Loading...
09-09-96 PC Agenda . AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers September 9, 1996 7pm I. Approval of Minutes - August 12, 1996 II. Informal Public Hearing: Minor Subdivision (Lot ,Consolidation) Applicant: Paul S. Olin Location: Harold Avenue Cul-de-Sac (East of Glenwood Avenue) Request: To combine three lots and then divide them into two lots in a Residential Zoning District. III. Informal Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment ~~ . . Applicant: Twin City Townhomes, Inc. Addtess: 912 North Lilac Drive Request: To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from low density to medium density to allow fora 1 O-unit town home develop- ment to be placed on three separate lots. IV. Informal Public Hearing: Rezoning and Planning Unit Development - Preliminary Design Plan Review Applicant: Twin City Townhomes, Inc. t Address: 912 North Lilac Drive Request: Rezone the property from Open Development to Multiple Dwelling (M-1); and Preliminary Design Plan Review for a 10-unittownhome developmenUo be placed on three separate lots. . - Short Recess - V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, and Board of Zoning Appeals VI. Other Business . A. Discussion of old Post Office site with Mayor Anderson B. Discussion of Retail Sales in the Industrial Zoning District along 1-394 C. Planning Commission Representative for the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Meeting of September 24, 1996 VII. Adjournment PLANNING COMMISSION GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC INPUT The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Commission's recommendation, in _ reaching its decision. . With the completion of the informal public hearing(s) there will be a short recess before the commission continues with the remainder of the agenda. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommendation from staff. Staff will give a brief summary of the applicant's request. Commission members may ask questions of staff. 2. The applicant will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the Commission. 3. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember. your questions/comments are for the record. 5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. the Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. . --. . - 'q e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 12, 1996 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Secretary Jean Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:05pm. Chair Prazak arrived at 7:06pm. Those present were Chair Prazak and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese; absent was Pentel. Also present were City Planner, Beth Knoblauch and Planning Secretary, Mary Dold. I. Approval of Minutes - June 10,1996 MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the June 10, 1996 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit Applicant: McDonald's Corporation Address: 9315 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota Request: To allow for the operation of a Class II Restaurant in the Commercial Zoning District Beth Knoblauch gave a summary of Director Mark Grimes report (absent from meeting) commenting on the applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) so McDonald's can build and operate a new Class II Restaurant in the Commercial Zoning District. The existing restaurant is considered a legally nonconforming use because it has been in operation longer than the CUP requirements have been in the City Code. Ms. Knoblauch talked about the size of the proposed restaurant and McDonald's request to have their existing facility remain open while the new facility is under construction. City Planner Knoblauch told the Commission that the applicant will need to appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals concerning several variances due to the location and size of the restaurant. This meeting is scheduled for August 27. McDonald's request, along with the motion from the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals will go to the City Council at its meeting of September 3, 1996. Ms. Knoblauch talked about the visit staff made to a similar McDonald's in Champlin. Unfortunately this McDonald's did not have the same busy surroundings as the restaurant on Medicine Lake Road. This made it difficult to judge parking capacity and traffic patterns. The City Planner told the Commission that SRF Engineers performed a parking analysis and determined that peak time is Friday lunch, and 88 parking spaces were needed; the applicant is proposing 112 which is 25 less than the code requires. Based on the SRF analysis, staff Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 12, 1996 Page Two e believes that the 112 parking spaces are adequate at this time. A request for a variance from Section 11.30, Subd. 6(E) will need to be addressed at a Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Ms. Knoblauch reviewed the access points into McDonald's noting that the Medicine Lake Road access would be moved more to the west, placing it farther from Hillsboro Avenue. The applicant is proposing a one-way access into the site on Hillsboro (closest to Medicine Lake Road) which they believe will help eliminate any traffic problems on the site. Because McDonald's is proposing this access, they are proposing to move the bus stop, at their expense, a little farther to the south, which will help alleviate problems at this comer. Staff would like to see this bus stop moved. Staff has concerns about the southern access into the site on Hillsboro due to site line distances. The Engineering Department believes that this southern access is workable. City Planner Knoblauch noted that some or all the plantings around this access may have to be removed and replaced; staff is suggesting the south side of the road which would provide buffering for the townhomes but would not block lines of sight for drivers using the southerly access. City Planner Knoblauch reviewed the variances needed to address the setback violation on Hillsboro. Code requires 35 feet of landscape on the front setback; McDonald's is proposing 17 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 18 feet. McDonald's believe that the drive-through would work best on the east side requiring the setback variance. Staff believe that the entire building could be moved to the west side. A third variance, discussed by Ms. Knoblauch, but not addressed in the staff memo, is that part of the code that addresses a principal structure on one lot (Section 11.12). The City only allows one building on one lot. McDonald's is proposing to keep their existing facility open while the new building is under construction. This would be a violation of City Code and should be addressed by the Board of Zoning Appeals. e Ms. Knoblauch reviewed the 10 findings and recommendations as written in the staff memo. Nothing of great distinction was noted in the findings. Staff recommendation requests McDonald's to submit a revised site plan showing a minimized or the elimination of a need for a setback variance. Commissioner Kapsner asked staff to comment on why there is a concern for one principal structure on one lot. City Planner Knoblauch commented that this concern comes from a number of sources, such as applicants squeezing another building on the site, or there may be a situation where there are two buildings on one lot and then the owner wants to sell one building off and wants each building to have its own lot. Chair Prazak asked if staff had received any previous requests of having a structure remain on the site while a new buiiding was being built. City Planner Knoblauch commented that she was aware of this situation only in PUD's. Code specifically states there will be only one principle structure on a lot. e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 12, 1996 Page Three Commissioner Lewis asked if the City Attorney had offered any options for McDonald's request of having the existing store remain open during the construction period. Ms. Knoblauch commented that they either tear down the building or get a variance, keeping in mind that state law says economic factors are not taken into consideration. Commissioner Groger stated that the Planning Commission is being put into a difficult situation concerning one building on a lot. If the applicant cannot get a building permit to begin, it is a moot point that is before the Planning Commission in recommending any approval. City Planner Knoblauch commented that Director Grimes expected to see a revised site plan showing only one building. However, the Planning Commission could still proceed with the current site plan by simply noting in its recommendation that it defers to the ruling of the BZA with regard to the "two buildings" issue. e Jerry Roper, representing McDonald's, came forward requesting approval for a Conditional Use Permit and the submitted site plan. He said that he believes it will not be a problem for the City to grant the Conditional Use Permit because McDonald's has been in operation for such a long time on this site and the business should be grandfathered in. Mr. Roper commented that he believed staff had told him, when he was preparing his site plan, that meeting parking requirements was most important. Director Grimes had also asked McDonald's to reimburse the City for a parking study to determine the number of needed spaces, which McDonald's did. According to Mr. Roper, to achieve the most parking available on the site a setback variance would be needed along Hillsboro. He believes staff is now telling him that the setbacks are more important. Mr. Roper said that he had suggested a Planned Unit Development (PUD) because of the flexibility with what the ordinance requires. Staff instead requested that the applicant submit a parking study. Mr. Roper also talked about the economic reasons for keeping the existing site open while the new facility would be under construction, citing that by remaining open, McDonald's will retain loyal customers and would decrease the loss of revenue due to the construction. Mr. Roper commented on the number of stores in the Minneapolis region and the years of experience in design layout of the McDonald's facilities. The designer was given as much free reign as possible. This person was to look at the site with minimal setbacks and design a site plan best for the site (plan submitted). Mr. Roper commented that he was unaware that City Code states there can only be one principal building on a lot. Mr. Roper commented that the existing facility would only stay open until the new building is completed and ready for business, which he determined to be approximately two months. He stated there were ways of requiring McDonald's to conform to tearing down the building, such as submitted a "letter of credit" which says that if McDonald's does not tear the building down, the City has the authority to have it demolished and use the funds from the letter of credit. e Mr. Roper commented that he was confused on which item was more important, setbacks or parking. McDonald's is trying to meet both requirements but is unable to come up with a conforming site plan. Mr. Roper also commented that either he gave Mr. Grimes the wrong square footage or Mr. Grimes took the wrong footage off the plan; the report indicated 4,100 sq.ft. but it is actually 4,800 sq. ft. which requires approximately 135 parking spaces. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 12, 1996 Page Four . Mr. Roper talked about setbacks on the surrounding properties and believes that the gas station to the west and the townhomes to the southeast do not meet setback requirements. McDonald's will meet the setback on Medicine lake Road and is proposing only to have the drive-through lane in the setback area along Hillsboro Avenue. He talked about if this were an interior lot, the setback would only be 20 feet and also asked the commission to consider the shape of the lot, which could be considered a hardship. Mr. Roper said that because the entrance/exit is be shifted more to the south, there will be a need for grading due to a 8 to 9 foot difference in elevation across the lot. McDonald's will need to put the building as far to the east, as possible, to make the grading work out. Chair Prazak asked Mr. Roper if parking consultant SRF had the correct square footage of the building when they prepared their report. Mr. Roper commented that they did; SRF was comparing this site to the McDonald's in Champlin which are approximately the same size of 4,800 sq.ft. Commissioner lewis said that she feels that McDonald's has far exceeded optimum use of the site with a 20 percent increase with the proposed building. Mr. Roper commented that the additional square footage comes from the replacement of the existing basement area which will A now be at ground level. Mr. Roper commented that the square footage is not changing, all _ square footage will now be on one level. Chair Prazak asked the applicant to review the colored site plan and show the commission and audience where there would be less green space. Mr. Roper pointed to an area along the eastern side of the lot (Hillsboro Avenue). He commented that the green space, at this time, is 35 feet and will be reduced to 18 feet. The edge of the proposed building will be at 36 feet from Hillsboro Avenue. Commissioner Johnson asked what the size comparison of the McDonald's on Winnetka Avenue to that of the Medicine lake Road facility is. Mr. Roper said the Medicine lake Road facility would be a little bit bigger with about 65 more seats because of the playland area. The total amount of seating for the Medicine lake Road facility will have around 135 seats. The building size will be about 800 sq.ft. larger than the McDonald's on Winnetka. Commissioner Johnson asked if the market area could support such a large restaurant. She compared the surrounding area of the McDonald's on Winnetka, with the businesses and busy road to bring in patrons to the surroundings on Medicine lake Road. She asked if the existing building could just be remodeled or expanded. Mr. Roper said that it would be possible to build a playland onto the existing faCility but that it was in dire need of remodeling, it is not efficient regarding layout. He commented that studies have been done which indicate that the proposed McDonald's can be supported by the families in the area. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 12, 1996 Page Five Commissioner Kapsner commented that he believes that parking would be adequate on the site. He asked staff if McDonald's lost some land when the curve was put in on Hillsboro Avenue. City Planner Knoblauch commented that McDonald's was built after Hillsboro Avenue was put in. Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant if he could move'the building over to gain some setback without losing parking. Mr. Roper said that he had looked at that and could possibly gain another 4 feet by moving the building to the west. Commissioner Lewis asked where the additional square footage to the new building was being added. Chair Prazak commented that the building is being increased at both ends. Mr. Roper commented that the proposed building is approximately the same size as the existing building if the basement area is included; the additional square footage in the proposed building comes from the playland area. Commissioner Kapsner asked City Planner Knoblauch if a variance could be granted if there is a hardship situation. City Planner Knoblauch stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals addresses hardships and requests from the applicant for variances. The Planning Commission can make a recommendation regarding the information presented on setbacks. e Mr. Roper asked staff and the commission what the process was to rezone a piece of property to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). City Planner Knoblauch commented that the proposed McDonald's does not quality. The Winnetka Avenue McDonald's is a PUD only because it is in an official Housing and Redevelopment District, which is not the case with the current proposal. Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing. Dennis Rock, 2404 Hillsboro Avenue North, commented that the Galant Townhome Association is concerned with the proposed southern entrance because of the traffic coming off Medicine Lake Road and the high speed their cars are at when they take the curve and continue down Mendelssohn. He commented on the number of cars that come out of the Galant, Pheasant Glen and Medley Park townhome area and that the school bus and sometimes city bus stops on the curve. The Association's preference would be to see McDonald's leave the southerly driveway where it is currently situated. Chair Prazak asked if the driveway could be moved more toward Medicine Lake Road and vehicles use the existing easterly driveway which could be accomplished by putting the new store on the west side of the lot. e Daniel Swain, 2420 Mendelssohn Lane, is concerned about the driveway at the southerly end with the curve in the road and would like to see the driveway in another location. He believes traffic entering the drive-through lane, at the southerly entrance, will back up onto Hillsboro Avenue. He also talked about the number of trucks that park toward the back of the lot now during the lunch. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 12, 1996 Page Six e Betty Dahlgren, 2410 Hillsboro Avenue North, talked about the number of children in the area and about a school bus stop that is located very near the proposed southerly entrance, which she believes would be dangerous. Knoblauch noted the letter that had been received from other adjacent residents, and was included in the agenda packets. Chair Prazak closed informal public hearing. Commissioner Kapsner asked Mr. Roper about how much of a free-hand the designer had to place this store on the site; and is there another feasible way to put this building on the lot by turning the building to the south. Mr. Roper commented that this is McDonald's optimal design. Chair Prazak asked Mr. Roper if McDonald's reason to shift the building to the east was so the existing facility coutd remain open. Mr. Roper commented that keeping the existing facility open was not the only reason. Mr. Roper talked about the access point off Medicine Lake Road and if the proposed facility was placed more westerly on the lot, the Medicine Lake Road access would have to be eliminated. Commissioner Johnson asked about redesigning the building, commenting that if the southern entrance/exit was closed, the building placed more to the southwest and by adding the playland area on to the main building in a "r shape, more landscaped space could be accommodated on Hillsboro. Mr. Roper said that McDonald's had looked at that option but had to keep in mind setback space and optimal parking. e Commissioner McAleese questioned an earlier comment by Mr. Roper concerning instructions that his architect should assume "minimal setback requirements". He continued by asking if minimal setbacks meant complying with the City's code or did it mean building the store that McDonald's wanted and worry about the setbacks later. Mr. Roper commented that the design presented was the most optimal and that if this was an interior lot the setback would be met; green space is usually not 35 feet and this is not the norm. He commented on other cities' zoning requirements being less stringent and had told the architect to try to live with Golden Valley's requirements. The design before the Commission is what the architect came up with. Commissioner McAleese voiced concerns about taking the applicant's word that the Medicine Lake Road access could not exist if the proposed building were turned 180 degrees. Mr. Roper said that McDonald's had to look at the elevations of the lot. Commissioner McAleese commented that he had no drawings before him that showed that the building in other locations would not work. He questioned whether this couldn't work if the main entrance was off Hillsboro. Mr. Roper commented that they looked at an option of using the primary road which was Medicine Lake. Commissioner McAleese said that he was not convinced that all options had been looked at. Chair Prazak talked about moving the proposed building to the west and south which should allow for more stacking; the parking would be on the east. The existing facility would need to be tom down. Mr. Roper said that there would still be a problem with setbacks. e e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 12, 1996 Page Seven Commissioner McAleese asked the applicant whether, if a larger parking variance was granted, the building could be moved around by changing the location of the southern driveway. Mr. Roper suggested that a right out only from the south exit could help alleviate pressure on the site. This entrance/exit, on the south, could also be made an exit only. Chair Prazak said that the Commission is probably comfortable with the 112 parking spaces due to the report on the parking study, but still has concern about the green space on Hillsboro. Mr. Roper showed an original design with the southern exit located more to the north on Hillsboro. City Planner Knoblauch commented that the City's Engineering Department requested the southern exit be moved to a more southerly location. Commissioner McAleese concurs with the town home residents that Hillsboro Avenue at the curve is a bad spot and potential trouble for traffic. He believed the City Engineer was considering only general engineering factors and not he specific land uses and bus or pedestrian traffic around the site. He commented that he would feel more comfortable if the driveway wasn't there at all, but understands McDonald's point of view because it works and allows the existing facility to remain open. Commissioner McAleese said he would like to see a plan with the building on the west side proving that it doesn't work regarding traffic flow. Commissioner Kapsner asked about turning the proposed restaurant 180 degrees and leaving the playland on north end. Mr. Roper said that this scenario would be impossible because of the reverse drive-through. Chair Prazak cautioned the applicant to be prepared to get same questions at the City Council meeting. MOVED by Kapsner recommending approval of the site plan as submitted with the proposed two variances and adding the third variance relating to two buildings on one lot. City Planner Knoblauch asked Commissioner Kapsner if he would suggest any conditions to be added. Director Grimes had included no staff recommendations in his memo, but he and Ms. Knoblauch had discussed a few suggestions, which she outlined for the commission. Member Groger asked the applicant whose property the bus stop was on. Staff noted that the question raised a good point. If it is on right-of-way land, then there is a need to add a condition to formalize who would pay for the off-site improvement of moving the bus stop. Commissioner Lewis said that she could not support this request because of the increased size of the proposed facility on the site. No second was received from Commissioner Kapsner's motion to recommend approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 12, 1996 Page Eight e MOVED by Groger, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council to deny the request for the Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of a Class II restaurant at 9315 Medicine Lake Road. Reasons for denial are as follows: · Setback issue of less green space than required on Hillsboro Avenue · Concerns about the site plan; could the proposed facility be placed elsewhere on the site. · Concerns about the southerly access and the hazardous condition it may cause Chair Prazak asked City Planner Knoblauch what the procedure the City Council would take regarding the motion. City Planner Knoblauch stated that the City Council would still hear the request. If the City Council approves the CUP, they will be able to craft conditions from the issues that were discussed during the Planning Commission meeting plus the standard conditions. Commissioner Lewis felt that McDonald's is a good neighbor but has concerns about the southerly driveway. The Commissioners wanted to make it clear that they were not opposed to a McDonald's on this site. Commissioner McAleese commented that he was not concerned with having two buildings on this site but the City should look at the language of the ordinance. He suggested that McDonald's provide a construction bond to satisfy the needs of the City and the Developer. e Commissioner Kapsner had questions on the issue of two buildings on one lot. He said it is important to send a message to council that there are some concerns about this site but feels they can be overcome. Commissioner Johnson commented that if the footage of the proposed facility were reduced, setbacks requirements could be met. Commissioner Lewis suggested that it may be appropriate for McDonald's to have an alternate site plan available for the City Council to review. III. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Review - Valley Square 3rd Addition Applicant: City of Golden Valley Address: That area bounded by Bassett Creek to the North, Winnetka Avenue to the East, Golden Valley Road/Drive to the South and Wisconsin Avenue to the West Request: Review and approve the Preliminary Plat for Valley Square 3rd Addition which will permanently dedicate the Right-of-Way for the realigned Golden Valley Road and to clear up miscellaneous other legal matters. e . e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 12, 1996 Page Nine City Planner Beth Knoblauch reviewed her memo and the plat with the commission, commenting that there were no specific proposals at this time and staff is not looking at this plat as a development but at tidying up problems from the past. Knoblauch said that at the time of the writing of the report, staff had not heard from the State regarding the plat. The County was still working on its review, but in early comments to staff the reviewer had indicated he was unaware of the parking areas along Winnetka Avenue. City Planner Knoblauch told the commission that one issue that needed to be addressed was the width of Maren Lane. The subdivision section of City Code requires that Maren Lane be 60 feet. At this time the road is 50 feet wide. Staff is requesting the Commission to recommend approval of a variance allowing the road to remain at 50 feet or instruct staff that Maren Lane should be widened to 60 feet to meet current code requirements. Ms. Knoblauch commented that it would not make sense to widen the road at this time. Chair Prazak asked if the commission could make a recommendation to close Maren Lane. Ms. Knoblauch commented that it was not an option at this time. The long term plan would be to have a development that takes in all of Area B, but long term plans are not in a position to be implemented at the present time. She also commented that Maren Lane is the only access for those businesses located at the lower level of the two shopping centers. Commissioner Lewis asked if the HRA has money to purchase the Super Value site. City Planner Knoblauch commented that she was unable to answer that question. Commissioner Kapsner asked if the Super Valu site was the only property not owned by the City. Ms. Knoblauch commented that the City owns all the property north of Maren Lane except for the northwest comer, which is owned by the bank; south of Maren Lane the City owns the old Bies/Maren Shopping Center. Commissioner Lewis asked staff about the condition of the Super Valu building. Ms. Knoblauch commented that the Inspections Department is concerned about its deterioration and vandalism. Commissioner McAleese questioned if all other property owners are a party to the plat. City Planner Knoblauch commented that all other property owners within the plat lines would have to sign off on the plat. Chair Prazak commented that he was comfortable with the proposed plat and the plat will make it easier for developers to review. Commissioner McAleese said that the plat was a good step to take if the property owners agreed with it. He commented that he was uncomfortable with requesting something that does not meet code but because of the circumstances, it seems logical to plat it now and doesn't make sense to widen or abandon Maren Lane at this time. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 12, 1996 Page Ten . Commissioner Johnson asked staff if the recommendation is to recommend to the Council to grant a variance to replat. Ms. Knoblauch commented that there were two points to consider. The first part of the variance would be to leave Maren Lane at 50 feet which is 10 feet less than code requirement. The second part of the request would be for the council to grant itself a variance from the normal guidelines for granting a variance, unless a hardship can be determined other than economic. Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council to approve the Preliminary Plat for Valley Square 3rd Addition with the following conditions. · To recommend the City Council grant a variance which would allow Maren Lane to remain at 50 feet; · The City Engineer should make a determination as to all permanent easement locations before the plat returns to the City Council for its final approval; and · There should be no park or storm water management dedication in connection with the plat, but the City Council should reserve the right to revisit this matter prior to final disposition of any land within the plat that is currently owned by the City or HRA. e City Planner Knoblauch briefly talked about the permanent easement locations and park or storm water management dedications. Commissioner McAleese asked, if the City Council rebuilds the area the way it now stands, how would that affect the City's requirement for storm water management. Ms. Knoblauch commented that we rely on the good faith of the City to take care of these matters; this matter can be deferred from discussion at this time but needs to be brought up before any redevelopment occurs. Commissioner McAleese asked whether there would be other avenues to ensure adequate storm water management if the HRA eventually sells the land to a developer who does not replat it again before building on it. Ms. Knoblauch commented that there are laws requiring adequate storm water management for any new development. A short recess was taken. IV. Reports on meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. City Council. and Board of Zoning Appeals The commissioners reviewed meetings they attended. V. Other Business e . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 12, 1996 Page Eleven A. Review of Attendance Chair Prazak reviewed the attendance report. No action needed to be taken. B. Reschedule Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 1996 The commission reviewed their calendars and suggested the Planning Commission hold their 2nd meeting on the fifth Monday, September 30 due to the Jewish Holiday on September 23. All agreed. C. Winnetka Avenue Post Office Site City Planner Knoblauch commented that the HRA has reopened discussion on the best use of the old post office site. As one of the Council liaisons to the Commission, Mayor Mary Anderson said that she would attend a Planning Commission meeting to discuss this issue. VI. Adjournment Chair Prazak adjourned the meeting at 9: 17pm. Jean Lewis, Secretary . MEMORANDUM Date: September 4, 1996 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (Lot Consolidation) for the Property at 6900 Harold Avenue South and the Lots to the South and Southeast South of the Harold Avenue Cul-de-Sac), Paul S. Olin, Applicant e This proposed subdivision abutting Harold and Glenwood Avenues (location map attached) is a concurrent consolidation and re-division of three properties to result in two residential lots (separate sketches of existing properties and proposed lots are attached). It qualifies as a minor subdivision because all of the land was previously platted, it results in less than five lots, and it will not necessitate any additional public investment to extend access or utilities to the lots. There is already a house on one of the existing lots, while the other is vacant. The third property is land that was "left over" after the City acquired right-of-way to complete the Harold Avenue cul-de-sac on the east side of the two existing lots. The application does not currently include the land area which wil! remain as right-of-way, but the City Engineer is looking into adding it before the time of final plat approval. The sketch submitted by the applicant is not drawn to any measurable scale and fails to indicate exact dimensions of altered lot lines, total square footage of each proposed lot, or location and dimensions of the existing house, all of which are required components of application. Because the applicant spent a considerable amount of pre-application time working with staff from Engineering and Planning regarding the excess right-of-way, it is possible that there was some missed communication about application requirements; therefore, staff have allowed the application to go forward with the understanding that any claims as to lot size or other requirements will be verified prior to final plat approval. . Approval of minor subdivision applications is based on a relatively straight- forward consideration of factors itemized in Sec. 12.50, Subd. 3 of City Code. Information on the seven factors that affect this particular application is as follows: · Compliance With Zoning District Requirements - It appears that the two lots resulting from the minor subdivisi~n will be adequate in size 1 and dimension to meet current code requirements. Due to its unusual configuration, the vacant southerly lot will not be able to accommodate a house scaled to match its large square footage unless the layout uses multiple floors; since the applicant is fully aware of, and in fact has added to, the quirks in configuration, this should not be allowed to become an excuse for future variance applications. An as-built survey of the existing house on the other lot (attached) indicates that the north side property line ranges from 14.33 to 14.86 feet distant from the house. That went right to the edge of the required setback for the original lot width of 95.38 feet. Unfortunately, the proposed re-division would increase lot width to more than 100 feet, with a resulting setback requirement of 15 feet. If approved, the new lot configuration would make the house permanently nonconforming by as much as 8.04 inches. The only way to approve the minor subdivision application with the increased lot width is for the City Council to grant a variance from Sec. 12.50, Subd. 3.A. Discussion ofthe variance process for subdivision applications, and of the staff recommendation with regard to this particular application, is included in a separate addendum (attached). · Steep Slopes or Excessive Wetness in Buildable Area - The proposed lots are both considered to be buildable. There is no really extreme topography involved. There is a wet and low area, some of which was eliminated by excavation of clayey soils and filling to a higher elevation with more porous soils in order to build the existing house. The current lot line cuts through the low area. The proposed lot line would put all of the lowest land on the lot with the existing house. · Availability of Sewer and Water Service - Utilities are available for both proposed lots. · Required Easements - City policy for easements is to follow property lines, but this is not specifically a requirement as long as the City Engineer approves an alternate location. In this particular case, much of the previously dedicated easement area will no longer be along property lines if the minor subdivision is approved. Either the City will have to vacate affected existing easement areas, or they will not be in the preferred location. At this time, no final decision has been made. · Review by Other Agencies - Glenwood Avenue is a County road, so a sketch of the proposed minor subdivision has been submitted to the Hennepin County Department of Transportation for review as required under state law. The City is not legally bound to follow requirements specified by the County following its review, but may incur some additional liability for any decisions that fail to take those requirements into aC,count. Although County comments have not yet been received, Staff expect from other cases that the County will require an additional e e . 