The URL can be used to link to this page

02-11-85 PC Agenda �- 1 i- �v ' GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION (Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road) � February 11, 1985 7:00 P.M. AGENDA I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1985 II. SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICANT: Church of the Good Shepherd LOCATION: 145 and 225 Jersey Avenue South and 6800 Laurel Avenue REQUEST: Approval of the Preliminary Plat of "Church of the Good Shepherd Addition" III. SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICANT: City of Golden Valley LOCATION: 6500 Laurel Avenue � REQUEST: Approval of the Preliminary Plat of "Courtlawn Pond" IV. SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICANT: City of Golden Valley LOCATION: 7000 Laurel Avenue REQUEST: Approval of the Preliminary Plat of "Laurel Pond" V. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPLICANT: Foxboro Corporation LOCATION: 1245, 1315, 1335 and 1411 North Lilac Drive REQUEST: Approval of Rezoning from Residential to Business and Professional Offices Zoning District VI. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO HOME OCCUPATIONS VII. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 5, 1985 � VIII. DISCUSSION OF ATTENDANCE AT APA CONFERENCE •J � MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION January 28, 1985 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. Acting Chairman Prazak called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Those present were Commissioners Kapsner, McAleese, Prazak, Russell and Schmidt. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Alda Peikert, City Planner, and Gloria Anderson, Planning Secretary. Commissioner Leppik was not present at the beginning of the meeting. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt was absent. I . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 14, 1985 It was moved by Commissioner Kapsner, seconded by Commissioner McAleese and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the January 14, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as recorded. II. SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC NEARING • APPLICANT: Foxboro Corporation LOCATION:� 1245, 1315, 1335 and 1411 North Lilac Drive REQUEST: Approval of Rezoning from Residential to Business and Professional Offices Acting Chairman Prazak introduced this agenda item and noted the February 11, 1985 informal public hearing date recommended by staff. It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Russell and carried unanimously to set an informal public hearing date of February 11, 1985 for consideration of the request received from Foxboro Corporation for rezoning of the property at 1245, 1315, 1335 and 1411 North Lilac Drive from the Residential Zoning District to the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. Commissioner Leppik arrived at the meeting. III. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPLICANT: General Mills, Inc. LOCATION: 8800 and 9300 Betty Crocker Drive � � REQUEST: Approval of Rezoning from Open Development to Business and Professional Offices �� o Planning Commission Minutes �y January 28, 1985 Page 2 � Acting Chairman Prazak introduced this agenda item and asked staff to review the proposal . Director Grimes reviewed the request for rezoning and gave the staff recommendation. He stated that the request for rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation. He also said that the construction of the building and the platting of the property would require General Mills to appear before the Planning Commission and City Council again in the future. Acting Chairman Prazak wanted to know when the Comprehensive Land Use Plan first designated this area as Business and Professional Offices and if the east or west half of the property might be preferred for office construction by the City Engineering Department in regard to drainage. City Planner Alda Peikert stated it was first designated in 1976. Director Grimes stated that the Engineering Department did not express any preference but that the west half might be more accessible for traffic and have better visibility. Commissioner Schmidt questioned if it was intended that there would eventually be two buildings and Director Grimes stated that General Mills indicated there would only be one building. Acting Chairman Prazak asked if there were any other questions of staff. There were none. , Acting Chairman Prazak recognized the proponents Mr. David Latvaaho, Real Estate Representative for General Mills, and Mr. John Schevenius, P.E. of the • Engineering Policy Group of General Mills. Mr. Latvaaho stated that they were at the meetir�g for the rezonin.g only and that General Mills has no immediate plans to develop the property, only conceptual plans, and that they understand they would have to come back to the Planning Commission in order to pursue any further plans. Commissioner Kapsner wanted to know if there was going to be two buildings. Mr. Latvaaho stated that their plans were to build only one building but as yet have not decided on which half of the parcel they will build. Commissioner Leppik wanted to know what kind of drainage plans had been deve- loped for the site. Mr. Schevenius said they had discussed a number of different kinds of drainage possibilities for the property. Flood storage could be on either half of the site