10-09-95 PC Agenda
.
I.
~
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
-October 9, 1995
7:00 PM
Approval of Minutes - September 26, 1995
...
II. Informal Public Hearing - Subdivision (Preliminary Plat)
Applicant:
Address:
Purpose:
.
III.
Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning
..~
;
Applicant:
Address:
Purpose:
PBK Investments Inc. .
3940 and 4010 Glenwood Avenue
Subdivide a portion of the property located at 3940 and all of
4010 Glenwood Avenue for the purpose of creating three
platted residential lots
Daniel Otten/Otten Realty
1800 Winnetka Avenue North
Rezone the property from Single-Family Residential to
R-2 (Two-Family Residential) to allow for the construction
of a two-family dwelling.
IV. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision
Applicant:
Address:
Purpose:
V.
Other Business
VI.
Adjournment
.
Daniel Otten/Otten Realty
1800 Winnetka Avenue North
j
Subdivide the existing lot which would allow each half of the
proposed tWo-family dwelling to be situated on its own lot
>,
<:
~
"
-
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 pro-
posed 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 Commissionls recommenda-
tion. in reaching its decision.
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 recommenda-
tion from staff. Commission members may ask questions of staff.
2. The proponent 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 qu.stions/comments if a large number
of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spok!spersons for
groups will have a longer pertod 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 deter-
mine 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.
-
. .
:
,
.:
,
,
i
,
;
.'
;
i
,
I
.
.
.>. "
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley
Planning Commission
September 26, 1995
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council
Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called
to order by Chair Prazak at 7:00 PM.
Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, McAleese and Prazak; absent
were Lewis and Pentel. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development,
and Elizabeth Knoblauch, City Planner.
I. Approval of Minutes -August 28,1995
MOVED by Groger, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to approve the August
28, 1995 minutes as submitted with the following correction: Informal Public Hearing Item under
Address change Northwest Quadrant to Northeast Quadrant.
II. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit
Applicant:
Marcellino Y. Hark
Address:
9405 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Request:
To legalize the nonconforming gas service station and permit the expansion
of the convenience food store in the Commercial Zoning District
Mark Grimes gave a brief summary of his report to the Commissioners dated September 22
commenting on the convenience store, car wash, and easement area to the west of the building.
He also told the Commission that Mr. Hark provided the Planning Department and Inspections with
a "Hold Harmless" letter because Mr. Hark intended to begin renovations before the Conditional
Use Permit would appear before the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Hark is aware
that he cannot begin his operation until the permit is granted.
Commissioner Groger asked if staff was concerned about so much parking to the rear of the
building, where there is no store access. Mr. Grimes commented that most of the patrons would
be those already pulled up at a pump; signs will be posted to prevent cars from sitting in traffic
areas at the front; landscaping will be added at a "no parking" marked area in the northeast corner
of the site to prevent cars from blocking that driveway.
Marcellino Hark, applicant, commented that the convenience store/gas station will serve a public
good as the only 24-hour convenience store operation in the immediate area.
1
Commission Johnson asked the applicant if he would be supplying the same types of products that
the other two local stores provide. Mr. Hark responded that basically yes, but he would also be
supplying automotive products; no alcohol will be sold, this is a Union 76 policy.
Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 26, 1995
Page Two
Steve Halseth, owner of the Westview Liquor Store - 2500 Mendelssohn Ave. No., said he was
concerned about the easement being blocked by cars and does not like the idea of local traffic
turning off Mendelssohn and driving through to the service station/convenience store by way of his
easement which he maintains. He also believes the car wash will be busy, not permitting any
parking in that area.
Jagdish Patel, owner of Westview SuperEtte - 2500 Mendelssohn Ave. No, commented that he
shortened his business hours due to the lack of business in the early and later hours of the day, so
feels there is no need for a 24-hour operation. He also believes that the proposed site is already
crowded and pointed out that a Super America proposal for pumps was turned down because of
the small size of the lot.
Dennis Rock, 2404 Hillsboro Avenue No., stated that he is the president of the Galant Patio
Townhome Association. The association feels the area is already well served by two existing
convenience stores and does not like the idea of a 24-hour operation in the neighborhood. He
also talked about traffic cutting through the two lots (via the easement) to get to Hwy. 169 from
Mendelssohn Ave. instead of using the frontage road. He also commented on the need for lighting
to the rear of the building for parking and this will illuminate light onto the housing across
Mendelssohn to the south.
John Gannon, 1532 Boone Avenue North, commented that he supports the proposed use and
thinks there is a need for 24-hour convenience goods and sees no basis for concerns voiced by
others in the audience.
Mr. Hark commented that the gas station has always been open 24 hours. He believes that most
of his business will come off of Medicine Lake Road and doesn't expect to see customers he
serves cutting through from behind his building.
Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing.
Commissioner Kapsner said that he is concerned about parking in the rear but that similar
operations don't have convenient non-pump parking and that the few convenient spaces still do
not fill up. Mr. Kapsner said he would not approve this 'as "new construction" but thinks the
situation is different because this is an existing business that just wants to remain effective.
Commissioner Johnson asked about rear lighting and staff commented that there is existing
lighting on the site. Ms. Johnson also asked about maintenance of easement area to the west of
the building. Mr. Hark commented that he did not know the legal responsibilities, but that he
and/or UnoCal would be dealing with the easement when doing other repairing of the site in the
near future. Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant about keeping the easement free from
cars. Mr. Hark offered to have the area striped. Commissioner Kapsner recommended requiring
"No Parking" signs and the applicant agreed. Commissioner Johnson stated that she is somewhat
concerned about adding a third convenience store to the area but not enough to vote against it.
She stated that she lives in the area.
Commissioner Groger commented that he is not concerned with the parking on the site. He
agreed that this proposal would not be acceptable as a new construction, but as an existing
business the issues are somewhat different.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 26, 1995
Page Three
Commissioner McAleese felt thaUhe front setback issue should be addressed by the Board of
Zoning Appeals and would like to see the easement issues resolved before this matter goes before
the City Council for approval; if the easement agreement does not contain appropriate language
then it should be outlined in the CUP.
Chair Prazak agreed with the comments of the Commissioners.
MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend to
the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit for 9405 Medicine Lake Road with the
condition that "No Parking" signs be posted in the easement area.
III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authori~.
Ci~ Council. Board of Zoning Appeals. Communi~ Standards Task
Force, and Valley Square Task Force
Chair Prazak reported on an HRA meeting where he presented Area B recommendations and the
HRA suggested that the Planning Commission and HRA meet to discuss recommendations, at an
as-yet unspecified date.
