Loading...
09-30-96 PC Agenda . . . AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION , RegwarMeeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800-,GOrcJen Valley Road Council: Cha~tJe~ September 30,1996 7pm.'" " I. Approval of Minutes-SeptEfrtlber 9, 1'996: II. Informal Public Hearing: Minor Sdbdiv1siOn- Applicant: Dolores Zahrendt . ~. ..' ..; . Address: Lots 13 and 14, BlOck 4, tyrattJins , ... -'1 Take approximatE!,ly 1686 sq.ft. Jromthe lot at 1307 June Avenue South.tEot 14) and.add if to the adjacent vacant lot (Lot 13) wniel1 will allow for the development of a singJe- family house on the vacanflpt '., - ShorfR~cess - III. Reports on Meetings of the HouSfhg and Redeveropment AutHority, City Council, and Board of Zoning Appeals Purpose: IV. Other Business A. Setback Issues: V. Adjournment ------ 'l I i I ;1 ;1 ! I I I __ ;1 ';J>- . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 1996 h :j"1.n: : I .' ~. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was he1d at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called fo,order by Chair Prazak at 7pm. Q'''' : d ' Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis.,.McAleese, Pentel and, Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director ofPlanningilind Development, Be1:h Kiioblauch, City Planner, and Mary Dold, Recordin'g Secretary. \. ',,", "z., , Ji or ' .. '.. ~?' , d - ~';'~er.". r - " ; , I. Approval of Minutes - August 12. 1996 I!'~\ )f'~i ',il ~ : MOVED by Pentel, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the' August 12, 1996 minutes as submitted. II. . .... . i ~ Ii' .... : Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (;.j 'I.:':,"" Applicant: Paul S. Olin ',:1tlnUi . ~ ~ 19 ..a.~r. " Address: Two lots south and southeast of 6900 Harold Avenue Purpose: To combine two lots in the Reside"~ial Zoning District City Planner Beth Knoblauch gave a summary of Mr. Olin's request commenting to the Commission that he has amended his request by eliminating the' addition of his lot at 6900 Harold Avenue in this request because of a variance situation. Mr. Olin was proposing to take a portion of the vacant lot, to the south of his lot, and add this to the lot where his house is located. Mr. Olin is now requesting only to have the twojvacant lots 10oatacUo the south,and. southeast of his property consolidated. City Planner Knoblauch reviewed a 'portion of a half section map showing Mr. Olin's property at 6900 Harold Avenue, the~acant lot andthe:.eity-owned vacant loh I\'::\,i ,,;'s t 'f ~nt!r,'tr. ;...::\~!(>"~'.~~t.Tt:~ ~ "':..:-' , ,j Ms. Knoblauch reviewed seven factorS in City Code that need to be met in order for this minor subdivision to be approved. City Planner Knoblauch re\(iewe~& requ.ired easements andfhe " necessary review by other agencies, as noted in'her staff memo to the Commission. The City Engineering Department has not yet made a final determination of easements; there is a storm sewer that runs through the city-owned land and this easement will need ,to be maintained. ' .' Because Glenwood Avenue is a County road, staff believe'thaMhe county will ask for seven (7) feet of right-of-way . !', . , City Planner Knoblauch told the Commission that staff is recommending approval of MrrOlin's ;; request to consolidate these two southern vacant lots with the following conditions:.'!. ., ',',.' f · 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, the City Engineer shall make a final determination as to appropriate location of easements. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 1996 Page Two · 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. Chair Prazak asked staff if it was unusual that the applicant did not mention what he intended to use the lot for. Ms. Knoblauch commented that it is not a requirement to state the intent for the use of the newly created lot; it is zoned single-family residential and is developable. Mr. Paul Olin, applicant, commented that he had no immediate plans for the proposed consolidated lot. Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing. Commissioners Kapsner and Groger commented that they do not see a problem with the proposal as now presented. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed lot consolidation, subject to the conditions outlined by staff, as noted above. III. Informal Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Applicant: Twin City Townhomes, Inc. Address: 912 North Lilac Drive Purpose: To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from low density to medium density to allow for a 1 Q-unit town home development to be placed on three separate lots IV. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning and Planned Unit Development - Preliminary Design Plan Review Applicant: Twin City Townhomes, Inc. Address: 912 North Lilac Drive Purpose: Rezone the property from Open Development to Multiple Dwelling (M-1); and Preliminary Design Plan Review for a 1 Q-unit townhome development to be placed on three separate lots Director Mark Grimes gave a summary of his report to the Planning Commission noting that there were three issues to be reviewed, and required a recommendation to the City Council. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 1996 Page Three The three issues are: 1) to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from low density (1-4 units per acre) to medium density (5-12 units per acre); 2) rezone 912 No. Lilac Drive from Open Development to Multiple Family (M-1); and 3) the property will become a Planned Unit Development due to setback issues and the shared driveway. This type of proposal is consistent with what has been done in the past. Director Grimes talked about the size of the lot and reviewed the zoning of the properties which abut the proposal and directly across Hwy. 100. Mr. Grimes also told the Commission that according to the MnDOT, Hwy. 100, in this vicinity, will be one of the first areas to be updated because of the Hwy. 100 overpass. He also commented that the frontage roads, on both sides of Hwy. 100 would be part of the update from the railroad tracks up to Thotland. MnDOT will be requesting approximately 30 feet of right-of-way from this property which will reduce the size of the proposed lot. Mr. Grimes talked about the policy of the Housing Plan. Staff encourages different types of housing for different income categories and age cycles; these categories fit the City's goals of the Livable Communities Act. Director Grimes told the Commission that it is very difficult to find locations in Golden Valley for town home development. He believes that this is one location where this type of development could occur, especially if the parcel to the south and east could be included. The parcel to the south is zoned open development; a single-family home is located on this lot, which is approximately the same size as the proposed lot. The outlot to the east is zoned single-family residential and is used as a buffer for the owner who lives on Toledo Avenue. This outlot has a 14 foot access (east to west) over the south side of the proposed lot. Director Grimes also talked about whether the proposed development could go ahead without the southern lot and how well it could be done. He has talked with the City Engineer who commented that if the proposed lot and southern lot were developed at the same time, it could then share a common road. Director Grimes also talked about the unlikely possibility of extending Unity Avenue to the south because of the grade difference and that it would be easier to have a driveway off the frontage road. Also discussed was the traffic of 9 trips per day per unit. Staff believe that once Hwy. 100 is updated this would not be a problem. The City Engineer did not believe that the 90-100 trips per day would be a problem either. Director Grimes commented that the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment would have to be reviewed by the Metro Council who will look at the affect that the development may have on the highway system and park system. They will review the City's livable community goals which were submitted to them. He talked about the rezoning of the property and the owners of the lot to the south being most affected; they have been looking at an empty lot for many years and now they would be looking at a 10-unit development. Mr. Grimes questioned whether this rezoning would be considered spot zoning which staff believe is not because this is a large enough parcel which can accommodate the proposed townhomes. He speculated that if the site was zoned to single- family residential that this lot could accommodate approximately four or five houses with a cul-de- sac and could be in the range of more affordable homes. He said that the southern lot would still be affected by about 50 trips per day. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 1996 Page Four The City Engineering Department has reviewed the plans and submitted a review outlining issues that need to be addressed, Le. how the lot can handle sanitary sewer and water. These improvements would be handled by the developer. The plan will be reviewed by the Watershed District. The Engineering Department believes water on the site can be handled by ponding on the site or off-site. Fire and Inspections have found the design to be acceptable. Director Grimes said that a park dedication fee would be changed, probably $500 per lot, because this is a new development. Director Grimes briefly discussed the landscaping on the proposed development saying that the Commission may want to recommend that the developer give more attention to the surrounding area and particularly the southern side of the development regarding landscaping. The developer and City may want to work with the City Forester to see which of the better trees are worth saving. Director Grimes told the Commission that there are some tough issues to be addressed with this development regarding the amendment to the Comprehensive land Use Map and Rezoning, and what are the important issues to be addressed, Le. alternative housing in Golden Valley. Staff believe that this is a logical location for a townhome development if done well and with