as there is adequate space and that they could also put flood storage to the south of Betty Crocker Drive. Mr. Schevenius stated that they have worked with the Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission's engineers and there are a number of ways it could be done. Acting Chairman Prazak wanted to know the year General Mills could best estimate when construction would begin. • •+ Planning Commission Minutes •� January 28, 1985 Page 3 • Mr. Latvaaho said they estimated it would be two to five years before develop- ment of the property would begin. Commissioner Leppik asked if the large piece of property sticking down into the General Mills property was going to create a problem or if General Mills would possibly be buying and developing this property. Director Grimes said the property is part of the density calculations for Brookview Condominiums and that General Mills has no plans to obtain this pro- perty. Commissioner McAleese asked why General Mills was coming to the Planning Commission at this time for rezoning. Mr. Latvaaho stated it was so that when they are ready to develop this property the zoning would be in place. Acting Chairman Prazak asked if the office development would be for General Mills use exclusively and Mr. Latvaaho replied yes. Acting Chairman Prazak opened the informal public hearing for public input. Mr. Thomas McChesney, 432 Decatur Avenue North, was concerned about sewer assessments and traffic. He stated he already had a sewer system at the rear . and to the front of his property that he has paid for and does not see why he should subsidize General Mills. He questioned who owns Betty Crocker Drive and that they should abide by the laws and provide stop signs at their exits. He stated that it is very difficult to get on Boone Avenue from the service road when people are leaving General Mills in the afternoon. Acting Chairman Prazak assured him that the Planning Commission would look at the traffic issue when a specific plan comes before the Planning Commission. Michelle Poirier, 8925 Wally Street is concerned if the residents would have any input before General Mills started building on the property and that she would prefer they rezone the west half of the property to build on. Acting Chairman Prazak stated the area was one parcel and the entire area would be rezoned. He also stated that the residents would be notified when plans were more definite. Mr. Andrew Grega, 9145 West Highway 55, opposed rezoning. He was concerned about the traffic and what would happen to Boone Avenue traffic when they are working on I-394. Mr. Schevenius stated that the plans for upgrading Highway 12 to I-394 include plans for an interchange at I-394 and Boone Avenue. • ,' Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1985 ` Page 4 • Commissioner Kapsner noted that the new interchange would probably lessen the traffic on Boone Avenue. Mr. Art Mills, 416 Decatur P►venue North, was represented by his daughter. She stated that this area has been used by her father and other relatives for walking for many years and that he would prefer the west side for building construction. She asked that General Mills at least leave some of the woods. Mr. Mark Poirier, 8925 Wally Street, asked why General Mills could not build on the south side of Betty Crocker Drive instead of the north side. Mr. Latvaaho stated he could not answer this question. Mrs. Grega of the Brookview Condominiums wanted to know ifi this plan calls for doing anything to Bassetts Creek. Mr. Schevenius stated they have no intentions to alter Bassetts Creek. Acting Chairman Prazak closed the public hearing. Commissioner Russell asked if the Boone Avenue/I-394 interchange would take pro- perty from General Mills or the Brookview property. Staff stated both. Commissioner Kapsner asked if the interchange is designed to alleviate some of the General Mills traffic. Staff stated that it would and questioned if it was � to be a full interchange. Mr. Schevenius stated that it would be a full inter- change. Commissioner Leppik asked who does own Betty Crocker Drive. Staff indicated it was a dedicated right-of-way on the street map and is maintained by the City. Commissioner Leppik said she can see no reason not to rezone this property but that there would be more input on what General Mills does with the property. Commissioner McAleese questioned how we have the discrepency between the General Plan and the existing residential development directly west of the WTCN building. The General Plan designates the entire area south of Highway 55 as Business and Professional Offices. Director Grimes stated that the homes were probably there before General Mills. Mr. Schevenius stated the homes were built soon after World War II. General Mills purchased the property beginning in the mid 1950's. Commissioner McAleese opposed the rezoning. He said it is a major step and gives General Mills some legal rights to the property that they don't have if it is not rezoned and that we would have more control over the development of the property under its current status. He would like to have more time to think about this and to defer the Planning Commission's decision to a future date. Commissioner Leppik asked what more information Commissioner McAleese would want • before voting on it. .