Planning Director Grimes told the Commission that the former supermarket is now for sale instead
of lease. Seasonal Concepts will be using the building for three months.
Commissioner Groger updated the Commission on Task Force meetings.
IV. Other Business
Mr. Dick Curry presented a townhouse concept which would be located at the southwest corner of
Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive (Minnegasco site).
Planning Director Mark Grimes commented that the Public Safety Department is concerned
because of the location of the propane tanks; this proposal does meet legal distancing
requirements. Staff also has concern about the tower on the site. Minnegasco is ready to sell this
portion of the property.
Mr. Curry commented that at this point he only wanted to know if there was a possibility of
approval for the project. He said that if he did not get a flat "no" from the Commission he would
proceed with additional studies of market, etc. Mr. Curry said that the townhomes would be priced
at $90-$100,000 and a berm of 12' x 20' will be built to the south of the property to buffer the
residences from the tank area. Minnegasco would also like to sell the office building located near
the site. Mr. Curry commented that he is not sure what he would do with the office building. He
suggested maybe reside it to match the townhomes and it may stay an office building or it could
possibly be divided up into apartments.
The Commission told Mr. Curry that the proposed design could be a possibility for the North end of
the Minnegasco site.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 26, 1995
Page Four
V. Adjournment
Chair Prazak adjourned the meeting at 8:25 PM.
Jean Lewis, Secretary
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
September 3,1995
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Plat of "Boardwalk" __
9340 and 4010 Glenwood Avenue -- PBK Investments, Inc.,
Applicant
Thomas Lindquist of PBK Inc. has requested a preliminary plat of the property located
at 3940 and 4010 Glenwood Avenue. PBK is the owner of the lot at 4010 Glenwood
and Ruth Thorness is the owner of the lot at 3940 Glenwood Avenue. There are
currently two unplatted lots. The proposal is to resubdivide the property into three
single family lots. The house at 4010 Glenwood would be torn down and the house
where Mrs. Thorness lives would remain. Two new building lots would be created west
of 3940 Glenwood Avenue.
The property at 3940 Glenwood Avenue is involved in this preliminary plat in order to
allow the two westerly lots to meet the minimum width requirement. The lot owned by
PBK is 150 feet wide. If this lot by itself was divided in two, each lot would be only 75
feet wide. The minimum lot width requirement for lots in the Residential Zoning District
is 80 feet. In order to obtain enough property to create two additional 80 foot lots, PBK
approached Mrs. Thorness. She is willing to sell PBK the west 10 feet of her property
because her lot exceeds the 80 foot minimum width by 30 feet. Her new lot will be 100
feet wide and the two westerly lots will each be 80 feet wide.
The total area of the three lots is 58,543 sq.ft. The individual lot sizes are 11,488 sq.ft.
for Lot 1, 28,936 sq.ft. for Lot 2, and 18,119 sq.ft. for Lot 3. Each of the lots exceeds
the minimum lot area requirement of 10,000 sq.ft.
I have reviewed the plan with the City Engineer. Public utilities are available to the lots
in GlenwoodAvenue. However, the availability of sanitary sewer may depend on the
design of the house due to the shallow depth of the sewer in Glenwood Avenue. The
builder of the house must consult with the Engineering Department prior to its design.
The drainage pattern from the site will not alter significantly after the two new houses
are constructed. Water from the site generally drains to Glenwood Avenue.
Memo - Boardwalk Plat
Page Two
The preliminary plat has been submitted to the Hennepin County Public Works
Department for their review and comment. They will make comments on the effect of
the development on Glenwood Avenue which is a county road. I have spoken to the
City Engineer about the County comments. Generally, the County allows one driveway
cut for each lot. In the case of "Boardwalk", there will be one driveway for each of the
lots. Currently, there are three driveways for the two lots. (The 4010 Glenwood
Avenue.has two driveways.)
The County usually requests that the City require additional right-of-way dedication for
any subdivision along a county road. If the County does require such dedication, this
will have to be indicated on the final plat. Because the proposed houses are all set
back from the existing street by more than 40 feet, the additional dedication should not
be an issue. Also, the additional dedication of right-of-way does not reduce the lot size
of any of the three lots below the required 10,000 sq.ft. minimum.
The plan by PBK is for Lot 1 and 2 to share the one driveway on Lot 2. (There will be
space for a driveway for Lot 1 but it is the intent of PBK to not build this driveway.) The
reduction of the number of driveways onto Glenwood Avenue is a benefit to both the
City and the County.
The preliminary plat of "Boardwalk" indicates the proposed location of the homes to be
built on Lots 1 and 2. The homes each meet or exceed the minimum lot setback
requirements. These setbacks are indicated on the preliminary plat. Lot 2 is somewhat
unique because the house is to be placed toward the rear of the lot. The house could
be placed as close as 35 feet from Glenwood Avenue. However, it may be placed at
any point past 35 feet as long as the rear yard setback requirement is met. In this case
the proposed house is to be placed 160 feet north of Glenwood Avenue. This will allow
for a larger house to be built because the lot is much wider at the north end of the lot.
The proposed house could not be located at the 35 foot setback line because of the
width of the house. The Thorness house on Lot 3 will remain in its existing location.
This house is located to the east side of the lot. The house is nonconforming on the
east side because it does not meet the minimum side yard setback requirement of 15
feet. (The house is setback only 3-4 feet from the east property line.) Because this is,
an existing setback violation on the east side of the lot, the nonconforming setback may
continue. The subdivision code would not allow a new subdivision if the house would
have been too close to the new, west property line.
There are other single family homes located to the north, south, east and west of this
preliminary plat. The house directly to the north along Roanoke will be closest to the
house to be built on Lot 2. The proposed house will be about 75 feet from the new
house. There will have to be some trees taken down to build the house. The house on
Lot 1 will be about 20 feet east of the house directly to the west. Trees will also have to
be removed to build a house on this lot. The City of Golden Valley does not have a tree
.
.
.
.
.
.
Memo - Boardwalk Plat
Page Three
preservation ordinance that would require that a certain amount of tree be kept. I-would
hope that the owners would try to _maintain as many of the trees as possible on the lots.
The old house at 4010 Glenwood Avenue is in a state of disrepair. Its rernovaJ is
probably best for the neighborhood. The two new houses will be much larger with a
much higher value.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The preliminary plat of "Boardwalk" that has been submitted to the City is complete. It
provides all the required information that is outlined in the Subdivision Code. Staff has
'reviewed the proposed plat and finds that it meets or exceeds the requirements of the
Code. The proposal will provide one additional building lot in Golden Valley. It will also
cause for the removal of a house that is in disrepair. The proposal will not have an
adverse impacton the City's utility' or drainage system. The proposed lots will also
minimally effect traffic flow on Glenwood Avenue.