2 , e seven feet of right-of-way along Glenwood Avenue in order to bring the road up to acceptable width for roads under its jurisdiction. The fact that this property is on a limited-visibility curve is expected to make the additional dedication even more important. The question has come up among staff as to why the seven feet did not get dedicated when the two existing lots were considered by the Council in 1987. From the complete absence of any file documents with reference to the county review requirement, it appears likely that the matter was somehow overlooked at that time. The dedication would not make the existing house any more nonconforming, nor would it make either lot fall below minimum required lot area. . Title Review - If a review of property title is required, the applicant will be expected to bear the cost. No final decision has been made in this particular case, but staff often forgo title review for minor subdivisions. There was a review in connection with the 1987 platting, and the City Attorney commented at that time that the affected property had one of the "cleanest" titles he had seen for several years. . Park Dedication - The City requires a park dedication fee only when the number of lots in a proposed minor subdivision will increase from the number of existing properties. In this case, the three properties will result in only two lots, so no dedication is required. e Staff Recommendation If the City Council finds justification for granting the variance on the existing house, staff recommend approval of the proposed minor subdivision. If the Council cannot justify the variance, then the application could still go forward with only the vacant lot and the excess right-of-way, or with altered lot configurations that would reduce or eliminate the need for a variance on the already-built lot. . Regardless of how the Council resolves the variance issue, staff recommend that the following conditions be made a part of any concept approval of the proposed minor subdivision: . Prior to approval of the final plat, the City Engineer shall make a determination as to whether the area of the Harold Avenue cul-de-sac must be included in the plat. . Prior to approval of the final plat, a surveyor shall verify the exact dimensions and square footage of each proposed lot and staff shall certify that all pertinent zoning requirements have been met. . There shall be no variances granted for future construction on the currently-vacant southerly lot except for defined hardships other than lot configuration or the presence of two streets, both of which 3 , situations are known to and/or created by the applicant and therefore not justifiable as hardships. · Prior to approval of the final plat, the City Engineer shall make a final determination as to appropriate location of easements. · If stated as a requirement by Hennepin County, an additional seven feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated all along Glenwood Avenue. · If the City Attorney determines that a review of title is necessary, it shall be done at the expense of the applicant per City Code requirement. e Attachments: - Location Map - Sketch of Existing Properties - Sketch of Proposed Lots - As-Built Survey of Existing House - Addendum on Associated Request for Variance e . 4 ) LOT 3/ . ~~ ". ~ ' . ., ~ ~ )-(. ., ST.''i' I .e 6900 Harold Avenue South PARt-'~F 0 lOT 30 !;; . -.- " 0 0 . I ., u .. ~ ~ .:J:: -1 -.,_.. t) ...... , - I .;. I, cr.JI>' .. ) :l ~ .. ~ b · :J c ci 6560 '~ ::. 13 ; ~ 1. , .:: l \ \ B1. ;':" , . . HAROLD AVE. SO. · Existing Prop,erty Line - .. - . ' ....,.... . " 0" .. . ..,,- . .~ ,.J: · ~.A a. ~ .~' ~~ (-' ,G V: ',r o . i r.. r<-: .. . 'Y. \ ~.~ "' '.{}.'", )~.; '7 "' ~-~:\, ~ a , ....... ...-....__ - ...... ...... . it<]. .; 6 , .~~..f A 1-1 ~ e . , , ll.1~ ' ~o --- -:-~ 6855 :t. ' g:~ I 6' ~ ::r J 7 0 ., B g ~ 3 ,~c 2 e :tV\CE~ROAD ~\~': \ 'I .. \'14.'11 ..- , ":.' '". SKETCH OF EXISTING PROPERTIES ~ . '.'. ',0.,. o. ~ ,'.1 A ".,. . ~ .. ~ '~b' c~ -- .... . --' ~ . -.. CD dO ._.. ._ ~ __ I "'... '71 &J~ J:lT AI: t: > ~ -~ -,.- LO --, I 2 rl--:- J'. ~~. .~..- .l6l' ....r- ~ C. , 'A ~!~ ~t-~ :~._~:."I]J~8 IC':..,C .tI) "811 ~ : '. -1. " ~ .. -. , - ... I ~ .....-., '^ '^ I T"- "':J' ...,.. 10 0 ~u_ _ 8 . ;.i": ~~ ('"4'r:.. ~ fl ~ : ..".... ~ '_ "\.o~ ~ 'G 5 ~ A~ II"~ ' ...,...,...- ~- 9 ~ . & ...'.~ . ", . . ,,,.~'...,, 7., .,~ .8 a....,.. . 'till'. - , ~ ... , r- '. J '. . . . ~ ~ . ^...;.:. .... I, , _ ~. , .~ . ,>" "~"... ~' ? I ' c-:" ~ ..J '. ~.~~' ". ~., " . . . ""'" " ~ "A C-'. r.'~ '.' . ~. ''''eo. .' t-:--" &.I .~ ,. .~ <, ". _ , :- \;'. . c:;,7 .Jo' 'i!\i' ....'/ ,- I . " G ,~ . .1-..;' ...., .-1'. .4 _ . , . ;~ - C> ~"""'; , _ I 0 I . " . 0 "il::) ..,.. . '0, ,,", , ..'~ - t _ . ....0 \ ',~ ,. '.' _'-;':,"', . ~ . . 4C>> 'W . . ~.., /,' '\.... -S' ,'1. ~," '. ~ . - . . ~ "' ' ~ --. ...""!" . r ".. ~;i'. . .., . Jg Jb . 34.? 6 :~.'..... i~S.~ ~ ~ ...:-:, _ .. ,~, ,~S-" J ,0 .W-E--;---- ~~.;, '"^ ........... ..... ;t<J.';6 ,~c I Co , , : ~', I 2 E ., '44.~Q44.171)o .r.IB' 5T.''1. ~",. ./.7,fAHR NDO..L' 3' (:!. : ,- , -. ~~ /01 . t(FF I · · .7 ":; I .' ~, t:J.', 6";> ~ ~ .-') ~ . 0 . --..I 694&l ~\' ./....;}" 0-,<,-.. ~ '<:; ... ~ '" .... /O..~..p ~ .~ I 6:;}() I ,,,~ 3 I 2 I 1..- ~.::: I Oo.' .~. ~ \ ' -.+J '.. 4f:/~.., I ~~ .' ...... "CJ'l r" t.\ ,'). ',~. ~. ". ...... I ~ , ... -Oo. " ~,~. . . .. '_" ~. I J J~. . . /;>.. '.~ ,'- Oo-~~"~_" 00 ).' .00_ .~/"J~__,'_;. ~ ~ .4 .'56 Ooe ~ '1-"4 o e e ~ / . ~ ;~ (IJ~ .l: _ - \ --\r :z: o AS-BUILT SURVEY OF EXISTING HOUSE '" % ~ ^ I , , ~ ~ ~ \ \ \ \ ,0 \ t The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client . We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and the location of all buildings and vis- ible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Surveyed by us this 12th day'of November 19 92 .... on :g on \ " ". LOT SURVEYS.COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 - 73rd Avenue North 560-3093 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 "AS BUILT" &urtttyurs' ClttrttfU'alt IBG.~~ -- .J) Top of Block / b'Jb .0 Lowest Most Footing 887,10 ~ .. UrlL./ TY' I. OI!AM/~e E74<Ft5r?eNr ~ .~ .J) - l'1~.4.S - tlO IIq I~ ,- ~ ~ ~ ':5b:~~ \) u\ C'J Lot 1, Block 1, VANMAN ADDITICN '. Signed INVOICE NO. 33107 F. B. NO. 548-50 SCALE I" 20' 0- DENOTES I RON . "' I~II I tt\ ~ ~ ..J) I i ~ ~ ) / _/'0 " -. HArzOLO hAVENUE I I \ \ () j) Ma{ aymond A. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 6743 f ; . e . ADDENDUM TO APPLICATION FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION: APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT GLENWOOD AND HAROLD AVENUES CAN BE APPROVED EVEN THOUGH IT MAKES AN EXISTING HOUSE NONCONFORMING The application for minor subdivision of properties at Glenwood and Harold Avenues would result in a situation where the northerly lot would "fail to meet all of the requirements of the appropriate zoning district" as required in City Code Sec. 12.50, Subd. 3.A. Zoning district requirements include limitations on existing development as well as basic lot dimensions and area. The proposed consolidation and re-division of properties would give the northerly lot a width in excess of 100 feet, which requires a side setback of 15 feet for any house constructed on that lot. There is already a house on the lot, built precisely to the 14.3 foot setback required for its current width of 95.38 feet. That house becomes nonconforming - and therefore can never be expanded or altered - if the lot is widened as proposed. The intent of the applicable subdivision regulation is to prevent situations where the City knowingly participates in creating a zoning code violation such as the one described. As with the zoning chapter, the subdivision chapter of City Code provides a means of waiving certain code requirements if specified conditions are met in any particular case. Variances from the subdivision requirements are granted by the City Council rather than the Board of Zoning Appeals and are regulated under Sec. 12.54 of City Code. A variance can only be granted if all of the following conditions are met: · There are special circumstances affecting the property so that strict application of the subdivision regulations would create an unusual hardship (not including economic difficulty or inconvenience) and deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land. · The variance is needed to ensure the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. · Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood in which such property is located. It is difficult to justify creating a nonconformity for a property that is now fully conforming. The northerly lot is already of ample size, and increasing its area will take away from the buildable area of the southerly lot. That lot will also remain of adequate overall size and width, but the land gained through the ( excess right-of-way is almost entirely within the required Harold Avenue setback .. and thus cannot be built on, while the land being transferred to the northerly lot is . of a buildable configuration. On the other hand, there is more to being "buildable" than simple size and shape. While both lots are generally considered to be buildable by engineering standards as well as size, the specific area being transferred from the southerly to the northerly lot is known to be wet and low. Staff do not have enough information to definitively prove or disprove any claim for how buildable that specific area may be, but the argument could be made that poor soils in combination with increasing local, state or federal development regulations would have forced the construction of the existing home where it is presently located even if the northerly lot had been over a hundred feet wide at the time of construction. Inability to build on one portion of a lot due to poor soils or wetlands might be considered a justifiable hardship, depending on what other options are available to the property owner. In this case, the applicant would have to demonstrate to the Council's satisfaction that the land is in fact unbuildable and that the house could not reasonably have been reoriented to meet a fifteen foot setback if that had been the requirement at the time of construction. One potential drawback for the applicant is that, if the Council does agree with the "unbuildable" argument, that determination would affect future construction plans as well as past construction. If the whole point of widening the northerly lot is to allow expansion of the house into the widened area, finding the land unbuildable is not a workable solution. Since there is ample room for expanding the house toward Glenwood or Harold, staff are assuming that finding the land to the south unbuildable will not be a problem for the applicant. e If the applicant fails to demonstrate to the Council's satisfaction that the land in question is unbuildable, but still wants to increase the area of the northerly lot, there may be a compromise solution. Again, it will not work if the applicant's intent is to expand the house to the south, but it would provide increased area toward Glenwood Avenue for landscaping purposes. The width of the northerly lot would have to remain the same as it is now for a distance of approximately 95 feet back from the Harold Avenue cul-de-sac. That would include all of the area where the house sits. The lot line could then deflect to the south at whatever angle the applicant and Council would agree is suitable. The resulting new lot would have approximately the same unusual configuration as what is currently proposed by the applicant. Side setbacks are based on a straight percentage of lot width up to a maximum setback of of 15 feet for any lot width of 100 feet or more. The part of the proposed compromise lot where the house is located would remain under 100 feet but the westerly portion would increase to more than that, necessitating an administrative determination of the . . , . e . appropriate setback distance. Because the width for all of the built area would remain at a relatively constant 95 feet, the administrative determination could reasonably be that the existing setback of 14.3 feet would remain approptiate for the proposed compromise lot. No variance would be needed. Action Needed at This Time The City Council and the applicant must agree on one of three courses of action: 1. The land proposed for transfer from the southerly to the northerly lot should be declared unbuildable, with no reasonable and available options for altering the house to fit inside of normally required setbacks. These special circumstances should be declared to create an unusual hardship. A variance should be granted from the 15 foot setback requirement to a minimum distance of 14.33 feet between the northern property line and the house at its closest point. The granting of the variance should specify that it is for existing construction only. It should also specify that the variance is being granted because the area of land involved in the transfer is hereby declared unbuildable, so that no misunderstandings will occur in over future building plans after staff and property owners have changed a few times. 2. A revision should be made to the area proposed for transfer from the southerly lot to the northerly lot. The revision should leave the existing property line in place for the full distance between the Harold Avenue cul-de-sac and the most westerly extent of the existing house. An administrative determination of appropriate setbacks should be declared necessary due to the unusual lot configuration. That determination should be that the existing 14.3 foot side setback requirement will remain appropriate after the minor subdivision is approved. 