� Planning Commission Minutes �. January 28, 1985 Page 5 � Commissioner McAleese feels that the Planning Commission needs to get a better handle on the planning aspect of their jobs and that the City would benefit from taking time to make the decision. He would like more information on the sewer system, the traffic problems that exist now and what might exist if a building were to go in on one of these parcels. If the property were rezoned, he believes that the City has less control of the development of the site. He said that the Conditional Use Permit procedure and PUD procedure does not give the City the same amount of control vver development as does a rezoning. Acting Chairman Prazak asked if he was suggesting they pl°at the property into two components first and then rezone. Commissioner McAleese stated that it would be a reasonable alternative and that rezoning is a major step and gives them legal rights they currently do not now have. He stated that the Planning Commission should review the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and be looking ahead as to how it will affect the community ten years down the line. Commissioner Schmidt asked how long General Mills has owned property and if it had been zaned Open Development since that time. Director Grimes stated they had owned it since 1956 and that it probably had been zoned Open Development since then. � Commissioner Leppik stated she could see no reason the Commission should not make a decision at this time. Commissioner McAleese moved that the Planning Commission defer the decision one meeting to afford him the opportunity to write a brief as to why the Commission should delay the decision. The motion died for lack of a second. Acting Chairman Prazak noted there were considerable questions raised by both the Commission and members of the community about specific potential aspects of the plan that will be presented to the Commission at a later time. At that time General Mills can expect there to be a very intensive look at the specifics of that plan and how it will affect traffic and the neighbors. Commissioner Russell stated she agreed with the process but felt the Commission would not be right in denying General Mills what they had every right to expect. It was moved by Commissioner Russell and seconded by Commissioner Leppik to recommend City Council approval of the rezoning of 8800 and 9300 Betty Crocker Drive from the Open Development Zoning District to the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 1 with Commissioner McAleese opposed. IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES After discussion it was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner • Russell and carried unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the pro- posed ordinance changes related to residential facilities. . Planning Commission Minutes -� January 28, 1985 Page 6 � V. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 15, 1985 Staff gave a report on the City Council Meeting held January 15, 1985. VI. ZONING AUTHORITY RESPONSIBILITIES PROCEDURES SEMINAR - JANUARY 22, 1985 Commissioner McAleese gave a report on the Zoning Authority Responsibilities Procedures Seminar which he attended. He felt the key point that was made was that cities need to do more planning rather than react to Conditional Use Permits, PUD's and rezonings. He also stated that the Planning Commission should more carefully evaluate testimony given by the public. Meeting was adjourned at 8;40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Gary Prazak, Acting Chairman Margaret Leppik, Secretary � � • � February 5, 19�5 T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Set Date for Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat of Ctiurch of the Good Shepherd Addition The Church of the Good Shepherd, owners of approximately 16.5 acres on Jersey Avenue between Western Avenue and Laurel Avenue,�have proposed to subdivide their property into two parcels. The proposed north lot, � which is' 9.8 acres in size, is the location of the existing church. The proposed south lot, which is 6.8 acres, will probably be sold by the church for development. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission set an informal public hearing date of February 25, 1985 for consideration of the Preliffiinary Plat of the Church of the Good Shepherd Addition. i Attachment: Site Map � �, v J N j .......2GoidORes. .....- ; ' --••Sog.-r7.... .. ° A.oi i : TS NfiI�14� •E .A.or t sl I73.G ; - AVE. a "� �� . : ' v��,'-'-' `•��,;�+i t� ��Z _ ��1NESTERf� � m�u. �'' :�ra` • ?� ; 4 ``' ; � •;ti,, . � : te � a b .� y �� `°° �: °CD TL W N Z, �� ° ~ = W � � � o w � .° �•��re�. . Z ' � 1 � o � �� d'�,ti -T�R�tf.•$I • I`', - c.��N s� N :1. � �• • .�� _ . ioo. ` , � '��.3:.. 3J,� , ;;y g q� M . o �° � $� IS 2 �° oee"��`'�Q�1"1 °' .� °os'�,N �- Q� �.1L�3 ' V� �T� '�) 1, - I�1�' �� W Z � i �oo .-� 'eo �• !a �:• �55 �s. .. t- �R.so � cyL �/ � � .- T�y.4b t�• y'. '4. 28l ,Q : � µ : 3 o s Q��,o 5 w �a =ds��= ��i:r.. ` ss�1 . � 8 �� - d of �o �f ,-. � .2 ' � u �ai ��J'' C�� ` � � >� (�jjQ« �e3.'13 �oa �os S � • v .s C�� i � �13 . 4 �. a ;e -�.. • 63 0 ' � ? 6 6� •O 14L.1 I � � 6674 ^' �1 _ �� 9 ,q •T•ioi.YJ "• •i•Zo.52 6650 p $. ^ �;�jj�f�� '^ � I 'R'=O IOO �o I o 12 '~ � , oz3 I . � � . . a � '•'' ' UTH � CORTLAWN 63��CIRCLE � N � �O �1.� 14 l M � �?��. 66�F 66/5 65E5 S/ ^, �_'Y�; � 135.4 100 .. . . . • �� 6� a�'.� .� "�,� ��o • ° • ` • G • 5 'r• 4 • �3 ~ �S,E T/C�N 4 �` .: �s�.z. ;� � � � � _��N 8 7 � � ��,, • o � o z•°• �7 •� `�O � 'x 's� � ioa 929.b5':,. ay o°_ �� 8 7 a S C d �.