As part of the approval of the preliminary plat the following conditions are suggested:
1.
The house at 4010 Glenwood Avenue be removed prior to the approval of the
final'plat of "Boardwalk".
2. The City Engineer approve the utility and grading plan for the two new hO,mes to
be built on Lots 1 and 2.
3. The Hennepin County Department of Public Works submit final comment to the
City. If the County requests additional right-of-way for Glenwood Avenue, this
will be shown on the final plat.
4. Staff suggests that a park dedication fee of $500 be submitted to the City prior_ to
the approval of the final plat. This is standard procedure on subdivisions when a
new lot is created.
5. If there are any proposed covenants to be placed on these lots, these should be
given to the City prior to final plat approval.
6. City Engineer may require drainage and utility easements along rear and side
property lines as part of the final plat.
MWG
Attachments:
Location Map
Preliminary Plat
..:.
Z a
'"
.Ib 4
3 .r-
~
.o~ ;,
..... -.:J' 'r
"
~ C
ll:
....g
~~
... ^
;...~ ,
:~""... ./
.;... ,.~./~
.~~
! .
'"' 19~ i; '0 r,...
.. \; ~"\.3 ~:~.:. ~'" 1"5 J . . <5-
1+--';'$ '"' 2 I:'; .... :J
,.......1 0-. ~
"'MEADQ' W,. .. "
'-lJ ~ . .. ~ ""',
.:;~ - LANE 000 "MANO~ :0::
~. .~:~. 'r3-" - Be :'.'.1"
.~~..:'I'I ",\.
4!Z" "" 3';~:'
J
4 ...." e:,.
~3~ll- ~Y.. _, ..
~6~'.'"
5
or>
.....
. (l Z ~ ,
.~, 4. t
1 -
~ ~
:1. )
2.3,
. 5 i:'..~;:=':: ~. 33'
~ ~("\VO
'0 Q ....V
~;;. ~,
....
.... 4. ,v
"'"' oJ/.1(' ~ ~o
1 co
t:' '"
8 ~
\~z. 4
+-
-
t ~
2
o
enD
tf)
C
~
i..1.1
o
.....
-"
"-
'"
;;,
1\0 ;
~.~~O .-.s>
4~".:t'
~5.s
'!P. ,0" _ "" t"!-. ", 1 -to'
~.. '-:.6 ~~. e...o
;! 5 BiRCHBA~K.
~ "- Q: 5; :
~ ,<.~
:#'0 .z !~~..."""
'~.I, ZS 51J
.
~ 6
'^
'"
./
?
"
..
'"
'>.
..
-t
......
........
'"
l'\,I .,
ADDITION TO
V"" ../ ,J" :-
01'
l
r-
o
...;; ,. ~
. ~
8 2
__..:_z..~, ...._._
r-
~ .,
~ l~
0r-
a ....
~
~Jo
l>
<::.
.~
.~ !
~.
....:,0
o
o
GO
~J.~
o
..r-
aQ
"oJ
l4'; J
~~oo
.1
~ ;: 0
.. t4
.~
fI'.-" ,
"':,.J'
rJ
....
1, I 0
. ~
0 .
,('\ '<T,
;i\ /!.i
~ ....1 ...
o"~ ....; ..
ot' ~D!
. ..:~3D
~Q.,O
~
J>
~
~
80
;w...
- 2 '0
~. .~~
~CV .o~.
15H.& '"
, 0','
" 4009
.
, .
,1::
.
--"'I~
"
"It---
. tj ~ ........~.-
"r'---',J
.
.;:
<>
<>
...
".;<.
: 11 39,#)0
GLENWOOD AVENUE
i~"
~~ T..~ ,40
;0 '" ~9.. % 'Z '"
f'II"I.. C" ~
01 ....
:..2L. __
:"".3
":,,,,:)
r..~ 'S
:,".'!~
\Q
1J".....
'::::!! .'II
"'''
r" ::-'
-l.
.1
:'~.
3
~~ . 10
'" ~___ 11S
____11!">_
.
.~'I,r;
i:f.,~'.."
f "':"J~~""
I - r
39tH ...
, ~~~ kO
n. .,
~ 00 >. t,'"
.... _~ 0
" "
,.... I ,.~
" .
.,
,,~.;.. J
.~- "
4. ~:r '"
.:.~..; . . a:
. &. .,
'0".'5. I
I
,
. :';..'; I
.. 11 - ~ { - -'.
.
Z4.:&.4 ".
- . '", - .
8_'L.
t:.i."7
, -
,
-~ .~
. II
.
11. o'y:
I 0/ ~ -
'liS
"
T,
\i
.
^
....
..
~
0::
~
a.
:c
~
0::
~
W
0::
o
C
o
w
:c
~
.
"
n
.
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
October 4, 1995
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing -- Rezoning from Residential to R-2
(Two-Family) Residential -- Lot 16, Block 1, Val-Wood Addition
(1800 Winnetka Avenue North) -- Daniel Otten, Applicant
Background
This application involves the rezoning of one residential lot along Winnetka Avenue for
duplex use. The applicant has supplied the necessary site plan showing required
setbacks and potential site development. Actual construction cannot be required to
conform exactly to this site plan, but the proposal gives an idea of what level of
development could reasonably be expected. Because Winnetka Avenue is a county road,
exact driveway locations must be approved by Hennepin County. Staff have been
informed that the County will not approve a separate driveway for each of the two
proposed duplex units. The County staff have said they will approve a plan similar to the
one shown on the proposed site plan (attached).
As you recall, Mr. Otten appeared before the Planning Commission on July 24, 1995 for a
rezoning of Lot 16 and three additional lots he owns along Winnetka Avenue (Lots 15 and
17, Block 1, Val-Wood Addition and Lot 7 and 8, Block 1, Val-Wood Second Addition).
The Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council not approve the
rezoning to R-2 for any of the lots. City Planner Beth Knoblauch wrote a memo to the City
Council dated August 4, 1995 that outlines the Planning Commission's action (attached).
Mr. Otten withdrew the rezoning application for all four lots prior to the City Council
receiving the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Otten has now decided to
submit only one lot for rezoning to R-2 and to subdivide that lot in order that both sides of
the two-family building may be sold. The previous proposal by Mr. Otten did not subdivide
the lots for individual sale of duplex units. Mr. Otten may believe that the subdivision for
individual ownership is more consistent with the existing neighborhood which is primarily
owner occupied.
