, a developer might not be able to support the cost of building a new street for the density of the area. However, the proposal is too dense for the neighborhood. The double homes may cause some problems for the neighbors. By rezoning this area, the City would be promoting spot zoning. He is not in favor of the rezoning. Pentel said that she agreed with other members of the Commission. The rezoning would be spot zoning. She cannot support the rezoning. The proposal does not seem appropriate for this neighborhood. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Hoffman, and motion carried unanimously (5-0, two commissioners absent) to deny the rezoning of the subject properties from single-family residential R-2 (Two-Family). MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Eck, and motion carried unanimously (5-0, two commissioners absent) to deny the Preliminary Design Plan for Golden Meadows Addition, P.U.D. No. 89 that would allow for he construction of 10 town home units on the subject property. V. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Applicant: City of Golden Valley Address: That area bounded by Glenwood Avenue on the South, vacated Turner's Crossroad on the East (west of Meadowbrook School), and the former Soo Line Railroad on the West and North.. Purpose: The plat would create one lot, including right-of-way for Xenia and Glenwood Avenue. Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes presented the proposal of a plat that would create one lot, including right-of-way for Xenia and Glenwood Avenue. The City of Golden Valley is proposing a consolidation of properties that it owns west of Meadowbrook School near the intersection of Glenwood Avenue and Xenia Avenue. The consolidation would create one lot with right-of-way for the existing Xenia Avenue and Glenwood Avenue. The total size of the area to be consolidated is 3.8 acres. The one lot that would be'created is 1.4 acres in area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2000 Page 8 The area to be consolidated currently consists of 7 parcels and the west half of vacated Turners . Crossroad north of Glenwood Avenue. Grimes stated that the properties that make up the consolidation were purchased by the City of Golden Valley in 1998 and 1999 for construction of Xenia Avenue, north of Glenwood Avenue. This property is currently designated on the Comprehensive Plan for Schools and Religious Facilities. The proposal would eliminate the property lines and eventually be part of a subdivision. Grimes said the purpose of replatting the property is to "clean-up" any title issues. This should present for a smooth transition for the creation of a plat for the proposed P.U.D. to be submitted by the Hopkins School District. An unusual point of interest is the large right-of-way for Xenia Avenue. Pentel said that the right-of-way is for the City to do maintenance along the property. Grimes noted the City should receive an application from the School District shortly for the creation of two lots and the construction of an addition on the property owned by the City. The Preliminary Design Plan will then be presented to the Planning Commission for review. Grimes said there are some issues regarding setbacks and drainage. Hoffman inquired if the Public Works Department felt that there was enough property to create a legitimate lot. Grimes said that the lot on the west side of Xenia is very narrow. It will be added to the street right-of-way. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. . Rod Wooten, 5600 Loring Lane, inquired why the public notification is only for 500 feet. He is concerned with the increased traffic flow. Grimes said the City's requirement is to notify those property owners within 500 feet of a proposal. Pentel said she would take his name and address of Mr. Wooten and notify him when the PUD proposal comes to the Planning Commission for review. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Shaffer stated that he was in favor of the replatting. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Eck, and motion carried 4 to 1 (two commissioners absent) to approve the Preliminary Plat that would create one lot including right-of-way for Xenia and Glenwood Avenue. VI. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other Meetings Shaffer attended the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. He said one of the issues was for a front yard setback. He believed that the Board acted correctly when not granting the variance because all the houses in the neighborhood line up at the same distance from the street. He said the applicants were asking for an 8-foot variance. Shaffer said the variance would helVe given more character to the neighborhood, but the Board voted against the proposal due to the code's requirement of a 35-foot setback and no hardship issue. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2000 Page 9 . Grimes said the City staff beginning discussions on revising the City's zoning code and would begin with the Residential zoning district. He suggested that a decrease in the amount of the front setback of 25 or 30 feet may be looked at. Groger attended the Sidewalk Committee meeting. The sidewalk along Douglas Drive, south of Duluth Street, was addressed. The sidewalk will stretch all the way to Highway 55, where a trail begins. A top priority for the Committee is to create uniform crosswalks along Highway 55. These sidewalks would have similar design features, striping, and signage. Eck attended the City Council meeting. The Council approved the Kings Valley Preliminary Design Plan amendment. Hoffman attended the LaurellWinnetka meeting. There were two proposals for the meeting. Eck noted that the next meeting for LaurellWinnetka is on Wednesday. They will address the redesign for Laurel and Pennsylvania Avenue. The objective is to get traffic off of Pennsylvania Avenue prior to Winnetka Avenue. VII. Other Business Pentel said the City wants a Planning Commission representative for the task force on the Sheriff's property. McAleese and Pentel have been on the Housing Task force. One of them would like to be the Task Force representative. The Commission members agreed to this . request. VIII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M. Richard Groger, Secretary . .. , . . . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 8, 2000 Golden Valley Planning Commission Mary Dold, Planning Assistant Informal Public Hearing - Proposed Minor Subdivision/Lot Consolidation - Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 1, Sirny Addition - 20, 40 and 60 Garden Park - James Yarosh, Applicant Background Information . . In March of 1992, John Sirny, owner of a proposed eight-lot residential subdivision approached the City to create the Sirny Addition development. Prior to the Sirny development a green house business was located on the site. I have attached, for your information, a copy of the 1992 proposal showing the greenhouses with an overlay of the subdivision. The final plat for this subdivision was approved by the City Council in April of 1994. The two- year delay in final plat approval was due to the MN Pollution Control Agency reviewing environmental testing information on the site. Apparently, there had been a fuel oil spill sometime in the 1980's that caused some contamination. According to the Inspections Department, Sirny did conduct a clean-up of the subject fuel spill. Currently, all lots have been constructed on except Lots 7 and 8. Proposal James Yarosh, from the law firm of Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster, P.A., submitted the application for a minor subdivision/lot consolidation. He is acting as the representative on behalf of the owners Mark and Lisa Ratner and Lawrence and Nancy Shapiro. The Ratner's are the owners of Lots 7 and 8, which are vacant pieces of land. The Shapiro's own Lot 6 and have built a house on this lot. It is Lot 7 that is being proposed for subdivision. After the subdivision, the Ratner's would retain the south half of Lot 7 and the Shapiro's would own the north half of Lot 7 (see attached sketch). It is unclear to staff whether the Ratner's will be building on their lot and whether the Shapiro's are planning to add onto their house. . In visiting the site, staff noticed that the back half of both Lots 7 and 8 drop off. The attached aerial photo with the topography markings indicate that the eastern half of these lots are approximately four feet lower than the front portion of the lots. Staff has spoken with the City's Environmental Coordinator, AI Lundstrom, who indicated Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control and Tree Preservation applications would need to be pulled at the time a building permit is taken out for the construction of a house on the newly created vacant corner lot. . Considerations for a Minor Subdivision Considerations for approving or denying minor subdivisions are set out in City Code Section 12.50, Subd. 3. Staff findings on each of the nine points are as follows: 1. Proposed lots must meet requirements of the applicable zoning district - The subject property is zoned for single family residential use. The new lots would exceed the minimum lot size requirements of 80 feet in width at the front setback line and 10,000 sq.ft. in area. 2. Building portion of any new lot must not be excessively encumbered by steep slopes or wetness - As noted above, the existing Lots 7 and 8 drop in elevation by approximately four feet to the northeast and east sides of the property. Grading, drainage and erosion control measures will need to be addressed at the time any construction is done on the vacant lot or if an addition is added to the existing house on Lot 6. 3. Public sewer and water connections must be available - they are. 4. Applicant must grant all necessary easements for public purposes per the City Engineer - The existing six-foot side drainage and utility easements abutting Lots 6 and 7 must be maintained. There are existing NSP utilities underground. City staff will request from the City Council a vacation of the six-foot easements abutting Lots 7 and 8. The new plat showing the newly created lots will need to reflect the required six-foot drainage and utility easements along the side and rear property lines and a ten-foot drainage and utility easement along the front property lines. 5. Other public agencies with some form of jurisdiction over the area of the subject property may apply their own conditions of approval - These properties front on Garden Park and Western Avenue, both of which are City streets and no other agencies are involved. 