� F- i 6 r .1G , z o+ \ �"�� g o S�� , ,o f o ;+to i1o. 11� t�4- y`\ '•,\ �.� . \ � u riaao s i �\ � �� to- ! \``. , �'\ � \ i \ �� ., �9' 0 \` ti ',� \\ � 'LOT 2 � �, �°�:_ � e , . = '�' " ` . � ti �� . I � \ '\-�� I� °S '�S"E. ...%�0 B°° '��a � _ �454 LAU EL 8�od��_— ... 9ae.�.... s� VE. qo.� � o;,; . � os (F�ied R-2�-59) s ° ' • *- s 60 a � �� • .� gg9�4o'i5•E b0 8?'�0'�5'E - - Za,;6 3°- V � � j. O� I O • c, � ►. Fo – � � — — –tj0 n � i w i ; ' I • � Op A a ,. ::a �/ > o . . .Q � � � o V P � � M �N � � ' � � , i � O 3 ti K� � y � ~ .7 a ~ M . � t3 � ° v. N PART 0 � �I�ED � a � ,� ' o REGISTERED LAN� � E 0.6�6 y� s` 1-? SDR1lr.Y - 3 ►� vi I , --'t � F.�1 2 � ; NQ 648 • � i.ld � ,r�s� '�'� � 5 df'do'!5�E 7 594.26 _ _ -- -- �7 �o � E ,e.I nr � � - - -- -- — - - - -- -- - o a, � ----; -�� - ' ' . w � February 6, 1985 T0: Golden Va11ey Planning Commission FROM: Alda Peikert, City Planner SUBJECT: Set Datefor Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat of "Cortlawn Pond" The City of Golden Valley is proposing platting of two parcels of City owned property. This is part of a continuing effort to accomplish platting of,a11 City owned property for purposes of clearly defining boundaries with accurate surveys, of clearing title, and of establish- ing dedicated st�eet right-of-way and easements as required. The Golden Valley Planning Commission previously reviewed plats of three City owned properties in May 1984. The first of the two properties proposed for platting at this time is Cortlawn Pond, a parcel approximately 17 acres in area located to the north of Laurel Avenue and to the east of Jersey Avenue South at approximately 6500 Laurel Avenue. . Staff suggests that the Planning Commission set an informal public hearing date of February 25, 1985 for consideration of the Preliminary Plat of "Cortlawn Pond". Attachment: Site Location Map � � g a �. � c � � � : �-� �� ; , , �; . , Q € .:.. :� _w : . .t. . .. ..._ . ......_.- .::: -- ....•f,,ah•y, y•6t_. _...... s'�f9'FL62 -......_ o i o0 0 � �Z -08� �� M °±t,�� ,oFYId� ' °groe(... � � ••":yo � Lii d �•� � - af� o�� Ob I � M � 'FS a ,� , I � m I �� M � � � N � �y,.�.H � • ��. N� N . . I� �; I r,N ' +� ' m a'� �f � . � � � � � � '• ' W _ �°wZ 'F ; . ��°.'�e ±�i N� se- td/ !p � a �, �f m ' '� ="_` SOi ��oo� �645�64'f1 u•oo� Gi/ : £� °' � o � i �" '�ee� q'Qbl SU � �� S6! -'o --'. ; Z i ' ; i �-:, ^M OM3J03s ;' � o � ' '�'� ��' �• � Y �� Ol/SN Si o��`�.�.�,��5,�_ �8_. � j� "!ut.9'f � :.� O/I o'� � °�.."a '—^ ' �� ie � ��,,I o . ,'1, • a1 � _ �:.�i � o' o��r �'� ' r �N� � �� •` . ` + O � — �. W_/ {�110 �� N � � V rr� O � "'�. p � �D � o \ 3— � r, � . �� 9� yf��S "Or 4 g. � e m I 9� :'_ � �� J o01 oaI- 0l1 � - • i `, 'p�ad 4Z� Ooi qo°M 9 t �,' w � �+ e .os. � e .. n �O� �1/ O JNJ • - ,. R � �w � V - � �a a� �,= �N � �6,, , �..°� � N m 's � � � � �n ' SOf�o,�a; �'JI,�,o� A� . � a a to� Su y�•o6 �: S�/ 3� N� 6 � pti ; I •_4. �d+ ' 91171M•Of.�M Z o 1 do� , M .p � � �Q�a01.�.•.•' �!-. � •eo �^h�� W aa sn oi�� N � (v i li! � ::;y --�-. � M � �� '° ' �r-- -� ' - .. A ` N Q °os' "' yc�' C�v ,.., V vooi - � �N3 �OJ►" � �� M�� :.� o�, � 09 � � 'n.r ��' �b 9ri "O 60� � G -V . � � : - �° � ~• d � , JON 99Z NSY2�.:'' '� � a N K � q^ 9 9 ` � ' N 'O� � � �^, � .yqryy • �� o~�•: . :�� o , .bh � Z � ,''- ''Q• "M �• �°' - 3 '; awT. . o 'r-r' ��ZM s �/o °`� � Q �f W � �� N ° "'` � � 911 � � . - �9 N� jf V u'�v O a•� '�O A► • ..'� o�. �'f� Ne�A� o Y� 0• 1 ii a6 p�� . ' ��'�BI ! o -.--zu � �O� (�N � �-�y M�6= � 9 '� ZI Zf p�� ~ � W / � �• �� $ °��` Ia r- � a = �5� � 'e o91 �� 6i�O • - � � � z i '� • $` 'l1 9� O•°` b' • p� r • Qe� b"" e•� • : C� `� � —N!�� A�n� b ��rw : I a = 9o�I�� _`% � eirY� ro ��F� _' ►-a� ni `o�`; S ' '� � LS�Soi 25'eoi _.'"� • � '.. So'c21 ' � "�;: -.oE;/�� 10'"..� o00 .R a� �,,° e�� li y �` �w' v. 6.1 f�0% ��N 1��°,�,c , 3�,, ti4�''_oppf.�--[' . �O .. � i7 `�CriEi �aeE+:�•� � � . . o� _ � -,_bZ.��« ... o . - �o N i I � W i � O 1 � � � e�a : � � � � � �� tn , � ' ` � '� � ��Q W i U� � � r , �* �► � a N � � I u a � � � � I _ n i February 6, 1985 T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Alda Peikert, City Planner SUBJECT: Set Date for Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary P1at of "Laurel Pond" The second of the two City owned properties proposed for platting at this time is Laurel Pond, which consists of three contiguous parcels with a total area of approximately sixteen acres located to the north- west of the intersection of Laurel Avenue and Jersey Avenue South at approximately 7000 Laurel Avenue. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission set an informal public hearing date of February 25, 1985 for consideration of the Preliminary Plat of "Laurel Pond". � Attachment: Site Location Map . � ,/� '� I ` �L`i .- i ' v� o. j � � � . V 'o � `-� . i � O�1 � .r I • � �� e ' sr� saa •-� £oi61 •_• --�—��06 . f'zt► o ' � '3Ad r�,..i:.ss.s�n'".— c°,.N •�e � t � i4009 ' �oroo qo ;: �� ti�� oi� GiI OSI ord Ofid OS''d � o� � � a J �y o► °�E, �N �� e, _ �a �� •�. _ �m _ Q — > = Oa - & � W a ao�or zo'oo► . . .. Zo•ooi zo•or W _ � v m _ � � N r — . . � p .� o� � •Z � •8 �rr � � � ,� �� - � s °, J Z o s& ss . �si� s�� S8 � � W " oF os 3A1�„ zF, s o � �l��St�1N � � a � F- se ao1 �� . .. °�z o 2 0 ,^ . �.. W � � � �N - � . • . � oo • F� O . _ � � _ v a m •� m V :.,�.: .6 � , ' So/ oo� r °9 i..:._ ,. . .. ool �ol Fote : h Si%O/ E6'Z// Li'to/ EC Gl.• :.'