3. The applicant should withdraw the northerly lot from the application for minor subdivision. The application could then proceed with only the southerly lot and the excess right-of-way being conbined into a single lot. Staff have no recommendation as to which of the above three courses of action would best protect the public interest. . . . MEMORANDUM Date: September 6, 1996 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing - Comprehensive land Use Plan Map Amendment, Rezoning from Open Development to M-1 Multiple Family, and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Preliminary Design Plan for lilac Court Townhomes, 912 North lilac Drive - Twin City Townhomes, Applicant Introduction and Description of Proposal Twin City Townhomes, represented by owner Forrest Harstad and Patrick Simons, has requested several planning actions in order to begin the construction of a ten- unit townhome development at 912 North Lilac Drive. The ten units are planned to be constructed in three buildings on the 1.72 acre site. (The site will be 1.6 acres after the lot is reduced for highway right-of-way for Hwy 100.) The property is rectangular in size with about 420 feet of depth and 166 feet of width along Lilac Drive and 191 feet of depth at the east end of the property. The property is currently vacant. The property was previously used as a landscape nursery up until the 1960's. There are several old concrete foundations on the site. The surrounding properties are primarily used for residential purposes. The properties to the north are zoned Residential and utilized as single family home lots. The property to the east is zoned Residential but the lots are vacant including the one acre outlot. The property to the south is zoned Open Development and utilized as a single family homestead. This property is about 1.9 acres in size, about the same as the subject property. South of the site, about 150 feet, is the CNW railroad tracks (active). It is anticipated that the Hennepin Park Reserve District trail will be placed along the south side of the track within the next several years. This trail would extend from Wirth Park to Medicine lake. The property to the west on the other side ofTH 100 is zoned Radio (KQRS) and Open Development (one large single family homestead south of KQRS). The area south of the CNW Railroad is generally zoned for commercial or industrial purposes. The property north and east of the site is zoned Residential (low density). MnDOT is planning the upgrading of TH 100. This includes the widening of the road to freeway status and improvements to the frontage road on both sides. Mr. Simons has met with MnDOT officials and they have asked that an additional 30 feet of right- of-way be dedicated for the future improvement to TH 100. The plans for the 1 frontage road include its extension to the south, across the railroad tracks, in order that cars can get onto TH 55 near the Golden Valley House. The improvements will . also include closing the access to Thotland Road. With this closing, the link across the railroad track is necessary to maintain a southern access to the area west of Sweeney Lake. This new connection to the TH 55 frontage road should be a benefit to all in the area. The new frontage road will have increased traffic south of Thotland compared to the existing situation where there is a dead end road. The amount of traffic that would be generated by the ten-unit townhome development would be a minor part of the overall trips on the east frontage road. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Consistency with Housing Policies The Comprehensive Plan has several elements. One element is the plan map which guides the development of all parcels in Golden Valley. A second element are the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. In order for any development to go forward, it must be consistent with both the map and written goals, policies and objectives of the Plan. The proposed use of the property for ten townhome units is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map. The Plan map for at least the past 23 years has guided this area for low density residential uses. Low density uses, as defined in the Housing Plan section, is for developments of 1-4 units per acre. This proposed development is 10 units on 1.6 acres (after right-of-way is taken for TH 100) or about . 6.25 units per acre. In order for the proposed use to go forward, the Plan map would have to be changed to mid-density housing (6-12 units per acre). The written policies of the Plan indicate that the City would like to encourage town home development. The policies also state that affordable housing and a variety of housing types to serve a number of groups is important. These statements are made in both the 1982 Housing Plan and the revised plan that is now before the City Council for approval. Because Golden Valley is considered fully developed, it is difficult, at best, to find locations for alternate forms of housing such as ownership town homes. The important question that the Planning Commission and City Council have to answer is whether this is the appropriate location for a ten-unit, ownership town home development. As stated above, the Comprehensive Plan map for the subject lot is low density. This guiding is also the same for the entire area west of Sweeney Lake, east of TH 100 and north of the railroad tracks.' Will the changing of the map for this 1.6 acre parcel have a detrimental effect on the area? The property to the immediate north is used for two single family houses. Those houses would be about 35-50 feet from the nearest proposed town home. The property to the east is vacant although zoned Residential. The outlot to the east has its only access over the south 14 feet of the subject property. The property to the south is used as a single family homestead. They have been used to this parcel as open space for the past quarter century. . 2 . . . If the subject lot were changed to allow town homes, how would this effect the lot to the south? Staff was told by Mr. Harstad, that he approached the property owners to the south about buying their property, but he made no offer. He said at this time they were not interested. I have spoken to the owners of the property to the south and they are happy staying in their home but they would consider an offer. If the property owners to the south chooses to remain in their home at this time, a similar townhome development could occur at a future time on this property. Mr. Harstad said he is interested in the parcel and would either buy it from them or help them develop it. Another option related to the Comprehensive Plan map and the property to the south is to consider changing the Plan map for that property now or at some time in the near future. It seems to make some sense that the Plan map for the subject property and the property to the south be the same. This would not have a negative effect on the south property owner because the house could continue to remain. In fact, the change on the Plan map could enhance its value. The alternative development that would be consistent with the guiding found on the Plan map is a single family development. Staff estimates that this site would be large enough for a four lot subdivision with a public street (cul-de-sac) off of Lilac Drive. There could be an arrangement where this street could serve a future development on the property to the south. At this time, however, the owner to the south has not shown interest in development. It is difficult for the City to provide such a public improvement without cooperation from both owners. It could also be possible for the property owner to the south to also provide a four lot subdivision with its own public street. There will obviously be an effect on the surrounding properties, especially the one to the south with a townhome development. Even with good landscaping and the saving of as many trees as possible, there will still be ten units on the property where there are now none. There will also be about 90 to 100 addition trips per day on the frontage road. Although this number of trips is relatively insignificant, there are currently no trips generated from the site today. When the new frontage road is completed, the access would be improved. Overall, staff believe that the goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan, relating to the encouragement of new and varied housing, is important. Because the City is fully developed, opportunities such as this do not come along very often. This type of owner-occupied town homes are attractive and provide a type of afford-able housing that is not readily available in the City. Townhome developments are well maintained through homeowner associations and requirements of the PUD. (Staff asks the Planning Commission to review both the existing and proposed Housing Plan for comments and guidance.) They will also consider how the proposed development will affect the City's Livable Community goals. As part of the Comprehensive Plan map revision, the City is required to submit the amendment to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. The Metro Council 3 is responsible for assuring that the proposed amendment will not conflict with existing metropolitan systems (highways, parks, airports, waste water treatment, etc.) . Zoning Map Amendment from Open Development to M-1 It is the position of the City that if a developer proposes a PUD, the use proposed in the PUD must be consistent with the underlying zoning for the site. Currently, this property is Open Development. If this development is to be considered, the property must be rezoned to M-1 (Multiple Family). The subject property and the property to the south have been zoned Open Development since the mid-1930's when the City adopted its first Zoning Code. At that time, the Open District permitted all residential uses and other uses that were not in two other districts which were for commercial and industrial uses. In the mid- 1950's a new zoning ordinance and map were established by the City which better defined the uses permitted in the Residential District. If a property owner choose not to be zoned Residential, the property remained Open Development with the uses on the site becoming non-conforming. Over the years, many of the Open Development property have been rezoned to allow development. The subject property, and its neighbor to the south, have remained Open Development. Technically speaking, the old nursery and the house on the lot to the south are non-conforming uses. They can only be expanded or built on after a rezoning occurs. The question will come up regarding the issue of "spot zoning". If this 1.6 acre lot is rezoned to M-1, is this spot zoning if the property to the south and north remain Residential? If the Plan map is amended, staff believe that this is a large enough parcel to stand on its own and not be considered a "spot zoning". If it were a 10,000 sq.ft. lot, staff would have a different opinion. However, there are other areas in the City where there are 1 to 2 acre parcels that are zoned differently than adjoining parcels. Also, this rezoning is for a residential use, not a commercial or industrial use. The ten town homes will have a density of 6.25 units per acre which is at the low end of the mid-density scale. The town homes will be owner occupied, the same as many of the homes in the area. The proposed townhomes will be one level with basements which provides a building about the same height as many homes in the area. Preliminary Design Plan Review for Planned Unit Development Twin City Townhomes have requested a PUD for this site in order to construct the ten-unit development in three buildings on the 1.6 acre site. The site will have three lots, one for each of the buildings. The largest building with six units will be on lot 3. The other two buildings with two units each will be on lot 1 and lot 2. The PUD ordinance states that townhomes are a type of development that qualifies to use the PUD process. 