6. The applicant may have to submit to title review and agree to resolve any issues that arise - The City generally requires title review for complex plats and may require it for plats where land or easements are being obtained from private property. This minor subdivision is quite simple, and a review of title by the City Attorney is not believed to be necessary. 7. Applies only to nonresidential minor subdivisions. 8. A part dedication fee must be paid for any additional lot created by the minor subdivision - Since the subject property is going from three lots to two lots, no fee is required. . 2 . 9. Refers to additional requirements applicable only to minor subdivisions for double bungalows. Staff Recommendations Staff believes this is a quite simple lot split/lot consolidation request and recommends approval of the proposed minor subdivision, subject to the following conditions: · The final plat shall reflect standard easements along property lines and such additional easements as the City Engineer may find desirable for public purposes; this includes the existing side lot easements abutting Lots 6 and 7. Attachments: Location Map Aerial Photo Section 11.50, Subd. 3 Conditions for Approval or Denial 1992 proposed Housing Subdivision Map showing previous greenhouses Proposed Subdivision Sketch for Sirny Second Addition . . 3 . . ~" b# I' ~~ I -. . rO. -"', . ~ 12.50 Subdivision 3. Conditions for Approval or Denial. A. Minor subdivisions or consolidations shall be denied if the proposed lots fail to meet all of the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. Furthermore, the front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public street, and the minimum front setback line shall be established 35 feet distant from the street right- of-way line. Lots without the full required width shall not be approved. Corner lots shall be twenty (20) feet wider than the minimum width established in the zoning ordinance. B. Minor subdivisions may be denied upon the City Engineer's determination that the buildable portion of a resulting new lot is encumbered by steep slopes or excessive wetness. Alternatively, approval of the minor subdivision may be conditioned on the applicant's submittal of a certified engineer's study showing how the lot(s) may be so reconditioned as to allow development without adversely affecting adjacent sites. C. Minor subdivisions may be denied if public sewer and water connections are not directly accessible by each proposed lot. Alternatively, approval of the minor subdivision may be conditioned on the applicant's obtaining the necessary easements across adjacent properties to the nearest reasonable point of public sewer and water connection. D. Approval of minor subdivisions shall be conditioned on the applicant's granting of easements for necessary public purposes, as determined by the City. E. Where public agencies other than the City have some form of jurisdiction over an area including or directly affected by a proposed minor subdivision, approval of that minor subdivision may be conditioned on the requirements of the outside agency. Such agencies shall include but not be limited to the Hennepin County and Minnesota State Departments of Transportation, the Department of Natural Resources. and the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. F. If applicant is required to submit to a review of the property's title pursuant to Subdivision 4c of this section, then approval of the minor subdivision shall be conditioned on the applicant's resolution of any title issues raised by the City Attorney. GOLDEN VALLEY CC 392 (6-15-98) .. \, " ;. ( , .. {. ," ............. S 12.50 G. Minor subdivisions of nonresidential parcels may be denied upon the City Engineer's determination that new development on the resulting lot(s) will cause undue strain on adjacent roads or on public utilities or will adversely affect adjacent residential, institutional, or public land uses. Alternatively, approval of the minor subdivision may be conditioned on the applicant's agreeing to take specific action to mitigate the strain or adverse affect. H. Approval of residential minor subdivisions shall be conditioned on the payment of a park dedication fee in an amount established by Council resolution. I. The conditions spelled out in this subdivision shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision or consolidation except for the additional conditions imposed on double bungalow lots in Subdivision 5. Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions. Additionally, an applicant may request a waiver from specific conditions imposed in this subdivision by applying for a variance in accordance with Section 12.54. Subdivision 4. Application Review Process. A. The completed application shall be rec y the staff of the An informal public hearing by the R ng Commission shall be , Jthin thirty (30) days of ap' on acceptance. At least ten , Ing shall be mailed to the owners rty. The Planning Commission shall ision 3 and shall make a recommendation r deny the proposed minor subdivision or eview arid recommen the application shall ormally heard by the City Cou to the hearing d . egal notice shall be published in the 0 and notices be mailed to the owners of all property within property. by the Planning Commission, least ten (10) days prior e,wspaper of the City, eet of the subject GOLDEN VALLEY CC 393 (6-15-98) . . . fl. f , I .