In order to fully evaluate Ule potential impact of this rezoning request, it may be helpful to
know the history of duplex development in Golden Valley. For most of the City's history,
there was no distinction between single family homes and two-family homes for zoning
purposes. In 1956, the City began to require larger lots for duplexes, but still allowed them
Memo - Rezoning - Otten
Page Two
.
to be freely intermingled with single family homes. In 1965, new requirements supposedly
limited duplexes to only those locations directly abutting any heavier zoning district or
across the street from a commercial, light industrial, or industrial district. In practice,
however, those limitations were routinely being waived by the Board orZo"ning Appeals as
early as 1967. The BZA would grant a variance for reasons that included being on a busy
street, being across the street from any heavier zoning district, or having at least one other
existing duplex nearby. A separate zoning district for duplexes was not established until
1981. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 224 duplex units (or 112
buildings) scattered around Golden Valley by 1980, not including Planned Unit
Developments such as King's Valley.
Issues
Under state law, cities cannot approve rezoning applications that are in conflict with the
comprehensive plan. The plan shows that the subject lot and its surroundings are
intended for low density residential use. In Golden Valley, such use includes both single
family and two-family homes. There are two reasons for this: 1) the City has a sig-nificant
number of homes on lots of 40 to 60 feet in width, which creates in the affected areas a
density similar to that for duplexes; and 2) most of the City's duplex units are widely .
dispersed through otherwise single family areas, which means that the average density of
areas with duplexes is similar to areas with no duplexes. Because the area is designated
as equally suitable for single family or two-family homes, the rezoning currently being
requested by the applicant is in conformance with the comprehensive plan.
For staff purposes, the only other significant issue in determining whether to approve or
deny this application is minimum lot size. The lot here is 100 feet wide and over 12,500
sq.ft. in area. That means that it meets minimum width and area requirements for duplex
lots without needing to be replatted. Hennepin County is empowered to require additional
right-of-way dedication through the subdivision process which Mr. Otten is proposing on
this lot. The County has said they will accept a dedication that would maintain the
minimum lot size of 12,500 sq.ft. (see Minor Subdivision report).
The Planning Commission and Council are free to consider other potential issues not
directly related to the technical or legal issues that concern staff. Three points tend to
come up during public hearings on duplex rezoning requests: 1) the small scope of the
rezoning; 2) putting two homes where only one could go before; and 3) promoting rental
tenancy rather than ownership. Staff would like to comment briefly on these potential
issues.
At this time, Mr. Otten is proposing only one duplex. At a future time he could again apply
to rezone the other three lots he owns on Winnetka Avenue for duplex lots. I believe that
this scenario is likely and that he sees this one rezoning as a way to show the City and
.
.
.
.
Memo - Rezoning - Otten
Page Three
neighborhood that the type of duplex he builds would be desirable. Even if Mr. Otten
would build four duplex buildings as he previously proposed, it is still in keeping with most
of the City's existing duplex development, which occurs at concentrations of one to four
buildings (two to eight units) in otherwise single family areas. Even if all four of Mr. Otten's
lots were rezoned, the average density of development on the block would be 3.8 units
per acre, which is consistent with the concept of low density residential use within the City.
The duplexes must retain the same setbacks as abutting single family homes.
Through its minor subdivision process Mr. Otten is now proposing to subdivide the lot to
allow for individual ownership of the duplex units. This is no guarantee that individual
ownership will happen but it is now more likely. The City's minor subdivision process is a
separate application which is also on the Planning Commission agenda.
Staff Recommendation
Based on the issues commonly addressed by staff in rezoning matters, there is no
overwhelming argument pointing to approval or denial of this application. The location of
the lot on a busy arterial is among the criteria commonly used for approving duplexes
since the late 1960's, but there are obviously many single family homes along busy
arterials as well. The Comprehensive Plan's low density residential designation for the
area would make either single-family or two-family homes equally appropriate. The lot
meets the minimum requirements for duplex construction.
EAK:mkd
Attachments:
Location Map
Staff Memo to Jeanne Andre dated August 4, 1995
Planning Commission Minutes dated July 24, 1995
Site Plan
, -. - -.---. - .;~~~..N88":'kW~r,j;~~J:;~:.;~ ~
! ~ ~~ ~ J::?, 1)09/"'1t' -- 8.'0' '. ... -' r ....,
I . : ;" ~.~. "i';' ~ J 0;.0:.: '. 13<; .:. ,~S,.,
5/ : 6'!1 Cj~ I ~ .<><> d ". R.~ 6D C.':l . 'ffl" . -'.. ..... ~~ia'.'~
) ~. -. . ~~ I r."'88~ ~::T~..ZI:: ':\. e~":.,,,' ;~ ~?18
.... 2S~ 29 ~ 30""~ .. - "" . . j.... .."...~: ~"" J
I ~ :J..Z'.. ...~~. ,\I .
Oi 1\..~~oL ,':"7:J}~--7~;~ : 2 (I)~;:- IZ5" C ...t ::.... .. I'~;~
r . .. 9, ~... ..; n'l 17
~ IS ~9"O 17 ,~~~ ... - ". ~
=::0, . ::::: ,1.". / ~ '"
;. -! '." 4 ' '-c\ ~ - o.
.. .." I J, ~~. I ~ 16 ~ ~..., 3 0
~ '.... '. .~.! "'"'" ~ E.':;:; f\, ~~
m LANE . ..;.~... e ">f ,48
De .'
,DD
I' t. .
, "'~
"
Ee
fr.
....
~
.~ Ge
...
:t
8 ".'
.~
7 ~..
. --
q,-
,-1. Ji~"..
6C -~6: '- ~
-. -.....
\~4;~]DI':'
.J.}. "",:
~
I ~;
,Z< ,; Jlj
~ ?i/~ ~-~~~t:t <>
~ .'.;7 : ~ .' -<'.::
. . I '>of'
I .:. O~. .: , i 3
f ~ 8i-z; .... ORIVE~~~~
J,.. iI"'; I J-:J.;. I
.:, I ,,0 .
~ ~..
~. ~ 15. ~ ...... :
.....
....
..... '.
o ~.
, ~'o
.,""
....0..
",.
.t
H.B
..
/7')
... 60
~~
~~.
e2
~
32
"
::~
~
'"
.;.
3.
3Z Z
. Ifl! _
3
4e
5e
/3Z
~
~
.~eI5 g! 4
- .
.- -,
:...i
14 : 5 e
-t-.~.._.
I
W
::l
Z
0' se" W.. II
'!j ~ >, ~ .
I <C
.l. ....0:: ....--.----~I
v- . -.~ '" ~
~. 10.. 9::. . ~ " ... .- 10 ~l 9_ ~
I','': I J.' ~ "'- -l~c.z ~I I~f'
~ 8...j I ;, ~ . 8 I:!:; I.. ~
_---:-...:1- - ::. --O:---T-----.