minimal effects on the surrounding property owners. He told the Commission that when reviewing the PUD, they could suggest conditions that would make this lot developable minimizing the effect on the surrounding property owners. Commissioner Pentel asked staff if she was correct in saying, that at the south side of the property there would be a variance of 19 feet from the required 25 feet which included the 14 foot easement for a driveway for the outlot located on the east side of the proposed development. Staff answered yes. Mr. Grimes commented that the driveway situation creates a problem in that it minimizes the amount of landscaping that can be done on those 14 feet. Commissioner Pentelcommented that although the developer would be marketing the townhomes to empty nesters and senior citizens, it is not assured that owners of the town homes would come from this segment of the market. Commissioner Pentel was also concerned about the middle unit not having access to the rear yard unless the owner went out the front door and went around the building. She asked staff who would make the decision to have steps constructed to the rear yard. Director Grimes commented that the developer could answer that question, although stairs are permitted to go into the setback area. Commissioner Pentel also asked staff if there is anything in the code that would preclude owners from using their garage space as living space. Director Grimes commented that the Planning Commission can accept the plans of the PUD showing the two garage spaces per unit. Chair Prazak asked Mr. Grimes to comment on the outlot and the impact this proposal may have on it. Mr. Grimes commented that the outlot does not have direct access to the street. He believes that somehow when Thotland's Twin View Terrace 2nd Addition was developed, an easement was granted to the Outlot for access out to No. Lilac Drive. Mr. Grimes also commented that the owner of the Outlot had no idea that an easement existed, that he had bought the property as a buffer to the west. Grimes also commented that outlots are not allowed today; every lot needs to have access to a street. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 1996 Page Five Commissioner Kapsner asked staff about MnDOT's plans if the access to the service road was going to connect Duluth Street to the north. Commissioner Pentel said that she had seen the plans and did not believe there was access to Duluth Street but to Golden Valley Road. Commissioner Kapsner commented that there is limited access to this area. Forrest Harstad, owner of Twin City Townhomes, commented that he has been constructing new homes since the mid-70's and that he builds and develops full neighborhoods of affordable town homes in the value price range. Mr. Harstad commented on Commissioner Pentel's concern of the middle unit and no direct access to the rear yard. Mr. Harstad said that that particular building has walk out basements to the rear yard, the patio will be under the deck. Commissioner Pentel asked Mr. Harstad if there was a grade at this particular building so a walkout was feasible; Mr. Harstad said yes. Commissioner Pentel asked if the other two buildings had walkouts and if they had steps from their decks. Mr. Harstad commented that the other two buildings had look-out basements and the decks did not have stairs. He believed that the owners could go through the townhome association requesting stairs for their decks. Chair Prazak told the Commission and audience that two communications had been received regarding this proposal. Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing. . The people listed below were against the proposed townhome development for one or more of the following reasons: · Previous Council had stated that this area would be single-family residential. · Believes area should remain single-family residential. . · Disturbed about amendment to Comprehensive Plan Map from one unit per acre to six units per acre. · Concerns that townhomes will become rental property. . Concerns with low areas and water runoff or stagnant water. · Concerns with roadway system and little traffic control in this area. · Doesn't believe this will be empty nester housing and would like area to remain the same so children can grow up in a safe area. · Believes that development would violate the spirit and intent of the neighborhood - area is secluded, little traffic and good area to raise children. · Believes that townhome development does not relate to the neighborhood. · Doesn't believe that construction of town homes would be up-to-par with the homes located in this area (visited site of already-built townhomes). · Would like the Commission and Council to make a decision that will improve the City as a whole. · Concerned about the variance request on the north side of the proposed property and the lack of remaining greenspace and landscaping. Loren Dekko, 5321 Thotland Road . John Miller, 1025 Unity Ave. No. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 1996 Page Six Joyce Miller, 1025 Unity Ave. No. Sidney Robin, 921 Toledo Ave. No. Norma Molina, 1100 Toledo Ave. No. Steve Robin, 5901 Laurel Avenue lone Siegel, 930 Toledo Ave. No. Shellie Reed, 1040 Toledo Ave. No. Steve and Konni Yingst, 900 No. Lilac Drive, live directly south of proposed development. They are concerned with their children's safety because of the increased traffic. They had thought that when the northern property would be developed, their land would be developed at the same time, although they are not ready to think about developing their property at this time. They would like their children to grow up on this land because of the space and privacy, but have not ruled out future development. Mrs. Yingst asked the Commission and Council to take time in considering this request and that when a decision is made, the City can be proud of the outcome. Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Pentel told the Commission that she lives directly east of the proposal. Commissioner Kapsner commented that he does have some concerns, one being the increased traffic per day. Chair Prazak also said that he was concerned because the proposed development does not address the parcel to the south and east and isolates the single-family home, to the south, from the rest of the neighborhood. Commissioner Johnson said she was concerned that the owners of the southern property and outlot, could go into perpetuity on waiting to develop, preventing development on this property. Commissioner Pentel commented that if this development would go forward, the City would be setting the standard for development of the properties to the south. and east. Chair Prazak commented that he sees no compelling reason to change the Comprehensive Plan Map or zoning of the property at this time. The lot could be divided into four or five single-family lots. Commissioner Kapsner said that the best plan for the best use is to wait for a developer to put together all three pieces of property, instead of separating the properties. Commissioner Groger commented that even if all three parcels were combined, he was not sure he would vote for a higher density use on the site. Commissioner Lewis said she believes that the site needs to be developed and that housing is needed in the City, but the residents have come out to let the Planning Commission know how they feel about the development. She said she is concerned about the variance requests. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 1996 Page Seven Commissioner Pentel commented on Mr. Harstad's attempt to contact the neighbors by inviting them to an open house, of another development he was completing. Commissioner Kapsner said that the Planning Commission and residents need to think about needed housing in Golden Valley other than single-family housing; this is a very important issue for the City to address. He said that if this were rental housing he would not even consider the request and is surprised by the overwhelming objection of this development. Chair Prazak commented that townhome developments have their place and don't need to be feared, but he has concerns that this would be an isolated townhome development and would like to see a development that deals with the southern property and eastern outlot. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council to deny the request to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Map from low density to medium density. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council to deny the request to rezone the property from Open Development to Multiple Dwelling (M-1). MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City council to deny the request for PUD No. 73-Preliminary Design Plan. V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. City Council. and Board of Zoning Appeals Chair Prazak reported on the meeting he attended concerning McDonald's request for a Conditional Use Permit. VI. Other Business A. Discussions with Mayor Anderson Chair Prazak acknowledged Mayor Mary Anderson's presence and welcomed her to the discussion of Valley Square items. She told the Commission that their meeting of tonight was very well done. Mayor Anderson told the Commission. that the Council voted 2-3 against doing anything with the old post office site. Some members were concerned that the Planning Commission had not had input on the use of this piece of property. The Council directed the bids to be delayed and to direct staff to have the streetscape finished and return to the Council with an interim use of the site. As one of the liaisons to the Commission, Mayor Anderson had volunteered to solicit their opinion as to long term use. Several Commissioners indicated that they thought additional Civic Center parking was needed on an occasional basis. Commissioner Lewis asked if McDonald's still had an interest in the site. Mayor Anderson told her that McDonald's wanted to lease or rent a portion of the lot for parking. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 1996 Page Eight Commissioner Pentel suggested that at least part of the site be used for a public plaza with a "buy a brick" concept like Robbinsdale has used with great success. Mayor Anderson said that the assumption is that when the City is able to acquire the remainder of Area B, there will be another citizen's task force and that this Commission will be involved, but the old post office lotis on hold until property in Area B is acquired. Commissioner Johnson asked Mayor Anderson if the old post office site would be parking. Mayor Anderson said that the site would have a smooth surface for parking and was not sure if a building could be constructed, but there has been some brainstorming for a use for the site. Commissioner Johnson thought that a farmers market was a good idea but where would everyone park. Mayor Anderson cautioned the Commission not to dismiss ideas just because there might be a problem. City Planner Knoblauch asked Mayor Anderson about the City Council hearing concerning the housing element. Mayor Anderson said that the housing element was on the schedule for discussion at an upcoming City/Manager meeting in October; She said that discussion of the housing element had been delayed because the City Council had not had an opportunity to delve into the reading of the materials submitted, but that she did not feel the Council had any particular problem with the excellent work done on the Plan by the Commission. B. Discussion of Retail Sales in the Industrial Zoning District along 1-394 Director Grimes told the Commission that he had been approached by several developers concerning retail sales along 1-394. He continued by telling the Commission that many of the buildings and lots are nonconforming. Staff believe that the market has changed in this area due to the reconstruction of 1-394 and other freeways and developers believe the best use would be retail. Director Grimes asked the Commission if this is something that they would like to visit. Commissioner McAleese said that he would be willing to look at this issue but does not believe there is an answer because of the nonconformities of the existing buildings. Director Grimes said that the problems seem to be parking and setback issues. Chair Prazak said staff and the Commission should address this issue and specify how the City would like to see retail and what conditions need to be attached. Commissioner Groger asked about looking at the Comprehensive Map. City Planner Knoblauch said that she would like to see the park and housing plan updated before looking at other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Groger suggested looking at the entire plan to see if there needs to be a special district. City Planner Knoblauch said that 1-394 is fairly unique. The Commission asked staff to put together an October tour of the 1-394 area. C. Planning Commission Representative for the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Meetings of September 24, 1996 Commissioner Lewis said that she could attend the BZA meeting of September 24 as the Planning Commission representative. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 1996 Page Nine VII. Adjournment Chair Prazak adjourned the Golden Valley Planning Commission meeting at 9: 15 PM. Jean Lewis, Secretary . . . ~ MEMORANDUM Date: September 26, 1996 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing - Zahrendt Addition, Lots 13 and 14, Block 4, Tyrol Hills (1307 June Avenue South) - Dolores Zahrendt, Applicant Eleanor Yager, representing the owner of the subject property, Dolores Zahrendt, has requested a minor subdivision of Lots 13 and 14, Block 4, Tyrol Hills. The purpose of the minor subdivision is to move the property line that divides the two lots by taking approximately 1650 sq.ft. from Lot 14 and adding it to Lot 13. Currently, the north lot (or Lot 13) is a nonconforming lot because it does meet the requirement of having 100 feet of width- at the front setback line. (Lot 13 is considered a comer lot. Comer lots must have a minimum width of 100 feet.) Lot 13 is currently vacant with a difficult terrain for future building. Lot 14 is the location of the Zahrendt house. The proposed minor subdivision would not create two lots that conform with the zoning code because even after moving the lot line, the north lot would not meet the minimum 100 foot width requirement at the front setback line. In order to complete this subdivision, the City Council must grant a variance for the subdivision to be completed. The total area of the property to be subdivided is about 26,500 sq. ft. Lot 13 is currently about 12,300 sq. ft. in area and Lot 14 about 14,200 sq.ft. in area. The proposal is to basically make Lot 13 larger by adding a triangular parcel to it from the n~rth end of Lot 14. This triangular parcel is about 1650 sq.ft. in area. This will increase the size ofthe Parcel A (old Lot 13) from about 12,300 sq.ft. to 14,036 sq.ft. It reduces the size of the Parcel B (old lot 14) from about 14,070 sq. ft. to about 12,420 sq.ft. The basic problem with this minor subdivision is that after the minor subdivision is completed, it will not meet the requirements of the Zoning Code. The north lot will still not have the required 100 