4 . . . . . The proposed site plan is self explanatory. There are three buildings housing the townhomes. Each of the units has a first floor level of about 1170 sq. ft. and a basement level of up to 1800 sq. ft. The owner may finish the basement or leave it unfinished. There is a 12 ft. by 12 ft. deck on each unit. Each unit has a two car attached garage with space for parking two cars in front of the garage. The site also indicates space for ten cars to be parked off-site. Each unit then has space to park five cars. This would be more than adequate. The developer is requesting four variances from the requirements of the M-1 zoning district. The PUD ordinance requires the developer to spell out all variances required from the zoning district in which the development is proposed. In this case, the developer would like to place the buildings closer than the requirements stipulated in the M-1 district. Within the M-1 district, the side and rear yard setbacks are 50 feet from adjacent residential properties. From the adjacent Open Development district, the side and rear yard setback is 25 feet. The front yard setback is to be 35 feet from any right-of-way. Twin City Townhome is requesting a side yard setback of 15 feet on the north side, 25 feet on the east side, 19 feet on the south side and 25 feet on the street (west) side. They have submitted to the City an explanation of the variance requests. Without these variances, it would be difficult or impossible to construct ten town home units due to the size of the site. A private road will extend into the site from North Lilac Drive giving access to each unit. The Fire Department has reviewed the plan and finds it to have adequate ingress and egress for emergency vehicles. Also, the Fire Department believes there is adequate water and hydrants provided to the site. The private street will be 24 feet wide and built to City standards. The street will be posted for "No Parking- Fire Lane" throughout the development. It has been determined by the City Engineer that access to the site from Unity Avenue is not practicable due to the grade change. Staff believe that maintaining access only from the frontage road will make this development more private and separate from the other housing in the area. The developer will be asked to dedicate an additional 30 feet for TH 100 right-of-way as indicated on the site plan. This reduces the overall size of the parcel by about .12 acres (from 1.72 acres to 1.6 acres). Because this will eventually improve access to the site, this type of dedication seems reasonable. Access to the outlot to the east is over the south 14 feet of the subject lot. Mr. Harstad is aware of this requirement and will not object to the use of this easement. Mr. Harstad is also willing to grant the property owner to the south an easement to use the new driveway to gain access to their property as shown on the site plan. The Engineering Department has reviewed the preliminary plans for providing utilities to the site. It appears that sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer are available to serve the site. The storm water management system for the site will require further 5 review by the City Engineer, although there are no issues that the City Engineer believes cannot be overcome. . Public street access to the site is from the frontage road that will be improved as part ofthe TH 100 upgrading. In the meantime, access will be to the dead-end portion of North Lilac Drive. Because of the low number of trips that this ten-unit development will produce (approximately 90 to 100 trips per day), this will not adversely affect traffic movement or safety in the area. Obviously, the traffic access for the entire area will be enhanced once the frontage road is extended to the south and TH 55. The developer has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan which indicates a minimal landscape plan. The developer has told me that he would like to keep as many of the existing trees on the site as possible. Staff would like to see additional landscaping or berming along the south property line in order to screen the rear of the town homes from the existing house to the south. (The berming may not be possible because the access easement to the outlot is over the south 14 feet of the subject property. There will be a required park dedication for this development. The exact amount has not yet been determined for a recommendation to the City Council. Park dedications occur, whenever a parcel that has not been subdivided, is subdivided for the first time. Staff encourages each of the Planning Commission members to take a 1/2 hour drive this weekend to Spring lake Park where the exact same town homes are being built. One of the units is now complete and open for inspection as part of the Parade of Homes. The unit will be open from 12-5 PM on both Saturday and Sunday. The town homes are located at about 7900 Taylor Street in Spring lake Park. Take TH 100 north to 1-694. 1-694 east to Hwy 65. Hwy 65 north to Osborne. Take a left (west) on Osborne a short block to Taylor. Turn right on Taylor and go a long block north to the model. It is directly south of Spring lake Park High School. I have taken several pictures of the town home building at this location that I will have at the meeting. I am enclosing copies of information about the Park Heights Townhomes. . Recommended Action Staff is recommending approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for the Lilac Court Townhomes PUD. The proposed plan will work on the proposed site from both an engineering and planning perspective. The ten units are residential in character and will fit in with the existing neighborhood. The proposed value of the homes, in the $125-150,000 price range, is similar to many homes to the north of the site. The amount of traffic that will be generated from the site is small and will not have a significant impact on the existing or Mure street system. The variances from the Zoning Code are reasonable due to the size of the lot and the type of construction proposed on the site. . 6 . . . This type of town home development is needed in Golden Valley to help fulfill the demands of aging population. Most of the residents, who will live in these town homes, are predicted to be empty nesters or retired persons who desire maintenance free living on one or two levels. The number of such town homes in Golden Valley are limited. The experience that the City has had, with townhomes and town home associations, has been good when the town home association is properly established to do short and long term maintenance. New state law has now required that adequate money be put aside by town home associations to guarantee that proper maintenance be done. Staff suggests the following conditions for approval: · The City Engineer give final approval to all utility and storm water management plans. · The Director of Inspections give final approval to all plans related to emergency access. · The landscape plan be enhanced to upgrade landscaping along the south and north property lines adjacent to the residential properties. · The access easement to the outlot to the east be maintained. Also, the property owner to the south may obtain an easement for access over the proposed driveway to the property. · The developer provide MnDOT with the 30 feet of additional right-of-way for North Lilac Drive as shown on the attached site plan. · The City approve all townhome association agreements. Attachments: Location Map Zoning Variance Request dated August 19 Letter requested Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Map dated August 19 Townhome Information from Spring Lake Park (3 pieces) Copies of Photos Site Plans (oversized) 7 I 1.,)0. ~ I ; 1.1,).) _. _._~--_.._"-_. _ I'" - --- I _ I ~. jg 1(; . ~ ~ i i'. -- .-. .. i .__ts.J..1 _ _ '. I 10 15 /' c; ::: ). 10 !O 16',,'-teo~ ' . I Zc,. -----:-7:'--1' -;'J '.. · II ~;:; - 14 ~~~ r ~ ()_~t'~r :: (:)~:;:. 13 .':;: ::: ' · IZ I ';'5:;/0 ~ .., 5600 ,-; r '. -14 " -0 1..1" /..J~ 51: ~ o /dlJ ~ ~'(.., . g \~~~ Z .9~ ~ - .", o '. .. . \ I 300 1-''': I 01\ Q ~ 4Z4.7 ~ ol:i' :::::::r' ~ s:u "< . '14 , ~ o o .../t Dr D., 7" --:~c:k ----- .' . '.: . ....... 'e.rcels . -. - J~" JSL "" JLM , Ch. ~ov't ... .... ZI.l' 1/$ '. ~<. .:;AlFRED . ss-' I ~ ,~ J ,~ . ;;;. ..- -T'~o :.~O . '0 ~oo ~ oJ' 1'1. ... 1Z5 ~. ro-. -I ...;; 0 o~ !::: j1S 11; ! 2. ~~ .. ~ 4 . ~ ":'. en ~ S . g~..Jr g , _.- Its ~ .' '" .....;:; ~..... f , l:: ;:'7'" "'.3,0, ,. . . ; ~; .... ~ l--' . ~ :::::::r' ~ s:u "< ...... . 15 "1 ~. ~, 00' ~ J ~~ ~ .14 V' C ~ ::') ~ ~ g If . trd -. Z .13 3. " 2 ~: . I ~ 10 .".. .,.. .. l:: . 4 . ~ I ~ l:: .. ~ : ., ~ .. :::: 5 . .~ ~ '0 a .0 , ~. 11 '" ... iii ......... o o .. ~g.8 '" '- . ~ l::lIf . 17.5 >", ct. ~~., ...... , Y..3. "1 , : '... ;~ .: :; 'j : 'T T' J,t~ 2 ..; .-~ o .., -! ~C; Z ._~ 3 . ILl 01;) . ;<(~ c "'..J a. Rq~D -,f r., 100 10 ." ,. .00 :T.,. . . :c ... 4 3 ~.I\ s.~ -. :00 ..; :.. ~ 3...; ..~ or, 6.0" ... " ~ .... - . '.I . 0" .. .... Iri r:i ~ ., '<t .. '" 1-.. i~ :: 4 .., .... Q ~ ~ ... S .;:) .,.. 0 .... ::: I;) ~. ~,- "7.., ,:0 I.- f:~ z:. JLIl' ~ 16'U . J E. ':J'~ "lul" . f.r It, W il'l this arcai $ce doc. :'I.. :"10;0 . 17S.tJ(I , -, -. ; " .... 2 DRIV;. ~] "1 ".I -- ..- "-- NORTH LILAC ~ o ..; .... .... :i~ - v ~ < )0. 3! -. DT. '4'~.az' S. Df It.. :ine ( 1036 Os 512~ ?102.,r ", , \ ~ . .. . . .. . : ::.. ~.- -..: . . 912 Lilac Dr., N. Golden Valley 19 August 1996 ZONING VARIANCES REQUESTED Condition: The subject site is long (420 feet) and narrow (166 feet at Lilac Drive). This shape limits the range of viable development concepts which is why it has long been vacant. The highest and best use of the land is a new neighborhood of our highly regarded owner-occupied, medium-density, high-quality townhomes which have been so well received in many local cities including Spring Lake Park. These will conform well to the surrounding single family residential neighborhood. The common driveway has been consciously designed to route cars to the interior of the neighborhood. The proposal creatively produces a desirable new neighborhood with an open feel while retaining privacy and buffering from the surrounding single family neighborhood. . Solutions: 1. Side Setback: The proposal is designed with 15 foot side setbacks. M-l requirements are for side setbacks of 50 feet from adjacent Residential use. The Residential side setback requirement is 15 feet. Because the new townhomes will be single-level, owner- occupied, and will conform well to the surrounding single family neighborhood, the Residential side setback of 15 feet is more applicable to this new neighborhood. Also, a 15 foot side setback creates a more open feel within the new neighborhood. 2. Rear Yard: The proposal is designed with 25 foot rear yards. M-l requirements are for rear yards of 50 feet from adjacent Residential use. Using the Residential rear yard requirement of 20% of lot depth, a comparable Residential rear yard would be no more than 25 feet. Because the new townhomes will, be single- level, owner-occupied, and will conform well to the $urrounding single family residential neighborhood, the equivalent Residential rear yard of approximately 25 feet is more applicabl, to this new neighborhood. Also, a 25 foot rear yard creates a more open feel within the new neighborhood. . Twin City Townhomes, Inc. -Harstad Quality and Design Since 1959- ~250 EAsT MOORE LAKE DRIVE. SUITE 200, FRIDLEY, MN 55432 220-9000 atrick S. Simons Vice President, Development ~ RECEIVED AU6 1 9 1996 19 August 1996 Golden Valley City Hall Attn: Mr. Mark Grimes 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 Re: 1.7:t acres at 912 Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, MN Dear Mark, - By this letter, Twin City Townhomes, Inc. requests that the Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan be amended, regarding the above referenced property, from low density to medium density residential. The subject site is long (420 feet) and narrow (166 feet at Lilac Drive). Also, the site is very high on one side and very low on the other. This shape and topography limits the range of viable development concepts which is why it has been long vacant in spite of a shortage of developable land in the immediate area. The highest and best use of the land is a new neighborhood of our highly regarded townhomes which have the following features: . owner-occupied . single-level . high-quality . medium-density of under 6 units per acre . well received in many local cities These will conform well to the surrounding single family residential neighborhood. There has grown in the market place a high demand for the managed association, maintenance-free lifestyle experienced in a neighborhood of this type. The proposal creatively produces a desirable new neighborhood with an open feel while retaining privacy and buffering from the surrounding single family neighborhood. Sincerely, -f;1 Patrick S. Simons As promised . . . . . . to preview the Park Beil!lI'ts ONE LEVEL LIVING MODEL TO~HOMEII OPENS SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 7 AT NOONII Twin City Townhomes announces the opening of their newest townhome community in Spring Lake Park selling in the low]()()'s. You won't need an "eagle eye "to see the quality and value in these unique townhomes. It's all right in front of you!! Bere's just sOllie sr ANDARD leaturesl 12 x 16 main floor master I 12 X 16 sun room-den I 35 X 14 living & dining room I 2 car attached garage I main floor laundry I appliances I huge pantry raised panel Oak cabinets I white porcelain kitchen sink I gas heat & hot water I central air I maintenance free exterior I 1,170 finished, SF I basement storage. Add a 6inisIJed look out basement! (Up to 600 Sq. Pt.) Finished stairs ar. a full bath DC a huge ree room m:. a 12 X 16 bedroom m:. all of these and you'll still have lots of room for storage or a hobby room. Model Home hours EVERY DAY THRD SEl!r. 22 ONLY Weekdays: 3 - 8 pm I Weekends: Noon - 6 pm. Hwy 65 to Osborne; West one bloc~ to Taylor; North one block to model. Call Rick Toia... 783-7103.. . for additional information icense # 8269 Prices may change without notice ;If; . introducing . . . I'RRK IIIIGIITS in Spring,Lake Park! [db] Twin City Townhomes, Inc. [9f] Harstad Quality and Design Since 1959 1250 EAST MOORE LAKE DRIVE, SUITE 200, FRIDU!Y, MN SS4l2 . 