1/ .1 I 0, .... 7 I
" 7 ".. ......... 2. ,;,.
~ ", QO'" '"
I ,. _,
"I
,"
W
::l
Z
W,
~ ".13
~
I-
W
Z
Z
~
~e II
W -::.6
:::l
Z
W
~ ~
~ .,.1'"
I- /I' '1 '-1
~ "~. ~ 7850
z' ". . _r'
- -7
~ ~ .'4. ~
~- .. .:::
'" ~ -. . - - ~ I
;--;. --, ~ 1
--. ."
\,,0
. ,-~~sj
,.-.,.~::;.~~
- .1~~~
.
2Q7o";
..f'.. ,,- d 3/0':>S'
~:~ .ut
,'-; ,_< ~.~ I It'tO ""O~"I
~'~;4W _J::. .:d..e--- \0't.1 _... 7
~ t\;:: ~ c. ... ~ " 4 ~ ~
~~ q, 1 .-3... ~.. ~.;; IP Ca.~ ""0' ". 0-
j ...... -~ ~ ~~ ~.... \~a. ~e" ~~ ~
'.f"S.. ..' c:\'\~ \\.~e~ .............}.........
I .,., . <-f\ J ? I'" ... -
.... 4./',,.. f\S"- V 't.'t-:v- . .)", '.:.i' ~ ..:::to.z!:)~
" :-- f\\>\J '\. ^:(\e ....00 2.-. ~".i or ~3 ~"
Q OO\) '.\' \' -- " 4 '.,I.U.... !,\
~ ~ ~ r'\r'\ 'fl ~ 4'104 JJ' l'
I::::" \. IQ\J\J .' '!~' ',.: .. " .'.. 41~1 : S
13 "'... ,':,"3 I}.. ,z. '~ ..... .. ..
..::. . ". ~ '" .. . .: . ~ .. .- ""
c. w> ~;: 16 C.':l ~ c: 3 -.:... w ~t. 22 ~ ;
~ ~ - ~,,~ . . ~.~ ~
. /8B-;"j <(. ,7S/ -- ":i ~,l.-.!L-_
1).~3 0:: IllH /JI'J :w 'j.".i
~ ~ ~ ~ .15 i 4 - ~ , ~ ,~ 21
~;.- -:0' -
CI) .-. ..-- \.-.-- ~ . "__,
~ t .14 2-. ~. . ~ ~ ' ~ ::__
o
. ~: -19
$'3 0 ~
6e
,-
..,
- -'8
-.
,.
. 12
7.
:. .12
gl
-,
8. ~
w ...
::): Cl
z~ -
W
':: >
<(,
0'
z
:5
C/'J,
jjj ~ .
o
o
!!. ::C,
D::: ..
:; !
el4
.17
.16
.15
". ) 1.
I
Ill!
I-
I
~ ~
e6
3e ~
; ~l 7 ,
-21. ''1___
t.
""-:;.
~ or 13
. . ,!j
I,'q
:':
."
~ to to .
....
t.-
-"~i'
.
":.. .;
.~~
j:-k
_:-~itl
..:t~
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
August 4, 1995
To:
Jeanne Andre, Assistant to the City Manager
From:
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
Subject:
Public Hearing -- Rezoning from Residential to R-2 (Two-Family)
Residential -- Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 1, Val-Wood Addition
(1720, 1800, and 1810 Winnetka Avenue North) -- Daniel Otten,
Applicant
Following an informal public hearing at its meeting of July 24 (minutes attached), the
Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council deny the above-entitled
rezoning request.
This is second of two requests for rezoning that were submitted by the same applicant and
are being heard together. There is also a related application for minor subdivisioR. Several
property owners in the overall affected area spoke against one or both rezoning proposals at
the informal public hearing. Other property owners have sent letters of protests and/or have
signed a petition opposing the proposed two-family use (all written materials enclosed
separately). Because the areas of concern around the two proposed rezonings overlap,
speakers at the informal hearings in many cases spoke against both proposals even though
they made only a single statement; thus, it should not be assumed that more people have
opinions in one case than in the other. The same goes for the written materials, incfuding a
counter-petition in favor of the proposed rezonings, submitted by the applicant.
A rezoning request cannot legally be denied without a written statement of findings. The staff
report (attached) found no compelling reason for denial. The Planning Commissioners
recommend that the Council consider the following findings:
1. Potential traffic conflicts due to poor sight lines and the presence of six
dwelling units instead of three;
2. Violation of the spirit of the private covenants entered into by the applicant
at the time the surrounding lots were platted and sold;
3. Too much paved area and too little greenery as a result of doubling
the driveway;
4. Too much intermingling of single family and two-family units within
one block; and
5. An undesirable change to the character of the existing neighborhood.
Otten Rezoning (Lots 15, 16, and 17)
Page Two
.
Action requested at this time is City Council approval or denial of the proposed rezoning from
single family residential to two-family residential, with appropriate findi~gs_ to be made by the
Council in the case of a denial.
EAK:mkd
.
.
.
~
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley
Planning Commission
A regular meeting of th nning Commission was held at the Golden Valle y Hall, Council
Chambers, 7800 Golden Valle eting was called to order
by Chair Prazak at 7:00 PM.
I. A
MOVED by Lewis, se ded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously t prove the July
10, 1995 minutes submitted. Commissioner Pentel requested that the memo w . ~ n by Mark
Grimes to the anning Commission dated July 19, 1995 entitled "Evaluation of Area B ion of
the Valle quare Redevelopment Plan" be given to the City Council loose in the agenda pa ts.
II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision
Applicant:
Daniel Otten/Otten Realty
Address:
1566 Winnetka Avenue North
(Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Val-Wood Second Addition)
Purpose:
Consolidate substandard Lots 7 and 8 in order to create one
legally-sized lot
III. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning
Applicant:
Daniel Otten/Otten Realty
Address:
1566 Winnetka Avenue North
(Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Val-Wood Second Addition)
Purpose:
Rezone property from Single-Family Residential to two-family Residential
for the purpose of constructing a two-family dwelling on the consolidated
parcel
It was noted that neither Mr. Otten, nor his representative, were present at the time the Informal
Public Hearings were called. After discussion on how to proceed, it was decided by the
Commission to proceed because of the large resident turnout.