feet of frontage at the front setback line (June Avenue). I calculate the width of proposed Parcel A (north lot) to be about 87 feet at the front setback line. Parcel B would continue to exceed all minimum requirements for single family lots in the Residential Zoning District. Because Parcel A does not meet the minimum lot requirements in the Residential Zoning District, a variance from the City Council is necessary if this minor 1 subdivision is to be approved. As required by the Platting Code (Section 12.20, Subd. 5(B), the applicant has requested a variance from the minimum width requirement. . Lot 13, as it exists today, is considered a legal building site. The City Code allows any lot that was in existence when the Zoning Code was adopted to remain a legal lot as long as it meets all setback requirements. (The Tyrol Hills plat was established in the first half of this century.) The lot could be built on "as is"; however, the house would be quite small to meet all setback requirements. The proposed subdivision increases the buildable area of the lot in order that a more normal sized home, with a garage, may be built on it. The other option that is available to the owner is to keep the lots as they are and ask the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for a variance from setback requirements on Lot 13. This is not preferred by the owner because they would like to market the lot knowing that a normal sized house may be built on it without the need for a variance. In any case, building on Lot 13 or Parcel A will require a unique design due to the steep slopes existing on the lot. I cannot say that the lot is unbuildable because of other similar lots in the Tyrol area that have homes built on them. Because of today's building technology, practically any lot is buildable. Approval of a minor subdivision application is based on a consideration of factors found in Section 12.50, Subd. 3 of City Code. Information on the seven factors that . affect this particular application are as follows: 1. Compliance with the Zoning Disbict Requirement - Proposed Parcel A will not meet the minimum width requirement of 100 feet for a corner lot. The width of the lot at the front setback line from June Avenue is about 87 feet. As shown on the survey of the property, there is an adequately sized building area on the new Parcel A that meets all setback requirements. Parcel B exceeds all size require-ments of the Residential Zoning District. However, the existing house does not meet the required front setback of 35 feet. The house is set back only 34.17 feet from June Avenue. This matter will have to be addressed by the BZA prior to this minor subdivision being reviewed by the City Council. 2. Steep Slopes or Excessive Wetness in Buildable Areas - The proposed Parcel A has existing steep slopes. With today's building technologies, the lot is buildable. Similar lots have been built on in Golden Valley. Development of the lot should not have an adverse effect on adjoining properties. 3. Availability of Sewer and Water Service - Utilities are available to the vacant lot. . 2 . . . 4. Required Easements - At this time, no final decision has been made on any change in existing easements or if new easements will be required. The Engineering Department will be consulted prior to completion of the final plat. 5. Review by Other Agencies - Since the frontage road is a State road, notice of the plat has been sent to the State. As of this date, a response from the State has not been received. Staff does not expect any comments that would change the minor subdivision. Access to the new lot is proposed from Tyrol Trail rather than June Avenue due to the topography of the site. 6. Title Review - Because there will be no public dedication of property, a title review will not be required. 7. Park Dedication - There will be no park dedication requirement because no new lots are being created. Variance Request As stated above, the applicant has requested a variance to allow for the lot to be narrower than required by Code. The applicant believes that this request is reasonable due to the difficult topography of the property and because of the previous taking of property for T.H. 12. It appears that some years ago (staff cannot find the exact date), the state acquired additional right-of-way for T.H. 12 from Lot 13. This taking is show on the survey by a dotted line north of the existing property line along Wayzata Blvd. The owners believe that by moving the lot line, the new lot that is created will be a larger lot that will be more adaptable to today's building sizes. There are three findings that the City Council has to make regarding the subdivision variance. They are as noted in Section 12.54, Subd. 1 (A): · There are special circumstances for conditions affecting said property so that the strict application of the provisions of this chapter would create an unusual hardship and deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Economic difficulty or inconvenience shall not constitute a hardship situation for the purpose of this ordinance. · The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 3 · The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood in which said property is situated. . Although the owner could present a variance request to the BZA for a future building on the existing Lot 13, I believe that the subdivision variance creates a more acceptable lot that will meet the setback requirements of the Zoning Code. I would condition the approval of this subdivision variance by stating that there would be no variances granted for the construction of a home on Parcel A. Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of the proposed minor subdivision with the variance for lot width as requested. The proposed new Parcel A meets all requirements of the code except for the lot width. Parcel B will be slightly smaller. The existing house is only 34.17 feet from the front property line rather than the required 35 feet which will require a variance. Staff is recommending that this minor subdivision be approved contingent on the BZA granting a waiver for the front yard setback of .83 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.17 feet for the existing house on Parcel B. Staff believe that this variance must first be granted by the BZA before the minor subdivision is approved by the City Council because City Code states that a subdivision may only be approved when it meets all the requirements of the . zoning district. Staff recommends concept approval of the minor subdivision with the following conditions: 1. The variance for the lot width on Parcel A be accepted with the condition that no setback variances be applied for by the owners of the property for future construction. 2. The house on Parcel B be made legally nonconforming by the BZA prior to the minor subdivision being approved by the City Council. 3. Prior to approval of the final plat, the City Engineer shall make a final determination on the need for any additional easements. MWG:mkd Attachments: Location Map Preliminary Plat . 4 . L\ ~ m M I - ~ a . ~ - V) fB . ~ V) m 0 M Q" I 0 - cr Q" r ,. ~ . i Ole '01 .. 1 I on .. !: u... ~ I I A: If .1 . .I . ~ 0 D... - m .... . J. M os . .. ...~ I " - ..~- ... u = u "' - . -,- - , : . , , o' q: 0, "', : , , . , ----L-... 1 I \ I I I I I . 394 ,_ 1014~ . I - . . - . , - , '/F-' , 50:00' ----:,7'1"<:- , 50-:00 ' , ==rl-'-~ -50:00 - '-:7----1---' , "45.00 ' -'7"1--- 3cuio --7 ( ,,-,. - , , - , , - , , - , , - . I I I: I . I I: , ! : (FrAYZAl'A BOl/lEf(AR.f)) 1 i Iii r N. UNE, LOT 13, BLOCK 4, SUIoU.tIT PARK i : . ~ ! ~ ! ",,! i I! , lill :Ii -L- ~ Iii I r- i - -: - r::1 gr-,' - ~i 81 I I . I .."....' , i i I 1::....) 51 i :il i . EAST . I S86OJ3'59- I I ! Ii! I 30.26 '. i 50.09 E : i sao' S'LY ~GHT-OF'-WAY UNE DESCRIBED IN DOC. NO. 2018029 -\ , . , , ,:, , 'SO -s. J5-f , , i' .... i Ii'. .: . .64 ~ I : I I \ ~.. : ,. : I S86"l1'09-E EAST! \, , ,. 4510 :! ,.;-3.53 I I ,. 35 PARCa A . ,I..... '.: - ~ ~ : ( ARU.- 14.038 ) I "\ ............ ~ :,1IUIlJlINCl SEllIACI( UNE .,j1Jl tf) -L ". ~8 ~ ----" ----~~ - - ~ ~O I _1HUC- ~ _ 0 ,_, llf ID1' 14"" . .-i ~ ....1"iIIaIIft aa-A. \ 1"1 al INTERSTATE UIGUffAY NO. ~ 0....: ~ ..... ~ I J ~ ~ I \ \ \ \ I 0 ......::\ ..,.L... ~ o 'C"" ~~ '\ \ ~ ~ '7 ~ ~ . ~IO ID 0 If> iii o co o z PARca B ( AREA- 12,420 ) JE. .( , 0 ' ... SURVEY FOR: PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1307 June Avenue South, Golden Valley, Minnesota. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 13 and 14, Block 4, Tyrol Hills, Hennepin Cou EDINA REALTY faJNll IRllN \1 ':f S82"Z6'48-W '\51.00 . CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this map or plat was prepared by ml am a duly Ucensed land Surveyor under the laws of the : Dated this 7th day of August, 1996 Revised this 13th day of August 1996 't~ Revised this 3rd day of September, 1996 Revised this 18th day of September. 1996 11 '(f) . . . . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: September 24, .1996 Members of the Planning Commission Beth Knoblauch, City Planner Golden Valley Setback Requirements Rick Groger has suggested that the Planning Commission might want to spend some time studying the issue of setbacks in various zoning districts. McDonald's is only the most recent of several cases where applicants for one type of permit or another have complained of Golden Valley's setback requirements being unreasonable. Such applicants invariably reel off a whole list of all the other communities around the Twin Cities that do things differently. While not prepared to say that all those other communities are "rightD and Golden Valley is "wrongD, it has occurred to Rick that the subject would probably be easier to explore if discussion did not have to take place in the middle of a public hearing for a specific project. Staff agree wholeheartedly. Please give this suggestion some thought over the next few days. At Monday night's meeting, Chair Prazak will ask you to indicate your individual level of interest in pursuing the setback issue. If enough of you can agree on a specific goal and a reasonable plan of action, staff will try to set the ball rolling.