~ I to g ~. J ~ I \~I~ to W nl } Oz "'~ ~. '" 00. ff a ~ f! . ~ ~ ~.;. ~ g f J jV tr- \0 Sea le ~ ~ . f ~ \ I . , . " ,., < lJ) "D' V1 [) :J /' ,/ / /' /- '" a r<' '. ., .t:-: . I .) , . N '" l1l. o 0'1 . .r . c... " . , , 1\ I ~-.J-- . .... .,.... ~'" ' -:----:-:-....... .':_ 'f' . lS ,'" . \1<-.... ,'/i{)lO(l.26.E "'280..00"".'611\"': ''''U,;,,-, ......... :'. :. .... . '/:J' o. :'" '::.:... .,.... ',.~l" . :O.:,,:,,_.t':i,'l., to, .... ~'.' I I ..t.....~. .... I . ':'" 1 ~."" .. "r"', ',', t'. " ("-'-':'1~~- I. . .....:.,.:..'..'.. .,.:....;;...~::...,.:. -.....: .:.:......'~........ :' . 1m.' '. . ',." J ~.. I . . . , .. .' '0 .. ",,', '" . ..... '..' I w II BR.ADN-I jlNTERTEC J IN' OAAWH 81': SJT OAT' 6.29.92 pnOPOSEO HOUSING SUOOIV!SION M^P Rcvi!'>cu CorlCClive Aclion OC!;igll Fonner S'~wnr' Flower Gardenl Goldon Vo'ey. MinnDacb LE~AL OE..SC.fR..\PT ION: LOTS ~J7~B} BLOC.~ 1., ":7tRNY ADDITION, HENf\lE.PIr{ c.OUI\lTYj MCNI\\. . ------- . --- N B'o 24' vJ 2~6.o S EXl7+iyt~ s I~~ Arofo.: ~ 9 I <711 s'f' F{. ~ I. I? A G. (""\ l_ ) \ ~< '"' l(~ '\ i' "- " .... 27,564 $,. Fe 2:2., .:to 1 ~. F{. Lot 1: Lot 2-: PV"OfO Sed P('o fO$ed I I ~ - - - 0\.)\ ~~ C>~ - - ~ "'- J,. " ." U~J (:)\0 =~) ::: <J'-l) '-- c...-' .t\\ -. (Ju-.. Ll...1 ~~ :> \\l~ <.:( <.. I I " . I ~ "_____ (/ ^ r~~~\\ / I~ I~VALANT) I I / - I - - --(~- --- \) .J) I - - - - - '" ~//.- ~ '~/ / I I -,. I ~ C( 1/ / \/ ~I ~ c 0 -I ~ Q: 11 (/ ( VAC~~) I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ..1 /''''; I <::1"" " .>- ~ . -' \~ ~.~ I V ~lJ\ I LDT 2- ~ ~ ~ ExiS!-;Vt:3 2-1 LL 7 ~ . I ,0 59' Ft:.. '-;;- Oy-a.lflt1.J(!~ U+;(;+/ cosPlMen+ _ J.6 '- Cl 156~/!J' '" 2J,tJ Z~' W AVENUE . 0/ u-' -J t 1-- ( r..... ..J ) It \ -_J IS L "d / I -1' r 4~ 80 120 I .. I I SCALE IN FEET fI I I - ....., _r - I'UII ... I l!EVISICt.s ROBE CXlNlIUL1lNC ENGINEERS, -- lit lIE .. _ Il'f' _ ' · PREPARED F"OR: ~ Pl.ANERS cnI LAND SURIoE'I'CRS - - _r I ... A ...r ..NGINEERING -=~::.:. ~~6= , C.~~.~~!, ~:._... .__. ._ .. ._ _ · ~;.~ II ~ . 3F =-1 MINOR SUBDiVISiON SKE.TCH ISH<EI'tl- ~D PRO pos E. t:> _~.>4-01 SIRNY 5E.CDMD AODiTlON . rI 1 . MEMORANDUM DATE:. TO: FROM: RE: June 7,2000 Golden Valley Planning Commission Dan Olson, City Planner Informal Public Hearing on division of the Lot at 9105 10th Avenue North into Two Lots - Lube Tech Technologies, Applicant . Background This property is part of the former location of the Vehicle Emission Testing Station. As part of legislation passed by the Minnesota Legislature in 1999, this emission testing was no longer required for motor vehicles and the station building was closed. The building is now vacant. The applicant, Lube Tech Technologies, owns the property directly to the west - 900 Mendelssohn Avenue North. Lube Tech is working with the owner of the former Vehicle Emission Station property to purchase a portion of the property. This requires splitting the Vehicle Emissions property into two lots. Lube Tech plans at some future point to consolidate the property they are purchasing with their own property and expand their existing facility. . Qualification as a Minor Subdivision Section 12.50 of the Subdivision Code states that the minor subdivision process may be used for lot subdivisions as long as: 1. The lots involved in the subdivision are a part of a recorded plat. 2. Subdivisions shall be limited to the creation of four or fewer lots from one or more original parcels. 3. The subdivision shall not necessitate any additional public investment in streets or utilities to serve the new lot Because this qualifies as a subdivision, the applicant must submit a sketch plan with information outlined in Section 12.50. In this case, Lube Tech has submitted a property survey of the Lube Tech facility. Also, Lejeune Investments, proposed buyer of the Vehicle Emission Testing Station property, has submitted a site plan showing the location of the new property line. All information required by Section 12.50 has been included in these sketches. . The Code requires that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council on this subdivision. The City Council would then hold a public hearing on the plan for the subdivision. If the City Council approves the plan, the applicant will then prepare the final plat. The final plat is then brought back to the City Council for approval. Staff Findings The staff has reviewed the request for the subdivision. The proposed subdivision would create two lots. Lube Tech desires to use this additional land for future expansion of their facilities. The proposed lot meets all requirements for lots in the Industrial zoning district. City Engineer Jeff Oliver PE, has stated that he has no issues with this subdivision request. Lejuene Investments, the proposed buyer of the Vehicle Emission Testing Station property, is also in the process of applying for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an auto-related use on that property. As part of that CUP application, Mr. Oliver will be reviewing a Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan and a Tree Preservation Plan for the property proposed in this report to be subdivided. Recommended Action The staff recommends approval of the proposed lot subdivision with no additional conditions for approval. . Attachments: Location Map Site Plan . 2 . :t: , ,-= . . . 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 Iz I~ I~ Ig I~ I~ I~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I