City Planner, Beth Knoblauch gave a report on the consolidation of Lots 7 and 8 commenting that
each of the lots legally could be built on for single-family at this time. Ms. Knoblauch stated that
Mr. Otten has not specifically asked for the Minor Subdivision which would allow the 2-family
dwelling to be sold as two separate lots. His request is to consolidate two lots in order to construct
a 2-family dwelling. Ms. Knoblauch reviewed the Conditions of Approval, talking about the
minimum lot size, slopes and wetness of the lots, sewer and water connections, easements and
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 24, 1995
Page Two
other public agency review~ The County Department of Transportation (DOT) has submitted a
letter stating that they are not requiring any right-of-way (r-o-w) on Winnetka Avenue for this lot.
An earlier conversation with. the County DOT revealed that a 7 foot r-o-w would be requested but
in reviewing the lot the application would be 28 sq.ft. short of consolidation for the required 12,500
sq.ft. The County, therefore stated that they could get by with only 6.7 feet of r-o-w. This now is
not being required. Staff recommendations for the Minor Subdivision are that the applicant submit
a final plat called "Val-Wood 3rd Addition" showing the appropriate utility easements along
property lines.
Commissioner McAleese asked staff if it would be the County's responsibility to condemn these
properties if additional r-o-w was needed for Winnetka Avenue. Staff answered yes.
Commissioner Pentel asked how many other properties have a 7 foot dedication. Ms. Knoblauch
commented no one on the subject block has a 7 foot dedication, though it has been required on
plats farther to the north.
Staff commented that it is the applicant's responsibility to notify staff if he does not want to
consolidate the two lots if the rezoning is denied. It would not be appropriate for the Commission
to recommend denial of the minor subdivision just because of a recommendation against the
rezoning; the minor subdivision is suitable for approval under either the existing or the proposed
zoning designation.
Ms. Knoblauch then reviewed with the Commission her report regarding the rezoning of Lots 7 and
8, Block 1, Val-Wood Second Addition commenting that Lots 7 and 8 were two undersized single
family lots that would need to be consolidated in order for the parcel to be rezoned from single-
family residential to 2-family residential for the intent of placing one double 2-family dwelling on the
lot. She discussed various issues. Under state law, cities cannot approve rezoning applications
which are in conflict with the comprehensive plan. Golden Valley's comprehensive plan shows this
area was intended to be used for low density residential. Both single family and 2-family
residential fit this category. The only other significant staff issue was whether the minimum lot size
would meet requirements for the R-2 Residential Zoning District. Because the County is not
requiring a 7 foot r-o-w for this lot, the minimum lot size will be met. Other potential issues that
could be raised are: 1) the small scope of the rezoning; 2) putting two homes where only one could
go before; and 3) promoting rental tenancy rather than ownership. Staffs memo briefly addressed
each of those potential issues. Ms. Knoblauch commented that staff is not making a
recommendation because based on issues commonly addressed by staff in rezoning matters,
there is no overwhelming argument pointing to approval or denial of this application.
Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing. Listed below are those people who spoke
against the minor subdivision and rezoning applications for Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Val-Wood
Second Addition for the following reasons:
· A duplex would be esthetically unpleasant
· Area has solely single-family homes and is very well kept; a duplex would be disruptive
· Traffic is bad on Winnetka Avenue and the addition of two units (probably 4 cars) would
add to the traffic problem and possible future accidents
· Residents of the area want to maintain the single-family, well-kept look of the area
· If a person doesn't own the property, they are not as likely to keep it well-maintained
.
.
.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 24, 1995
Page Three
.
The 30-year covenant which allowed for only single-family homes in the Val-Wood area, should
not be discarded just because it recently expired -- Mr. Otten had signed this covenant
Original zoning intent was 10 promote single-family homes - well maintained-single-family
homes have been built
This rezoning will create a precedent for additional rezonings to 2-family residential "dart board
rezoning"
The lot would make for a good-starter home
The residents are concerned about the amount of concrete in the front yard due to the required
"one" driveway for both units and turn around for each unit
There is also a concern about lack of landscaping and little sforage for snow removal
2-family dwellings are incompatible in this residential area
Resident felt that Mr. Otten has not maintained the empty lots and that these 2-family dwellings
will also not be maintained
Resident told when he bought his lot, the three vacant lots would be single-family residential
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Lowell Peterzen, 1830 Valders Avenue North
Sally Sheehan, 7900 Wesley Drive
Fred Kickertz, 8000 Duluth Street
John Broadhurst, 1560 Sumter Avenue North
Gary Blackmore, 1611 Sumter Avenue North
Robert Johnson, 1940 Sumter Avenue North
Phyllis Bailey, 1941 Sumter Avenue North
Richard Salzer, 1621 Sumter Avenue North
Stephanie Enlow, 1560 Winnetka Avenue North
Donald Brockel, 1545 Winnetka Avenue North
Barbara Brueske, 2000 Sumter Avenue North
Patty Bather, 1700, Sumter Avenue North
Hoon Ge, 1821 Sumter Avenue North
.
Please note, Ms. Enlow gave the Commission a signed petition by residents objecting to the
rezoning of the above mentioned property.
Mr. Walter Gregory, surveyor for Merila & Associates, representing Mr. Otten, arrived during the
input by residents of the neighborhood. Mr. Gregory commented that Mr. Otten was called away
out of town for a funeral.
Mr. Gregory showed a picture of a townhome that Mr. Otten has built and what he is proposing to
build on the site. He commented that it would be possible to move the building back approximately
seven feet to allow for landscaping between the sidewalk and driveway area.
Commissioner Pentel asked Mr. Gregory if most of the front yard would be driveway area. Mr.
Gregory said yes -- and there would be only one driveway entrance for two units onto Winnetka
Avenue. Mr. Gregory submitted a petition which Mr. Otten had taken to several residents in the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Pentel wanted clarification that it was Mr. Otten's responsibility to apply for the
specific minor subdivision if he wished to sell the 2-family dwelling to separate owners. Mr.
Gregory commented that he could also accomplish this by amending this subdivision or applying
for a new one.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 24, 1995
Page Four
.
Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Gregory if Mr. Otten had considered single-family housing as a
use for this property. Mr. Gregory commented that the intent of the application meets the
requirements for affordable h.o,using for this area.
Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing.
It was unanimous by the Planning Commission that there were no objection's to the requested
minor subjection.
MOVED by Groger, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the
City Council approval for the Minor Subdivision to allow for the consolidation of Lots 7 and 8, Block
1, Val-Wood Second Addition with the conditions that the submitted final plat read Val-Wood Third
Addition with all necessary easements.
Commissioner Kapsner commented on the rezoning of Lots 7 and 8 by stating that legally the City
can rezone to R-2 because it meets all requirements. He noted that the objection of the
neighborhood may be overstated -- that a duplex may not affect the neighborhood as much as the
residents think. Commissioner Kapsner said he could not vote for this proposal because such a
large number of neighboring residents were against it.