� S£ T � N o � � go�ooi 9b£6 LaZOi ot�o ..-- � �M � • \ N• a•M M•a� n � � M `��, •� n �� v 0i ._.... � � �h .v ^i al 09 ^�ti . N M p1 �h ' °'' LZ78 F3YL 90 jb0/ ` 00' \ \ �_..: . � � .bD,ap � '"• � N 'k15 /s/23 Ss: / 429.OB �� OJ/ ££86 v. F9'28�� `� ; .LA�I . : 64.09'� Qiia3a. '� SF! — • �06 OF� Ofi/ I�I.SI � SFt t N �f 8 F� � ''�•'3 �£Yd/ '• ' p �"c-ti6'�n—!.e'7E/ ! ' LCOCI - � ' �• � AB�t QJ� N OD�g 0�� q_/ � � . '� •� I � F N m d.. � � y, '' 80/ � fo g9 •��"SZ'L9 00/ � ; ii ,Z�/. 04 " � � �m � +.i4 �o �' tn� h�ZO 3ti �� a O/t N OFd ,�..i td ' ^ � ��I ':Zy9�q : `� J N `•� ��f� V � N O� N W � /� 9/'90/ LL'66 � Q� � � � LO'OC/� `�o'9c/ Lo90/ � .. . , £d6E/�y .S$O/ S£'EO/ 98'Z£/ '•"3 o Q. s. /Offf �Q � I a0 •QQY O `� �1 • �` Qa�fl 0�W.r�?6-� /O4 (u , _ � �� c" �' � � N. p •s �� ^1 1"` cN`v �y1 � N S/� N lSF,/ N ~' � ti M �' j � Aa 9L d!• Gf � 01'�: �?1'�Q4'� � ` rfl I ' . tl.ee 4TAf 95�8 � � ;W e8 S9Bo pg i. °S°o r��i-_ • Q + a'� � N , ot��_��/99.b? y'�y oii tt%s �'.'� � N � �+ � I �'�L r d B 10' � ��v u� . V 'J��7 V�7- � ' 1G'tE! 4 c�V �1 LIX °� '+ •. 9�d �•ab 'aso/ 9rey p9 . � ti' Q F. � m 09 w t f£ ��6 .TOa o/iar,t v�of,iv Oi'/ ,^, �ae '�� °� � ,J � ,�.r`" �j�By E 8'. . I�`o � �— � NO`10 ° rn• m.sit.+e� •'n N o . .�" '- - ryI�O � • N � � .� � 1� V� i�'� �[b/z/ � So,SG � :•� �' S � �� w . a�- ��r. SB[6 o«'s�`�Nt 9$'� ti ,� ; � f• s ° � f .'�o i�� M °�7�i aoi • s � 6� ti'�i s ci �,Ia ,.M d $� �, �N �rl � v'N vo rn � in�N cf1 DU 1968 g a�D� d /q�v �9c _�I�� ,�,1� � M •� eJ • Of � •u ti�� E2'�Y ��V � m �lVd 'r.0 0 p t0 ; ,.� I ' 98�br Go/ rn Z ` �j � Q • — q:'.�`' SIZ°. .'t�N `. ''l n� d-l1ta_ D. �- '�. ° � oo/ 6Z19 � �y 0 . i �I � h - M.SS �C� /21.OB � SNi,s"� �j 9•P// , 0 �£�� [/ 196.42i . 'S• ^I I�, %.66%8 L 9'oDi �-_r-- — 68►� �. � � y3�;�°� N ��I� ��mB � OJ/ � OS/ O�� 3Z.8742400.Z �•�.^�. ' N � . o R� � � : ,� N� Q � a!/°fo d�Z s��N � ` '� ! N � .�� ° /O/ 91'p0/ �o.�/ � S � N � $ N�^ 9Zi6'E7 Sg�B _ . �a. v,� � �O9'L// S£'9B �s�9ES sE-aZi 99Bb� zL � �Oi U�'N �� ry� `�`t� ry ��p q"1 . N � 98B£f a f+l q 1 :� W �I . "��/p` '� � � i. �d' ao � � � o � � � � � �89'SS .ClI a � - � � V $� - •��srosi�`��s�'-' �''.s'�'��h.tr,sz v �Z'�'p4 ,�,��'.r 'N ^� � +a '1 � i I :�,:g�6•Ro� ;: 6,r�t;,., �t'xlrr �� j2ao� .�'3 � � q o S � iv ,'�1,��o oe� .�rzFZy Msa,.,_,. �� q _ � � � `. h �` o � -, . .� . ••vJ�l �; k _ � � K � � ` n �� "�'�f6y ii/spg 4 N N � �o r Zo.se s g ti�q �°a o�6•�� os�!a �6�'ooi r . � �� ; � oesai y �- � � ' .�ai�v • * � ��' � 2 �i � d� i O . . Q ,� � - a�`o � �' rFi� �'069 �ESZi ��_ :d�� - - . � R February 6, 1985 • T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Alda Peikert, City Planner SUBJECT: Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning from Residential to Business and Professional Offices Zoning District - 1245, 1315, 1�35 and 1411 North Lilac Drive The proponent, Foxboro Corporation, proposes rezoning of four lots with existing older single family residences located at 1245, 1315, 1335 and 1411 North Lilac Drive from the Residential to the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District to allow redevelopment with an office cooperative building. The four lots comprise a site 3.21 acres in area located on the west side of Hiyhway 100 just to the south of Golden Valley Road. Proposal The proposal is for construction of an office cooperative building divided into separate units for individual occupancy. Building design reflects concern on � the part of the proponent for residential character compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The building profile is low, with approximately two- thirds of the total 36,700 square feet located on the first floor and one-third located on a stepped back partial second floor. The building has a U-shaped footprint on the property with units offset to break up long exterior walls, thus increasing the residential character desired for the building. Exterior materials are wood with stained wood siding and cedar shake roof. Although plan sheets indicate a metal roof, the proponent informs staff that in this location Foxboro Corporation intends to use a shake roof in order to enhance the residen- tial character of the building. It should be understood that building plans submitted at the time of a rezoning request are intended to illustrate that the type of use requested is feasible on the subject site and also to provide an idea of intent for use of the property. However, once the property is rezoned, an owner or developer may construct any building permissible within the zoning restrictions regulating the specific zoning district. The Business and Professional Offices Zoning District allows construction of a building up to three stories in height, which height limita- tion is the same as that for Residential and other zoning districts under the Golden Valley Zoning Ordinance. In this case, there is no reason to suspect that the developer currently requesting rezoning would not follow through with the project. • Golden Valley Planning Commission ' ^ February 6, 1985 Page 2 � Code Compliance Building plans submitted with the rezoning application illustrate that the pro- , posed building could be constructed on the subject site within requirements of the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. Setbacks Building and parking area shown on the proposed site plan allow the required f ront, side and rear yards except for one parking space in the southeast corner which