220-9000 introducing... . PRRK I/E/61/TS TOIIIDI/OmES ill Sprillg Lake Park! Rick Toia 783-7103 Lie. # 8269 Gl ~ t::~%.. ~ --~~ ...~ .'~i ~ ;)/ ...../ ...................r........oT....~ ~~- -=:..I.\.Yll1lrS1'!<m ....-.---- ...................~..."'."'......."I..-a.........."'" ------... ~~""""'-.--.... ~........... 0..."","",,- ....-...._'--::~::.::~.:-. .. .. :.~ ,. . .' . :: . . ., . ;: . !i , , . ;;-.i . :~ ~ -' .... > -< ~......_-_..-......~--.....-.................~... t=: ..................--1 ~ I; z I: C I ' . ':.." . . . Twin City Townhomes PRRK IIEIGllTSin Spring Lake Park, MN PRICE LIST 7890 Taylor St. End unit 7884 Taylor St. Middle unit 7878 Taylor St. Middle unit 7872 Taylor St. End unit 7866 Taylor St. End unit 7869 Taylor St. Middle unit 7854 Ta)'lor St. Middle unit 7848 Taylor St. Middlc unit 7842 Taylor St. End unit August 28, 1996 Building # 1 SOLD NOT FOR SALE AT THIS TIME SOLD SOLD MODEL HOME Building # 2 SOL D $107,900 $107,900 $107,900 SOLD $111,900 MINUS $4,000 lu'c-constmction discount = $111,900 MINUS $4,000 lu'c-constmction discount = $111,900 MINUS $4,000 11I'c-constmction discount = (Add $12,400 to choose the optional, ful/v finished lower level) 7836 Tllylor Sf. End unit 7830 Ta~'lor St. Middlc unit 7824 Tllylor Sf. Middlc unit 7818 Tllylor St. Middlc unit 7842 Taylor St. End unit Building # 3 (N 0 T FOR SALE YET) $116,900 MINUS $4,000 11I'c-constmction discount = $111,900 MINUS $4,000 prc-constr-uction discount = $111,900 MINUS $4,000 lu'c-constmction discount = $111,900 MINUS $4,000 prc-constmction discount = $119,900 MINUS $4,000 pre-construction discount = $112,900 $107,900 $107,900 $107,900 $115,900 (Add $12,400 to choose the optional, fully finished lower level) See sales brochures for STANDARD INCLUSIONS plus UPGRADES you may select. SALES HOURS Monday - Thursday 3:00 - 6:00 PM Saturday & Sunday Noon - 4:00 PM OR CALL RICK TOIA . . . 612/783-7103 . . . 24 hours . . . for information or an appointment Ucense 1# 8279 *DiscOlmt program: $4,000 at start of construction; $2,000 when roof is complete; -0- when home is completed. Prices mn)' change wllhoulllollce .. ..c.. ---- ...... CJ) w ~ o I Z ~~ O~ I-W Y.. (f)~ I-~ IZ O~ - 0) W I ~ 0: <C (L .... . ,"'" ....... ;'," .1..... ~.:..:~. ....... '. . ....;.. .. .. " .;. III Y. <( ..J~ ~<i iv. D. IL \I) ~9 AV."'" 'IV'S 1'3Tl-I AVE. N~. ._..,.u..=ft'f=~....:ln~ ==~ ~I .JjI... .*- ...... -*--*......-,- r I 1 I I I I I I I I I / / / / / / I I I I ,J 11.11 III IV.I 1- u)1 !Y.I ~I }-I <{ "-1 I I I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ ('~ l apo~~ '.../ (. ) () _ _I (Y' .~ !Y- O LU II) Y. W<{ '- -I () III I IV. ~ 8 () )- I- - }- 1- ~ >:, !:::~CN}- o IU C'I I!J Q) _I z; ~ .' a '3 ~ ,':),:-, N. .c x IY. n .'~ C H o tI.l II tI.l ~ 11 ill Iii it; ,.J t.t 'J i. rl~ I.. ii.~ If . '. C'I (fl .... 11'\ 11'\ <( () p ~ u) '^ O' III '" ~ z ~ ~ r.:. ,_ r .1'\ 11'\ ...... ...... !::'! ~ .g ~\) '- '- . . . . . I STANDARD FEATURES I I Take aGO 0 D look at PRRK IIEIGIITS I YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD! Living in Pork 8;1,,,,, IS "in town"living! Location = convenience. . . & there's lots of that right at your doorstep!! Just look at the list below of nearby "needs and wants" just minutes from your new townhome. Within just blocks: . Restaurants . Schools . Bus stops . City Hall . Police . Fire Department . Senior Center . Adult education . Neighborhood walks o Gas station with mechanics! Jf7thin 3 miles: . Cub Foods & Rainbow Foods . Applebee's;Friday's; Fuddruckers; Red Lobster + more restaurants . Unity Hospital . Library . NORTHTOWN Within 5 miles: . Regional Park & dam.. .. .. . (fishin's great!) . Golf at Bunker Hills. . Wave Pool at Bunker Hills . Picnic areas . Walking & hiking trails . Park 'n Ride · Clinics, hairdressers, barbers, etc. .~'.~~ =- (;.\1" \(Of ..;-'; ~'--l ..J L--i k'fRI \T1II' Ill..}" ,1'lj;jlTt; .....\\1 ., DESCRIPTION: S buildings with 4 or S sidc-by-side rambler townhomes . all with the same floor plan-alld all \\ith basements! Only end units have gas fireplaces with glass doors and side windows in the dining room, Ihing room and den. All '1I1tK HI'IGHTI'TOWNHOMES INCLUDE: Master bedroom on the main floor-I 2 x 16 with a huge walk-in closet & a master bath. Basements! - with daylile windows to the rear. Sun room - 12 x 16 leading to a 12 x 12 deck. Powder room off kitchen. Main floor laundry - just off kitchen. Ten foot ceilings - living & dining rooms. 1,170 sq. ft. finished on main floor & up to 1,800 sq. b)' fmishing basement Storage, storage,storage! Large pantry, walk-in closet (master bedroom) plus basement storage. Attached, pri\'3te 2 car garage, "itll direct entry off kitchen, coD\'enientto master bedroom. 2 x 6 ell.1erior wall conslnlction & insulation. DOUBLE 2 x 4 wall consln1ction & insulation + 1" air space between townhomes. Engin~-cred floor truss construction-sturdier & quieter titan 2 ll. 10 joists. Maintenance free \;nyl siding & aluminum soffits. Maintenance free \inyl, slide.by insulated glass w1ndows with extra quiet sound rating. I).:rorath'e metal, raised panel front & garage doors, both with full brick surround. . 25 year warranted asphalt shingled roof. . R-44 ellieient ceiling insulation. . Gas forced air furnace \vith eleclronic ignition. . Energy efficient central air conditioning. . Gas 40 gallon hot W'3ter heater. . 100 amp electrical service. . All appliances included - range, fridge, dishw'3sher, disposal, washer & dr)'er. . Cast iron, enameled kitchen sink. · Oak cabin.:ts to ceiling with factol)' finished raised pand doors & side mounted drawer 1llides. 36" OaK "CReer factory finished interior doors & Pnnceton trim . Formica snack bar counter top + hacksplash. . Cultured marble bath \'anily sinks. . Lighting Ih1ure package . . Main Floor . . . . . . . . . . . . ~~~;=-~. Optiollal Finished Basemellt Standard features (continued) · Smoke detectors on each floor - hard\\;red. · 3 prewired ceiling fan outlets. (Fans optional) · Choice of three colors of upgraded carpel. . Heat/exhaust bath fans, \'Cnted to outside. . 3 phone jacks. - 3 cable TV rough-ins. . City sewer/water + individual gas & electric . meters. . Archilectually designed landscaping. . Underground irrigation system. . Asphalt driveway. UPGRADESIEXTRAS . Gas range, self cleaning $260 . Ice maker, installed, standard fridge 190 . Ice maker Iinelhook-up - your fridge 100 . Space saver microwavelhood fan 440 . Water softener 680 . Ceiling fan - living room 280 . Ceiling fan I light-owner's bedroom 340 . Ceiling fan / light-sun room 340 . Storm door, with self-storing screen 260 . Shower door \\ith obscure glass. 350 . Garage door opener \vith 2 remotes 340 Basement finish option(s ):' . Finished basement stairs & landing. . (includes doors a/landing:) $1,900 . Full bath: 3,500 . 16 X 18 ree room: 3,500 . 12 X 16 guest bedroom - \\ith walk-in . closet: 3.500 Total: All basement finishout $12,400 SALES HOURS Monday- Thursday: 3:00 - 6:00 PM Saturday & Sunday: Noon-4:oo PM For information or appointments, call: Rick Toia, 783-7103 Li~"l\se 8269 (Pricing may change without notice) . Twin City Townhomes specializes in the design and construction of whole neighborhoods of brand new, value priced to\....nhomes. Twin City Townhomes is owned and operated by Forrest Harstad and Gene Shellerud. Both Forrest & Gene have been in the new home construction business since the mid-Seventies and both come from families in the business before them. OUR PURPOSE is to provide the best investment yon can make in a ntw,\':dne-priced fownhome. We mean to craft the nicest neighborhoods of the highest quality townhomes available in the price range for maximum return on your investment in your own maintenance-free home. Our Mission includes the use or: top quality lumber, windows and mechanicals - to last longer; indoor air & light engineering - for energy conservation and healthier living; maintenance free exteriors - for better investment of your time as It'ell as your money; floor plans carefully designed for happier home life with extra space & extra storage - where ever cost effective; quality control check lists and warranty service beyond industry standards - as exchange for your referrals. We are l'e,,' goot! at what we do. Please let us know what your desires are in a town home foday! ~"i':," . (: I II!! rt..(.... .: . I' f'J4tf.~.J,~ 1 ~~ . .~.~ t" ;b,-'-, -"" '4 r." ,~::_ .~.......~-~-_.. -. ~Uj: .'. -. ~r: ~ .~ · -r-:-~..:;. ~ .l_-. '.~". .... ' ~'. .... . -:; ,.., '.{:~ JIIIIIiIIlI ~. .~~ ~;;..... ~ ~ === ~ ~'b<l ;; ;: ===.~ ~~ ~ (. ":.. r:: jr.'" iF": !,~'.;'. . .; 0) t: '- U =:3 "0 o ~ - t: '- . ::: · &a . ~ u:>o;\ 0 c::::.,... ~, -..c ~ it ". ~ :::: III w ~. U ~ ; . ~ e'~ :< . "l 'bQ sa 0" ':: ...c'~ E:: a c t,; ;:.... ~::;~ I.;. ... Tt..... ~ ~ ; ~ ~ e-~ ;;; Q ~ ...! IIIIiiii .. ~ > a.. ~ U 6 !.... ... :;; - ~ c .. '" ... .i E ~.... s ~ .. i ... - - ~ Ei31 ~ 1i ~ ~ ~ ., €J~ (l') ~o :... 'I"'" ~,.... Q..I ~(l') ~CX) ....,.... ..:i ~.~ .== 0 E;~ ...... .... V}~ .:: C2 . PDR/( IIE/GI/T/ TOI8DlIomE/ HOIIE06lRER./ R//OCIRTIOR I\lonthlv rl'e includes: Lawn & landscape maintenance plus snow removal. Extl'rior building maintenance. Total building hazard insurance. Water I sewer I trash Opl'ration & maintenance or the underground sprinkler s)"stem. Capital improvement reserves. Managed by PERSONAL TOUCH, a proressional property management company. which: . Contracts & supervises vendors. Collects monthly dues & pays all Association bills. Prepares the annual budget & replacement reserves for Association approval. Organizes & attends all Association meetings. Facilitates the Board or Directors in performing their duties. Is available to members for questions. comments, reports, etc. . . . Q) co C'I co =- U ::; . . . . -- ..- - -- - --- ----.----- . . . I : .'. " \ :.: o. J :........ - '<':: ,f. I , I T;~~; Z 1 l[ I".. I I :....': .'. .:. . I '.... ~;::: I ...... I' I I ~ ;:: ~i -...J :.,. ~ .,. i I.:.'::":l ":,: I ,:p~' '"7 t -::;, :;::::::: ;::~:::::.; ,:::::::;;:;::.=::::::::: ; :=--::: - :;:..=; .:;;- :::::':1':::'-;:' ::::: ~-,.:,;;:~" -:1,,;:;..:::::~,=-::,::.~...=-;;:: :::::,,~==:! :;~ PI ,,+J} I' ;,;;' ~ 1:1~ f .,' i F I .w"'..... 1 '.' , : ! 1 I ::.:.: [ " : I 1 ~ ! .t ! 1 I '.:. ....... I I . : . ":. I I :......~:. :h ., I i j ! T ( I : . .' r. . ...1 '. I :,i' ~ ~ 1 ',': .~, i :: L I I. I ../ '. I. _______ . "1 .... .. I:i:; I I '/ .:;: \ 1 . . . \ I . . . . . . F :::. , I, AI'HCAN ...... I .: I "'~':". , 1.1.. :.::: ! l"l 1/7' . , ':.1 ..::'::::.::: :;'.:: '\ 1 . . . 1 .' ....... .. . . .. . ;..... ,i, :':: I i' ':. .... '.;';-:::.':.; ..:, ';:;';::/' I I.. '. .... I .\ ....,........., :.... ~ {'.', : . .' ,;;; ..' ..' . .' .' .~,(::..:.::..::. ..' :1 ~\ ". . '.. ..... -..' ", I ,: ~... ..., "'1 I ! -...... ..-..........J 1.........;=\ I .:': . ..... :: .' ., 6 AUTlI'N IIl.A&IlW'LIl ..' ..' .' . ..... .' -' .: "::" \, I ." ;- . " , / "/7 I. .", '- ./ I ; ................. ~ 1 : - I IJ.; 10 I'IlmO COLORAlJO BU.e AYD QEbI Sl'RUCe I 3 COL/lI2ADO llL.W Sl'RUCe (I Ii' I fNS lIT, · 6-f111T. . J ,l. '. r.... J \JL f--" \ .... ~ 'r '. , \ '-......; ,/-(' ~":' ,1.. \ \::. ;'. \ ;1 ":.' : :: \. ,: ~::i .;~ : -----i~ . . - ..L - ~';-' ..~;::~~t -. '.:: .:,~:, ............ ..... . r............1. :: "j . . . .' -. . . . . .. " :: :; :: .. .. ~ . . . .. .. \\\ '::'.: : . ~:. . : ;'i:':'; ;: :.:L:::::~. ',: ~.:;. . :-.... ...:,:.';.': ::. ..... .. ~. ... '.:' . ..... ..... . I ' .. C' : t. "- -r'- ifF' Ii ;f:f . .. ., ,.. II I: .. ! ,Lil :1 ,b I I I , r-r-r I, ! , 'I J1."r.'1 ~ lb - I! . I -1 ~ I.: ~ 1M- . _______ :; " ........ . ....,-...... .' ..........~I ...... . .\~..............::> .. \ "'. '.;.. ...:.... ,:': ~.' ::.',: :" .' t[: .... .... . ..:~ :r-. .......<~ (3 I . .' , , .,.... I ,I .! .,' ~- L I~- ~'~!=lr ...... - ---,~ =l<'- '~. 