Commission Pentel is against having more vehicles on Winnetka Avenue which is a potential with
two units on one lot. She does not object to duplexes but not at this location because of the poor .
site lines on Winnetka Avenue it is difficult to get in and out.
Commissioner Johnson is against the rezoning because of the original intent of the area to be
single-family residential which Mr. Otten agreed to many years ago.
Commissioner Lewis is against the rezoning because of the negative esthetics -- concrete area in
the front yard. She would rather see single-family housing.
Commissioner Groger also is against the rezoning for all the above reasons stated. He is
concerned with putting a duplex in the middle of a single-family residential block -- this makes for a
choppy neighborhood and alters the single-family setting.
Chair Prazak commented that he sees no reason to upset the nature of the single-family
neighborhood.
Commissioner McAleese is against the rezoning for the reasons stated above. He feels the
rezoning would change the character of the neighborhood and that a covenant should be long
standing -- it is more than a legal document. Mr. McAleese also commented that one reason to
allow the 2-family rezoning would be to allow for low income. Mr. Otten has commented that these
units would not be for low income housing.
Commissioner Lewis commented that Mr. Otten should have been a "good neighbor" and met with
the surrounding residents to talk about his proposals. .
MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the
City Council to deny the request for the rezoning of Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Val-Wood Second
Addition from single-family residential to two-family residential. The findings necessary to justify
the rezoning would include those listed by the Commissioners during discussion.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 24, 1995
Page Five
.
Commissioner Kapsner directed a comment to the residents in attendance that the Planning
Commission cannot guarantee the attractiveness of dwelling units and cannot dictate which
dwellings can be rented out or privately owned and lived in.
City Planner Bet
the same as the 0
and no minor subdi
foot r-o-w.
Applicant:
Daniel Otten/Otten Realty
Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning
1720,1800,1810 Winnetka Avenue North
(Lots 15,16 and 17, Block 1, Val-Wood Addition)
Rezone parcels from single-family residential two-family residential for the
purpose of constructing a two-family dwelling n each of the parcels
noblauch told the Planning Commission at the request before them is exactly
just discussed with the one difference eing three lots involved instead of one
issue of discussing a need for a seven
The Commission had no
.
Walter Gregory, the repres tative for Mr. Otten, eviewed the site plan showing the three lots. He
again said that the dwellings ould be moved m, re to the rear of the lots to create more
landscaping in front. Mr. Greg ry also review the driveway which would be shared by two of the
dwellings.
~\
Commissioner Pentel asked Where\,he sn w storage would be. Mr. Gregory pointed the area out
on the site plan. ~
Chair Prazak opened the informal pu.
Laurie and AI Johnson, 1921 Su Ms. Johnson talked about a Minneapolis
Tribune article of a couple of ye s ago, on olden Valley being the #1 suburb, and is worried
about what 2-family dwellings II do to the p erty values in the area. The Johnsons feel that
people who do not take pride' their property usually those who don't own. They would like to
see consistency of single-fa i1y homes in the ne hborhood.
Glen Brueske, 2000 Sum r Avenue North, feels th the 2-family dwellings will create too much
concrete along Winnetk Avenue. He feels these sh Id be single family homes.
John Broadhurst, 15 Sumter Avenue North, would like know why these lots haven't been sold
for single-family ho es.
.
Walter Gregory c mmented that he is unaware why Mr. Otten has not sold these lots for single-
family housing.
Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing.
.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
October 3, 1995
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing -- Minor Subdivision for Double
Bungalow -- Lot 16, Block 1, Val-Wood Addition (1800
Winnetka Avenue North) -- Daniel Otten, Applicant.
This application involves the division of a one-family lot along Winnetka Avenue (Exhibit
A) into two lots for a double bungalow. The Subdivision Code has a separate section
that allows for the division of lots that are at least 12,500 sq.ft. in area and with at least
100 feet of width to be divided along the party line to provide individual ownership of
each double bungalow unit. Mr. Otten has submitted an application for the division of
Lot 16 into two lots that would allow for individual ownership of each unit of a duplex
building.
. The process for such a subdivision is similar to any minor subdivision with several
exceptions. The lots are individually exempt from the minimum lot size and width
requirements found in the R-2 zoning district provisions. The two lots have to be able
to be divided into two substantially equal sections and all units must have individual
utility services. All new building must meet the current building codes for duplex units.
In addition, the City requires that the owner develop convenant documents to assure
that there is adequate maintenance and upkeep of the building and other common
interests. These covenants must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to any
building permits being issued on the lots.
Conditions of Approval
Mr. Otten has submitted the necessary information required for a minor subdivision of
Lot 16 into two double bungalow lots. Conditions for approving or denying minor
subdivisions are clearly spelled out in the City Code Section 12.50. Each of the
. applicable conditions will be address individually in the following paragraphs:
.
Minimum Lot Requirements -- The property is currently vacant, so there are no
existing setback concerns. Two-family lots must have a minimum width of 100 feet and
a minimum area of 12,5Q.0 sq.ft. The property has a combined width across both lots of
100 feet and combined area of 13,063 sq.ft. Based on these numbers, the property
would meet the minimum lot requirements for either a single-family or two-family lot.
The lot also meets the duplex subdivision request because the two lots are each the
same size (50' x 130').
Memo - Minor Subdivision - Otten
Page Two
.
Steep Slopes or Excessive Wetness - The property is not encumbered with either of
these problems to such an extent as to render it unbuildable.
Public Sewer and Water Connections - Both services are available to the property. A
second stub would probably have to be added if individual service is desired to each
half of the proposed duplex.
Easements - The lot will have to include dedication of utility easements per City Code.
Those easements are not indicated on the preliminary sketch and will be determined by
the City Engineer.
Other Public Agencies - Winnetka Avenue is a county road and so the City is required
by state law to forward all proposed plats to the County Department of Transportation
for their review. City Code states that the City may condition the approval of a plat with
the requirements of outside agencies such as the County. In most cases, the County
has asked for additional right-of-way along county roads in case widening or other
improvements are necessary. Generally, the County asks for an additional? feet of
right-of-way in order that the eventual width of county road right-of-way is 80 feet. In
the case of Winnetka Avenue, the County realizes that the area is almost fully
developed and that a major street widening project is unlikely. However, the County .
would like to obtain as much additional right-of-way as possible in case there may be
other improvements such as sidewalks or bike trails. In the case of Lot 16, City staff
suggests that Mr. Otten dedicate to the County on the final plat an additional 5.63 feet
of right-of-way along Winnetka Avenue. This would keep the lot area at 12,500 sq.ft.
which is the minimum lot size for a duplex lot.