projects into the required 35 foot landscaped setback from the street right-of-way. The plan shows more than the required 50 foot building setback from adjacent Residential zoning on the south and west and meets the required 25 foot setback to parking on these two sides. Adjacent zoning on the north is Business and Professional Offices, and the plan provides the required 20 foot setback to building and 10 foot setback to parking or drive. Parking The site plan illustrates provision of more than the required number of parking spaces on site. Required parking for 36,700 square feet of space at a ratio of one space per 250 square feet of office is 147 spaces. The number of parking spaces provided is 155, which would be reduced to 154 with the elimination of one space encroaching into the required front yard. iBuilding and Fire Code The preliminary plans submitted with the rezoning application were reviewed by City Inspections staff. Inspections staff outlined Code requirements for sprinklering of the entire building, separation walls between units, and compliance with handicapped accessibility requirements on an individual unit basis. The Inspections staff inemorandum was transmitted to the proponent for information purposes and for guidance in future preparation of more detailed building plans. It should be noted that final building and landscaping plans are reviewed by the Building Board of Review prior to issuance of a building ° permit. Existing Site Conditions The subject site proposed for rezoning consists of four residential lots occupied by four existing single family homes. Three of the houses are on large lots each approximately one acre in size. The most northerly house, located at 1411 North Lilac Drive, has a small lot and was not included in an original pre- liminary proposal presented for staff comment. Staff advised the proponent that the rezoning request would be more likely to receive favorable consideration with inclusion of this property which would otherwise remain an isolated Residential use between Business and Professional Office properties. � Golden Valley Planning Commission ' . February 6, 1985 Page 3 � The northernmost house, built in 1950, is the newest of the four residences, with the others constructed in 1900, 1905 and 1918. The oldest house, the resi- dence located at 1335 North Lilac Drive, currently appears vacant. The property at 1335 North Lilac Drive includes both a house and a second residential building behind the house, and there are reportedly one or more nonconforming apartment units existing in the house and/or accessory building. The three large lot properties have been on the real estate market for several ' years offered as a combined site subject to rezoning. This potential redevelop- ment site was included in the senior citizen housing site inventory compiled for the Planning Commission Recommendation on Implementation of the Housing Policy, dated April 25, 1983. Compatibility With Surrounding Zoning and Land Use The proposed office redevelopment use of the subject property is compatible with surrounding zoning and land use, which include both Residential and Business and Professional Offices zoning and use. Adjacent property to the north at the intersection of Golden Valley Road with Highway 100 is zoned Business and Professional Offices Zoning District and is the location of a small office building similar in scale and character to the building proposed. Height of the existing office buildiny is one and a half stories, and exterior finish is dark stained wood. An existing residence on � Golden Valley Road, which abuts the northwest corner of the subject site, is also zoned Business and Professional Offices according to the Official City of Golden Valley Zoning Map. Properties to the west and south of the subject site are zoned Residential and belong to an established single family residential neighborhood. The house directly to the south is screened by an existing solid wood fence approximately six feet in height. Residential properties to the rear or west of the proposed office building are at a lower elevation. Separation is provided by deep lots, by the change in elevation, and by existing trees on the hillside portions of the adjacent residential lots. Scale of the proposed office building is deliberately unobtrusive, and visual impact on the residential properties to the west should be minimal . On the other hand, the office building would provide separation and buffer of adjacent residential development from Highway 100. Conformance With Comprehensive Plan Amendment of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map designation for the subject site would be appropriate at the time of the next Comprehensive Plan update. � Golden Valley Planning Commission ' . February 6, 1985 Page 4 � THe Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map included in the City of Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan adopted in November 1982 indicates long term low density residential land use for all area west of Highway 100 and south of St. Croix Avenue. However, both Commercial and Business and Professional Offices zoning and land uses already exist northwest and southwest respectively of the inter- section of Golden Valley Road with Highway 100. There is potential for redeve- lopment to the north of Golden Valley Road, as well as to, the south at the subject location. City staff has been