'i ........ ~i i, 'L ~il 1 ,f=t~1 Fl, I~I I' 91 ........ " i'l I ,I ',"1, ': I 'I 'I II ': 1 il . . 'I I "'. {I: I' I " II I 'j :! 1 ~Ii ! ,I l.= -: I 1.;;-;;;_ I L~ _ = " I' " ,: ", ./ j I ' , 'I' , ~ i.." /. I I I' II ;r :/1 :1 . , , I " i I r i 'I 1'1 II .'i' ii I I ~/~ , -=----1 f......,-~~i~.... -"~ '.~_ I '. .....; 4 '(\i' "",>> ;'''' if.'Si. '1U<7 I : ':; : i: -;( !=~ "--""-~- A. L-L~, 0 ...,S.,4 .!...L ...:..::' ........ _ _ _ . ~__~ ~., u... > .: .... ." ... .~ .': .' : '. ~.. : ....~:"~ : '.:. : : .... . .... . ~ . .... l... I '.' :'1' ::.:.;:~., J .:.::: " T J. 'f I I I '-- --------, I I ..... :1.: l ....:;;:.... I~,~ .... .... <:., .. COL/lI2ADO BU.e SPIlIIC& 6-8' lIT. . 6 I'IlmO COLORAlJO BU.e AYD c:ueN Sl'RUCe 6-f111T. . ..... :';'; .~: ..:~ ~ :::" ~ ....... ..... .... .... .... !.: i.:': ~,".::. .:..... ..': ..... ... .... .... .... ...... .... ..... . ::'::::'::"';':..:": :.':::~.:'-:';< ... : .~: .;..' ;"::..: ';' :.:': L~:"':' ,;"'.. ;".: ';' ::'::. ::.: '<' ~~:':.:':;~,,'::: :. ". ." ---- ---- ------- d - -==- = o 20 40 ~ FEET SCALE t.... r' ..- ............ '.' .' -." I ~ -- I I I 1 I I I 1 - I --r- I ;fo IN LILAC COURT TOWNHOMES Owner / Developer TWIN CITY TOliNHOMES 1250 East Moore Lake DrIve Sult.e 200 Frldle,. Milmesot.e lIIl432 (812) 572-11872 (~ y CIty of GaIden Veley ...... ...., I..... .... j I! 1 -! r i 'i J : I' .. ! ri i I , , ".:-:'.>:-:'.r:.j~' ~ ,/ f > "'- IX&1IC TuaN: ." ..., C1l .... ..., LU ---..... -........ --..... -............. -.... -..-..... DATI 1_ 1-- -- I ...., ...tlI. ,...t ,a'. .,. _ ..._.. ..-. :"..==~,::::.:=.~r...."""'= :"-'::~t ,,,.,.,..,.'''',''" ................1.. ..,..'...11...., ..... c.tat.t=!I::!L- PROJECT : Lilac Court Townhomee Golden Valley, Minnesota OATE: FU ~ LIOQ.CIDWl: PIl0JeCT NO. TC'l6004 PReI.l"lNARY LANDSCAPe P\.AIII L1.1 '. ,}.,:" II ..;)...j~ ....... :: \ - = I. . : ..... :: \ ;:;.;; I NORTH I .~::;:;;.:;; -:?! I; I 20 40 I ~::': H L.... L I~ or\n....J I : '.. :: ...!: I I I:....:; :);-::. i: r" i 1 _ _ _ _ _ 1 f ~ ili S' J 'i;~', ~:I:~ ;; ^ ""'-' ~, PEn .. I. 1 I. _ _ _ _ :r _., "". "."', I . .", f......"'..... ..... .. : . i .i:::. II ------'-----:::. .. ..'..........'.""".......''''i...:r'.:..;... .....:.i-: .;....,~; . --:-, ":" L:;" '0./ .~. , I - - -1- - ... ''''...__",... ". ... r-----, ,'I ,. 'I' 1 .,. '.' I L!L \J". ~f -:,.::- -'::=";',=:::r1-'::"=.:':-"=.:;;= -;::':;"';'"i'''';,~'';~;~'S''''''''~''' .,. '. : 1 ,~ 11,1 ! ;: Ii! 'j ,,//' D ..,:\ ..n;- ""-.'" ". . ~.... 1 1 . '. ... ,. .. 'I / . 'tT'J'7'f ... I ". ! ,J.' I! '.J ....::::.:..... ",: Ii (;;..::>'../ : ) L _..~. . J . " 1 , , "" .,.. L ,_ ,.d'; :t',' ; :" I"~,., r,,~".-r ~ "; j I' 1 1 I: t'::." -i'. '\.... h I j .;. .r /, I I 1/ ~ ..... I' I r , h' I , , \ '. 1 ". .. , .. \ , 1 , <( :," :1 . I 1 1 .' ."" . I I I ;. , I; 1 " "",,"-.f , . :.: . I I l. -I....... .... '..,~ ..... .... ....j ; I '" / !, ': . ".. . .... '''.;.. '. ,., 1 .','.. .. ( \..1 '" 1 l' '\ . '. ":;_"";' ':"'J.I I ,?" --' ,\ J i '\ . ;.' I 'i' .~'" ,(," ."" ,." .' .' , 'r)';'" ..... .. '" ... 1"."\ " { - ., I 1 ,.. . ". 1 ,. ". .,' '" .. ../ I """'" . l... I' . 1 \, R, :,\, ~ 1\ [,,: Y r J ,~ "'!~~'if" 'E'~:.. ....[ : \ ~:.:~/, ,,' <:..,~ ~ ~>~>:"'.~i)1~~=t'~'==~~~t:~1: 'f\ I' ." ,\ /'. "/' oj ,....",.... "'''... .'1 ....S89.0334 E..." . '--- ............. ..""', ".. ' I ! ,!, H'...,,,. ';.in ~:. .. .,.,C .. : /' ,,0 ':.?" ;:"", . ow CONC.RE1t" " L:$::, ~; ~ \. . " .... ". f; i',;; "." ..."'". ;,$';'. ..l., '/ ,,""-"",," . FOUNDA """" , "c, ~; '. / ~, "'.. ,,". ...., Ii ,. j". ,-, h'D CIY'^Rf't, " . r I ~. if ~ ( f';fci, :' -~; ,/ , / l----_m_m______ .,}; "1 1 ro()NDA~~"'.~ ~~..~~, '. , I '. . <c- .. , " .... ""'" ,_ _ \ .. I ~. I " _<\l~' . ./ 4/ ! />. ... ....."..~;. H \ \!!~, \. .. .... .. ". .. .. ".', \ . '.\.. ~, , \../ ;.. . ..... ! ." / .-:" . ".. ... ,.' '. \ ,,". W ., I t" \( ::,:,,, J//// / f"' J ,,~v....., .'i~,,,:t~) .;:,;.. ~\.....") /",! '\ \ I . .. .' ....,.. .. l ..' .;'.... '.;. . ..... ..;, .'. ..... ..........d.,... It'i /'S'., . . .. ~..;. :...., ;>;",., i.'''. \. .' . .. . . '..., . ~~ . --- ". ", '''.. . " . . '..~ .', ','^ . y" -c:-/~",~,,~_"P~ -;......J:. / - - - ~".~.''';,..:;:''- _ -,r-.~ _ ..;....,..~~~ \ '::' . ......................... ..:...~. .;.'." /;)5;' . .... .::.;~.~: ~.' '.:. .,;::,:.:> .... >--- . ..... ~. ;.:,:.::~.;.: 1:' l ; : ". \ :;;,:'; ~r \... ~:; ,.., . . ,....... .'. I..: .' . ~ i:' ::',,: ~ .... . . >~" ~...., . \ ..: .: I. '. \ \ ( J. .......... \ ~g , \ : ..,. ; "'1 ': \ \ 'r.," : .... : . ./.. '.. T i I I -----_---1____ I I I --- , "'" " ....). .....,.../ .---//" ..:::=:.:..:/ .... .... '::" '.;..;'.' ..:. ';:.:',:. -+- :";;.':'..:;; :;....." .... 4' 20 38' ............. '.. ... .... ....Niitj'.44'34.;W;,.". ! .. I?'.".::'" ..' .;::-..;.;../,r':.r.-;;..4.: :r {.~ j \ . {'>/ : I ~1 ! J l I : ! . ...../. ",' .... ", .... .f~" ..... "n .... ;'>'::':'..:~ ':':!:':L D!~} ~."t.;.\::. '( ':. ..:('::.;::'- '. .....':r:: ':"::: .. .... ...~~::t:::.:... ....; .. '. i ;f.;f" .1 i1 . :1 ..... I ! , ". If /l ; I; , i.b / --------~-- I THIS DRAWING: IS- B'AS;D ON A BOUNDARY I AND TOPOG:RA~C SURV~Y PR~PAR~D BY ~.G:. RUD AND SONS DAT~D 6/6/<16 .....:~~.. :.. :.- .' " ..... ,',' ..:.... .' .... . ~-;;;o; "}. : . .' . ::;..~ . ,'~. . .:..... / ""', . '.~: .-.. .~~~;::.~ :~:~',.: ....:i:... .',:',, .... . ~:...: .::.::.:"'" ...:::::' ~i:~' . '. .:~~:~~~ '0 . ,.,~' z'.;;!'.f'-J:.'::;,,: :'.;:'l~:"J.. .... ~":.::::~ :.;:)~' :";':"Df.::..:'~.:"':':' E :..E ~.: ::. .::.::;:.:.:~; :::.::: .. .. ..::' ---- ...... ---- ---- ---- LILAC COURT TOWNHOMES Owner / Developer TWIN CITY TOWNHOMES 1250 Eaal Moors lake DrIft Suite 200 FrIdley. M1DDOBeta 1lM32 (812) 572-8872 [ ] , y CIty of GoIdl!In VaIey HILIIlIll ...., IfIIUl ----r- " -..:.. cu <:>.' <:1' .... eo.. IJ.l """" -.... fIlllW'WrINJ~PUIII ~.CRlOC JlLM _ UfUf'/.... -..., -..- .... \ I ..,. 1- l-- -- I ...... ....llt., I.' ,...._ _............_. :"...== :'::::.=.~r~..=,1 :.:'I:':-~' 'M .,.t. at MI..uDfA. ...... M. ......... .....\1'.......1 mUI DtI,IJ::!,i::!I1.- PROJECT : Lilac Court Townhome. Minnesole DATe: FIl.f: NAMe: CIOI/lLCI.OWI: PIlDJeCT NO. TC'lIi004 I":lCJSTING: COI>DI11ONS Pl.AN C1.1 I .::....: ,I \ i,:. I I .:~.... -'. ::" I , I '1':~~:;:1 7:. I I..: I I ......1 L-" T I ,1 ..::: H -... ~{: I .'. I I I . ". ., ) ... . 'ii""if=;;;:: -;:.=,;,~-;;::=, ~=';';'-=;;-~~'::== '~=,;:;;r ;:;= :::";: Lr~-:; -:';;:=-~,-:::,::::=-, ;=, 'r=-:::~F;i;,iJ; III ;,;;:;b~if I.. I ",'~...m"" I .... I . . I I i . --. :;'. ~ i I Ii, I Ii! ;~. ! I I H~ I : I ~.l T r I : , I I'::: ': !: L I I, I I : I .':', p _ -'- _ _ _ _ _ f': , I I I) :i" \ I I I;=-: I , :. I . . I: ::':.. i I I:" ":.': If :::: :~! ,. .' ~~;: .': i l . . . . . I .;.; r..' .' ..:::....:1 I: ! ............... .' ./.., I I' S89003'34"E I I 419.64' :!! : J: ::. :: ...... .: ,',.-: :; ..... " : .;.:',: ~. :~: ~::: ;::'::':J\ 1.. - ::r-: t- __:.;.( '. C:L o . , \............-l ,- \) .' ...-f :,.. <..~ :.r: \ ----' --i --.-- . .... . . .. . . ., . . =.: ; ;';'::. :: : ".:.::' f{ "'.'::" ::~:j/.:;::~: .::: .~/ '.::: . :'~ :~':::'~ <:. . .. ...... .... ;';' ::' .:;.:'::::. :" .:~ ~ ..; ........ : .... :.,' ::;"; :.... in ,,- : (:'; .. :'::.:'::::'7. ~.:. r - L I I I. e;) I"'i to to ., _ _ _ _ _Sf:T6AC~LINf: _ _ _ _ _ V ~ ':.;, .,'" ". .... h. . ..... ............. i q' ~ liD ,- ; RJi "~: -'.0 II €I JJ .....,~ ". ":'" ~~ }. .. '.. ~- ; t\l 01 : - CJ:l - . .'::..~~l ,0- ;0 .~ : CI) 'J': : :"; ". . ",' fir , i. !/ 'I I 6.-=--".. '.' -..J ;'88Q.0 i , f6\110 II '" '" .'. I I . ' I ; , ~ ! i' I . ~-=- L _ ,.J ! 88Q.0 ! f6\110 , i., b_ I -d, i 88Q.01 II I , , fB\IIO I ! i, Ii I' /: =-- ~ 881.0 ~L-=- - - '.:;.L.... .......:~:.:. '. '-f.:' ::.....:<::i::Ll. _ _ -: """C"-;.j" .-.-...,-, '. .,.".... ..L.,.",.:::r:........-J .. '.. ... . ....j... ~;:.: =(':=:'.:::.; . ". . , fl' 881.0 ~ \- - \ ....~'" -- ... "~r'''' '':.,:- "'- -.. '.:::"::::.>:'!.. .... ... ...4~Q~. 3ff. .., N85044 '34"W ;.~t.:..~.:. '~,"E.: D:";:: ~....c ;.~./~ ", i;)/ ..~..~ ':'....- .. :,.:?:.:....,:;:::...~.A : ... '.. .... ~:. FROJECT 5UMMAR"r: Ar<EA r<ow Ar<E A lOT Ar<EA NUMBEr< OF UNITS DENSITY (c;r<OSS) DENSITY (NET) C;Ar<AC;E STAllS Dr<IYEWAY PAr<KINC; STAllS DESICNA TED PAr<KINC; STAllS P Al<KINC; STAllS PEr< UNIT 1.71 ACf<ES .12 ACr<ES 1.60 ACr<ES 10 5.6 UNITS / ACr<E 6.25 UNlTS/ACr<E 20 20 10 5.0 o 20 40 r\f1..J SCALE IN FEET r .:. I.... . .',' ....... " .... 011 e;) lri II S ..t- to I lD to ~~ to e;)' c!. ~----_. lri II S ~i to I lD to, ~~ to 9 I I, !J I I I ~I ~I ~I lD :UI en, I J ~ . . t\l~ t\l~ ,...:- CJ:llQ _0 o ~ \.:.. ,\:.! :'" 1 \ ".':'r .... - - ':' 1:::' ':;:\i;;'~ ~ '_ -::' . ....".. : \.. ":.. ....... :',".: :.;. "X'.:r ',' ". ,". . . . .... . .]'. :.'. : ."", . I. . ;:~ : :. :1.: :"., . i ,i, T i ::/:~:::'.: : .~..:; ; :;' :~ ';~.~::;.;~::::;:.!..: ',' : I __ --------1-- I I iT -- : in l\I I I I I I I I I I ---~ I [::~;j1 :..:--.1 LILAC COURT TOWNHOMES Owner / Developer TWIN CITY TOWNHDIIES 1250 East Moore Lake Drl.... Sulte 200 FrIdley. IIID1l118Ola 55432 (812) 572-8872 [ J ,. y CIty or QaIden Veley '"'" am..- """' I..... _. cu ..".. c:DtIldDIS ...... ftl IJIlI!U1NMrY sri A.M C3J flIllIl.ftrMf t:IN:aC tJIIlM C4.l 1'IllI!U'Nilft'1IQJfT..... Clt.I~...,.,. --.... gaD 1_ l-- /.........- ......, I _..., ...IIf., U..I ,..,. .1_ _ ~...... .,_. :.== .el:::'="~'r":-":' :":-I::~t I" 101.'. af ...-.ena.. ..~~-- PROJECT : Lilac Court Townhomee Golden Valley, ~""W.~~~I.;"~.T~~ 1812}4~-32'1?" f_/dat.(1I12)t7tt-3169 ...., DAn: FU NAI1I': C7Q1QI.C1DWt: PRO.f:CT NO. TC'l6004 Pr<r:Lll'lNARY SITe PLAfoI C2.1 ;f i :..' 'I' .'. , ",: :'; .i, .... o :. .,j. :;'..,. I J. l j .. I _ _ _ _ i:~::~i:,i~i,,;';~""'i: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ I I I '. . . I I I I ;'=,.;'~,', ~:j~ ;'4~ I : I : I : L_~_____ I I I : I : I l I : I : I : I : I I I I I I I I I I ------------~---- 1 r;.! i : : =rf~~ I; I I I ; :;:: rr;',:}iW::;'~ :::,;;,::, ",:::,:;, ,=::;~::,,;:: >,1=-:;;;;:-::;';::'=;;!:::;:-"-;E~2~"*i,; ::.,,-:-;-:: :;;;:-~:;-";;:'::'f~-:':~;t: \. '\ .'( ,j... . ' U. I : I --.,..",{ (':" I I I ~...-" }:: ~ : ". "-\.~ .-r.. I: I I I ;'. \ i I{: I : I _I }: 1:;< I I -- ".~': :.> " ~ . ....: ---.J 11 h ';". I I "', (. ;.: I !d r ~;;' ~ L :'1 i L"~}'(~~~":1 ~;j; :::: ;: 't: Ii.., I 889003' 34" E I II" I 419.64' I .:::~~ ('\/ \...JL 0- \ \ "'--...1 -:.... /' .<:.- ~\..:; r .....~.r..:.:..:......$.t\:: ':.. ".; ":", ,J' :: ~ :r. ,'. ....;.--. - - - - -:~ - T - -: -:~.:.:r;- 30 :.;.., 210 2 ;./:: ~:~.: :::;:: ::~l ~~~.~~:;. .... :':':: '.:'. ",,""'--;{~~=~~~--==r~,;---] ~ ORAINACI: '" UTLITY ~ ,,/ L, I: lit) ~ / i,' i :" ;/ Lor 2. BLK 1 ~' q..............:......q q.........;.~.. I '" , I: I '" "'r I', I ...'/ 18.462 sa r. I: I --/ L m , ~;,;: --' , , C~:___ -.--__________ ____ -!~~----~==:::-==:~_-=_____J ,: ---,' I I I I I I .J ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... ...... ....... ....... ...... ......... II) II) :::., ..~.. '0' :i .....j 15.612 sa for Lor I, BLK 1 . ...... .. ;'::'.'::: .;...:;.. .' II) II) .-:::. ........ :::.::.:.:"::.;;.? .':':'. .=::'. ~ .. ~.. .. !:\lCi': l- .. ~ 4: \l. ..... . l- 0 l.t) ~; (;) en o~<: ...1 l- I"l ;:) I"l C (;) (;) [',J It'i """"~~=~rCC'~!~~-~i~~t==~lr===1=~;~-~~:'=~!r~~~t~~~-----------------' ... . 'I '. , ., ./ /./ I, ,', . I" I. /--/ ,i~~~;i i~,~; i!!~!~ .. I -- LOf 3 au Ii, 'I, 'Ii 'I, Ii/ -< ,--' . ii -i; i, ii, 'i ;i r 358., sa fT " ""I ,', I' " ~-l~~~~~~~~_~~~~~~ .:: 160 '.t: '.~ ; ..f~ : :=:::. II) : ':~.. :' L~:::::~;~~:~t J """.. .....-:' 30 ..... ~~~r~r ..~.:.~:..::: ~"-:::.L ,::,:'F:"i:~':::.. :':{"::.'( .... .... u_ .... .... ,. ..4g0... $.(1 ,~. .... N85044'34"W '" ...... . :.;.;...: ".: .::.t~ D:{.:'; :....:.: ~.::.:.; ..... ".:~ . .~;.; :~.. :;~ : ':'..: ~ .... .' FLAT 5UMMARY: ARf:A ROW ARf:A (f'UTURf:) LOT ARf:A NUM5f:R Of' UNITS DeNSITY (GROSS) Df:NSITY (NeT) 1.72 ACRf:S .12 ACrl.f:S 1.60 ACRf:S 10 5.6 UNlTS/ACRf: 6.25 UNlTS/ACRf: ::r"l "~;'I I ;.::.=--- E~rr.:c:..: :;...-:/.:.:::':{ .....: ......... ~ .. .. .. !:\l~ !:\l..!:\l ~..... ~:;a C ~ t') 9 10' o 20 40 rv-L..J SCALE IN FEET ..:.' ;:'. t' ..... L.:' LILAC COURT TOWNHOMES Owner / DeVllloper TWIN CITY TOWNHOIIES 1260 Eaot Moore lake Drl.. Sullo 200 Fridley, MlnDBBolo 55432 (612) 572-6872 (-] r , y CIty cI Golden YaIeV r lll!ItLaI -, I.... .... --.......... .... -........ <1< 1.........._.... C4.1 '........... ......, .... GJ ~RA1 ioU flRl:LftWn'LNtIlSCllPtfII..AN DAn 1_ 1-- \ r """""'- ......,...."."...,...,'.._"'.......117_. :"..=::.=.'::::.="~r..-:~t :"'-,:::1 ......'..r.~A. ..~~~ PROJECT Lilac Court Townhomes Minnesota ~slooonw.~=~f~~j.~~.. T~oe-=:~ U1l2)47li-3272 . ,../cbta(611l)476-3IU DATI':; FL. NAMI':: ~IQ.C~ PIl0Jr:CT NO. TC'l6004 Prl.fLII"INARY P\.A T C5.1