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions - Mr. and Mrs. Otten have
already supplied the City with such convenants. I have reviewed the convenants and
find them to be consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code. They will be
furthered reviewed by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Recommended Action
Approval of the proposed minor subdivision for a double bungalow should be
conditioned on the applicant submitting the following:
1. A final plat called "Val-Wood 3rd Addition";
2.
A final plat showing utility easements along property lines as required by
the City Engineer;
.
.
.
.
Memo - Minor Subdivision - Otten
Page Three
3. A final plat showing the additional 5.63 feet of right-of-way for Winnetka
Avenue; and
4. All duplex construction must meet the requirements of Section 11.50 Subd. 5
of the City Code.
MWG:mkd
Attachments:
Location Map
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
Certificate of Survey
r
.,;:.,.~.;;.~
~......,...~
" "'~~1i
~
--- -- - .;-~.;;r~.' Nlt":"J,"''''' -:":r-~-:y.j,~~J;;::"~ '
/')/ 9091 V -. 8,'01 .... ;.;. " -: r l.....
.. : ,:>.:; : '0<1~."';' ~ .J .;.~: '. IJ~ I~S ""
: 6'!1 Cj..... . ., ". ill /' t:> ~lo -..' - . .
'. ~. . .,.... ~ r:~B8 ~ 00",... T,ZD.;Z '.. "~: e .;r: :::t~~',~ ~
;:;- 28~ 29 ~ 30':'? 1 ~ ~ ': el ~ '" .."..8 .~..;'Q: t',,''? 18
"I ~ ~ :JU ~ ,:: . ...~~..: '~~'8
i~ .~.L.....E_'?-'-7; 5';';' m-- IZ, " IZ7 J
O }b, .47~'; ';5... 2 - ;; c ..t 0
: .. ". ~... ..; .. ~ a. : ~ 17
18 S!J"O 1.7. .~"'; 144 - ., Q
. -J >.t, / ...!<<
-I '., 4' / .""" - - o.
H'~" .- 16 ';' v.~ 0
. "s .... 'it 5':;0'" ':'.1 3
~~... ,;
o. :;
~
~'.
~'
J' .i .
: 0"-
...'\:
E. .:
7 ~..
. q;;:;
/ Ji~ ~. .-
~;...
Ge
e,
15"
'\,0:.
0\,
'0
I.Q.;.
,,0 '.
c.
I .....:
""
,
I
:
,
I
I
.. 2 ~
~ -..,
~.
....:.
~ '0
~:
~~.
f: '!..
~ _~;48.0' a
~ "..
...
.... ~: 88
Ie' ~)
3.
3lZ
e3
.,..
"'<>
~t:Iiia
3
'''-~''''1'O'~' e4
o ~ 0 m..~5._
~ 7 ...
....' -0
O'o'lIS": ~.~
'J= 11. J I /499
oF,
0'"
~"'''
r
?:J
48
"7
. e 15
B l:f l::\:J-f I Z '1'; 0';
id"" .t~. ....t 31".0 I :'I-
lL; ,_~ ~.; I It'~ \ '''S "
r1"~;4.W _J:;. ~-~--- \ O'r.-I
..,. ~ 1 .~ . ::: IP c. ~ ....'r.- \.0-
gi ~ 0 It; c; ,!!.. ;;;~ ~o.co." ~o.
I !~s~s ~ -"i~' -('~ \: e~'V.e .
I. :HJ. .... f'- cs\\ ~-.I :., .-.-........
.... ,./",.. ('6~'v t'V--o. ...~..' ':..i,' ~ ;.:~..' !
0:. :-- ofJ?V. ~~e. -0 2 0 ~ ~ ~ ~3 ~ ~
~ ~.-' ?l' ('\('\ ~'\ .. ~... 6"~fS'. l' .. 4,".1'11--,
t:;; . \.ro'vV ,.~.:t. - ,. ,.'~l
13 ct.. I:. "3 1):.'2. '~ '.. ...".. I:i:~
4 . ". r e... ........: ...
~ "f W ';;:.~ 16 g: ~ 3 ~... W 0:.::;' 22 ~ ~
~ . ..... > e ~.. - .... __ _ ~. .. 0 ~ -
/8 B't '. J <. .) 91 .,.z :J :.:!.L-_
! ,31 ~3 ffi III H IJI1} : rIi :l.f(~
~! II I- \,:.. Q el5 ') 4 0 r "=:: 0 21
::: ~~,Q ~ !:,......: ~
:J'- :0'..
(I) '-'. ...- '1._.__ Z . ___' .
~
~. ~~'i020 ~
W
,--- 0
o - --. ..
.~' 0'9
."~.'"
:'e
i'
~. e'4
2.-.
W
:J
Z
w,
~ :.813
~
I-
W
Z
Z
~
~"~~
,. 012 .17
I
68
,'"
'~ 0'8
..
Q
'2
~
. 12
7. '
W
:J
Z
8e Q W t) II
~ >,~ 8
<)
~ . ffi "l - - _u - ~I
8 '1- .., "
9 '. . " .- 10~
- ~... ~I
I.' :J.. f~1 -z ~ H"
(I) --......-
, ~ :. ~ .. 8 I:::: I.. l!
~ - -= - - -'1" - - ~ - - .
~, .... 7 I '
.. on? 28~...
al
=1
I
- ,,-.J
;
,
I
....:
~
JI..4 .
~, '---1
.
2e i
" '),
~
.!.
'0 10 .,.
~8 '"
,,., :
~ 8
-~
., 7
6
o
..
1
8e ~
W... .
:J= Q 0'7
z~ - ,
W '
~)
o ~ 816
Z'
~
(I).
W~. 015
o
o
:J:
~ a::?..
:;! .'4
'::
98~
:1
2. ....
~
,
,
,
_.~._.. .--+
,
I
tiS
I-
I
~ ~
W~8 6
:J
Z
W
~
~
I-
~ -~ :; 7850
z ..... . _~.
~ '" .~~. ~
~.. '''.::,;)-
"'
,
86
3e
3. ~
1~17Z :~175 1'1 Z
- SEfOND ADDI:
~ 5 :1 4.;~ ~~85 :d
J.l"..... .. ~ ~ ~....", ~. :-';"
".-z'i 1111~ ~ ~T''''I\I Z-
f.
V"~.
. 13
, .of 'J6
""'4
~I
!!I
'::~".""
:.. )
14, :"1
e. f;:.J
~- 3.-~
. f I 1
--",,"
...1.
J...~,.
i:
.:;}
..:~:~
.
a-