approached in the past with a suggestion for redevelopment of the unsightly commercial on the northwest corner of Golden Valley Road and Highway 100 combined with redevelopment of several residential properties to the north. It is unreasonable to expect redevelopment to low den- sity residential . The Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map designation requires reconsideration in view of redevelopment potential of older and deteriorating residences located adja- cent to Highway 100. Redevelopment alternatives include multiple family resi- dential and office development. Office space is apparently the more financially feasible redevelopment alternative at this time. Furthermore, the exclusively daytime use of office may be more compatible with adjacent single family resi- dential development. In conclusion, the subject rezoning proposal is not in conformance with the current Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map designation for long term low density residential use. However, increased awareness of redevelopment potential for • the area indicates a need for reconsideration of the long term use designation at the time of the next Comprehensive Plan update. Engineering Considerations Access and Traffic Access to the subject site is provided by means of three routes. First, there is a right off and right on access to and from southbound Highway 100 at Lindsay Street, reached by following North Lilac Drive to the south. Secondly, access to Highway 100 both northbound and southbound would be at Duluth Street, reached by following North Lilac Drive to the north to the Springgate Shopping Center. Thirdly, Golden Valley Road to the west connects to Douglas Drive and from there south to Highway 55. There is potential for traffic congestion resulting from peak hour influx and outflow of cars to and from the proposed office building. The availability of several alternative access routes is a mitigating factor. Furthermore, these routes avoid residential streets. According to the City Engineer, planned improvements to Duluth Street in the vicinity of Highway 100 will alleviate already congested conditions at that point and adequately handle additional traffic generated by the proposed small office building. Staggering of work hours could be utilized to minimize peak hour congestion in the immediate vici- nity of the proposed office building. � Golden Valley Planning Commission ' . February 6, 1985 Page 5 � Utilities Sanitary sewer and water service adequate to accommodate the proposed office building are available to the site. Drainage Drainage of the subject site is a crucial consideration due to the fact that runoff would be substantially increased by the addition of building and parking area and due to the fact that natural drainage is to the west onto single family residential lots. The site plan submitted with the rezoning application does not provide a finished grading and drainage plan. A detailed plan is not required for con- sideration of rezoning, but the proponent should understand that no construction may occur prior to preparation of a detailed drainage plan acceptable to the City Engineering Department. For the information of the proponent, it will be necessary to drain all runoff f rom the site to the east toward Highway 100. Location of collection points along Highway 100 must be confirmed in the field. Storm sewer in the residen- tial street to .the west of the subject site is inadequate to accommodate drainange from the proposed development even if easements were acquired for routing across private residential properties. � It appears that substantial fill of the southwest portion of the subject site would be required in order to achieve drainage to the east. The City Engineer speculates that grading and drainage may necessitate construction of a retaining wall in the southwest area. All such provisions must be included in a complete drainage plan submitted for Engineering review prior to appearance before the Building Board of Review and prior to issuance of a building permit. Recommendation Staff recommends favorable consideration of the requested rezoning based on the deteriorated condition of existing single family residential structures on the subject site, based on potential for redevelopment of large lots to a higher and better use, based on compatibility of the proposed redevelopment use with surrounding zoning and land uses, and based on improvement of the property both in terms of aesthetics and in terms of value. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request received from Foxboro Corporation for rezoning of 1245, 1315, 1335 and 1411 North Lilac Drive from the Residential to the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. Attachments: 1 . Site Location Map 2. Detail of Official Zoning Map 3. Site Plan and Elevations (Full sized plan sheets enclosed separtely.) � •U� -�^ �,:� .�7 o r vi 'e� 7� a i �' S�v o" "' '�" ^ � t� A! dU. SChool .,, . M � -� , e 'v^ ', ssso s� cpo�x � � � • �� ..... -263•• ° �. eo 3 .2 P z � q6$�2955"E 389.94 � . • :67 � 148 ': 4g_) i88'29'SS"'� ° 'w '�' _33 ' NIEST .n PART OF LOT {0 M. ; 1 ol � � b h � "'L"'----- --- -- - ---- . -------•zgo�..a--7-°-� a C:fy � I �� N89�6453� no 1 1 .94 r.�; I � E � � or 9 w 350.29 "= N/PP'� ;�R�EF�JC° o ;, '� 9 � j � I o� � °x � !o0 8 °°a, o� i � j „ N N �,�. N o 3 -o; PLAZA N�=�DD/T/DAl . `' � � ': � � _ s + I N _ � V�/Iey � � � �Z i I � � 1�5.2? � 34�.�8 �+,01 0.6 e ?�.OY ' 19$.OS 562.41 i 9zo .,. - 588°29'55"MY 777.48 5�00 E _ - `9 --� ; � !tdED�CINE LAKE ROAD1 ��,�-'�u3cis �/ � �91��. 3645 to'":� ►�s� '"'� :3fZo7 ° o roc� : .. : ioi.� � ,•�,� ;,; „ 138to) 23 f 3942) a.3s�. 40 (3�5!) ' 0.36 Ac. � � • � � � • �3� ; o _ � 247 9a.sR,6;• •, 6 8.7 5825 ' - - - ?8 55 .4x � � o- � - � � - •' � � M 1,,� t[1 ' �� .' V,� �•�v b� � M � � �' �^ � � N c� ' M .��°� \r � � !Ol•� ��+� r�g9�� -- . 283�6 ,ss s- � ro�• ,r =-------•-------- ..._ : ' •�, � T ir . N `t ; 0 7 �.. _ 9�.t4�• � � �Irt ofl N QpJi °o �� o�. $ 9•0 �-, �y , r v . • 21 I '^ • .�; �. e �.f ; �;16P6o �3°� 2�M � � (3895` -�--- --- ,� -o t ��:z o - 50:'- q•M � =+ f6f4 — •s ,�� • • � I � o� LOT AUD.� \'• r�JGl'I3 g° 62•5 a• ,°s' ZO g� SUB. 0. 346 , 0 4 .,� y, •. ,e2 .se "� w - ,� �o - oWE��ME �;E,P`P;�. ,.�a�.sj ��a�ei � (t i39•2 .:, 2 G 13 i�o v AvE ioo.8 :�pf°°'• � �:a: , • w T. ^ � .�e. a; • � � a.� � 5��i�/'Ts� � ;�• �U - -�► �t t � •;� • ; `/ � �� B �"'� � . • iu1 � .L� i5/ v r ar r 2I .3� • ��:ti•��i°o.I �}• ac ,ao , ,�. • , �.�oT t Auo,�b � �, 1 ,, ;�-�� T �,V°�..SUB. N . 346 �• 14G•8 14G.8 .o U m \ ,�� I � � ' O g;ok ' • 27.i a •- �i ' 5 0 � � ! �� ,� , �j N=� ;re.;l-3•b� ise � a . M 6 ' �` ; o ^ �a� S t�n Y—n o- • �4� �� ' v ,j"' ��' ' LOT ` AU�!�4 '�-�-_,., 14�.52 . � �o �U � � 17 l � °w5�. W . 346a1-� ".,. �°_ 4� �� 4` W � I � ,,,�s0� . I /' � � : ° • /3.s2 .0 qtJ'�;� — � a �p.12 � 30 •n %� ' aI ti -°-- -.�r9G.4 70.65 = �� 3 � 55 ;^,. ., � i \ u� °� �\ • �, .: il� ti ° Go' 554�� %� -;�o; ,��.s.e �p/ J"„ 300 � � t�r►� So ��.,I eV�ticy. � „� 3 h � �; � ► ,. �s��,S�i. 33 ve• [r�-S � l43.7� '� 120.59��', �7•8 /02.2�' ��3� .{ �� a � Z 7 q � � 3as � '� ��`� _, a o"'�,1.� Z ' -I �'S -. ►^ 5 ;. lo ��i w .o ` �J � � �56 a►��,� h� " a � •�b 18 a 1, i `•.,;- �' � h W � , � ; ' a 4^��3r.•�` •�o ��01 . E � �� Xr f��5�3� .�!.'�5 �o�5 � a ,r" • ��.b 'y )S N �� '� I � ;`� �. ;�4� 5?° .:at�� io985 � } � ° ---.I ' ' 1 � " `� a �~` 6 r- 5 ,�,�4 � 3 `i � ' Y .t•"ti°�� ..•�1s"i �� 2 M i b �. 98 ' 114•p4 tM ;"� • r' b • , �0• �°° lo0 20o ro0 � ��` . 3 � 6 � � � ', !o �1�°•�, 1`'� � > • � � � / • � w � � �eoo ^��'� 35 �,� �•Z � a ao 3 _ k� � \ � `�':., � , y 3 y',o�r`��' S�o: ;., ' �,- qo.5 S � � ZDO I d� . ,�.,� 'Sg2p i S, 5 ,.a ; a1 � 0 3 � _ U o,� q e . Z fs � e, :S, �`o I e ko S0�e5 e \ 4 , .. ;� t. - �,_ � � b 4 � o�` o� 5 � - I •.� 58Q0 '1' �� sls•ZG'W'I� ti2 .� M ►� ��,:� 9 �� r5 • 4o JGo � e3 � •, ... ' .� � ' � e �.+�- 1J. 2L � � .' s 3 .n�, `1 . `:� 05 �O ,. a ;g1.14 iot o � o �—��.- 6 n , � ��;='a: 5g� \ ��025 G, :,�'� ,,911te r� � ;5` oo �3 � .. a � s oG 5 P �° _�-__ �'Y, 7 ,,, <' ' � � 6' �Q a 60 � 3 0 ,- -�� - - - - - �q� -3- - --�-- ---- 2DO 3 �,� ,y �•rs.o4 �_ $ � 6 � .. 'S .r-o Q a ' 1te 46 ....-:' �dl.i�� ...• // �•• N O No go s� � r p SD.t/4 COR. SEC. 28 0 5-- ��J' m ,. TRACTS A,B,C R.L.S. 9Q7- CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY ��' ..� �. � . �'.:s� �"`:. c':.`: ' , \ . ��z .- � p{� _ . . ///\��# .`,. w..^�� ' _"' �i y� �� ' � �, ��'). / / • �� M'"' ...+n4-� � ''�� .z:. -�� . � � � ��.�� T `�� 1 � �� t � �� '�� ---,. �. ! !'r � ��3�� - �� .� �9` �/ �.. .��( ! _ '�. /, � ,� 1��,�. e I / �:�`" / �a aa� �� ,,, � �� . ,�/ � �;.ti;,.: ,�<;•.;_;;cjc;::' �+ � ��f9➢a6 ,� , :C _ : =��. j p'`��:��`�' '��+ gg ��;;�y �� .��j / ,..,..... ... � ,��e '�a ' --- �i �,�� / � }::� -��i �es:E�°::�:, t _ 9�" : :�� - �.r��.. � :�'^>i•.0 �.� .F, <. .�� I�,' �?� ��p�, �""""�„ �, � � �, ... y 1�� d4lr - l6Ei �� ` � - �' ,� ��gP� i:z��-: � ,_'� _� �i��. �B��S�i � ' � i a � ftl�'m i' aaa � ,: "� � : k � ��., _,i 4 � �` � i f � �,1 � � � ' Y�> � � � " ' ,;�~. �T� �, � �`�' '�� 83�$��$3 � � # ,_ ':�� E�� -' a — _�v� � � � �" :_"\`\\\\ �""`.+� � --�,s�� `::`� '�'``� < � � .,�". k / ��``��\1� o�'� � � I ��c / � �1,0`�='.�� ,. � �ti:``��` �� .�� .� � � � � `��AA\�\� ,� � �„ �� •/ /////�� \,\\�� '� ,�� 4 /,� _ ,,\ �� , ��,,� � � i% %� i �� `� ��;�� - � � ,,�� / , �.f �� :j �� _nu/nUG�u�,n��..�v��Y%��ii.wi��.�ioau��un�i��utii�� .. �� nui.�vav.a�i.vi.a.,i.vr..�c..�- ��u d ��-" �� vA.n � ::::: � ��/n�.i�.��n.,> ti��.,,.w.<^...,� v^, /`�;� /.,..y,.`.� % �� /� j/I �iiiiii�i� �/�\'�j ��., �� .., ------ � � �,,� / � � � % ti ��`�::::: °�::;': :��f f j �i, / � r;. �i � ----- �/�j/ - � / %//i ��i / .,-;�\` , // � �. ,��,,y , ��j ., �;.�, .� : \��;// / / �. /�� , � ��. iS�: :1� ��/�%�� _ ��:�� - J:w-• � _ �� -- --- � _ _ ,p.e�r.��A eS�:�'�°-'� � � ,.�,� . ' �' :}{i� .W ..::._fy�• .= �� .. ��r. �6a • ` , 8' ��-� ''� � �� 7' ..�;�i',�' �,-� �.:: ��. ,� � �. 1 �.:�� "�\ �: �,��. � ��=�� ------=-_.� � � \ � 't�� " — �l4`aa`� ,":ja� � ��.ir�.. i�� h� � _ L"�� 1:'� �...+ � `...,_��. ��g``��t� '°°°°'�� :_ � � ; � � � F � �� - �' :..� �� ;� - �, , � ,. • :°' � .'� �� ♦ ;,i .�•,•,..{�, � �� 1 �_ ��:��;�;��;, z i gBB� �� -t � •,� .o•,�,ti, � �, ��'�. I � � ^� . '3669� r �,��: :;ti:; `::�-`'+I`.}.�� , � �� „�669� �F� �� .:;•y` � � C ...:.;.. � � � �q�� 383i� ��! � � � � c� ��i �.:. � �� 5�� dgli8l '��'.; � �C � � '/� � � ��`�� BB� ��' � �� i - k � g6� �dtf�5 �..,.::.:.:,.- / � �� .. y ,::� . �r � � � Q a'�"�=::,. �� & �� = �6�� _ � � . � .- . .- -. . . � �� . - . . - -. . � \\\\\\\\ � �� %////// e �w� �ar i _ February 4, 1985 � T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Amendment to Zoning Code to Permit Certain Home Occupations Over the past few years, there has been sporadic discussion regarding home occupations and if and how they may be permitted. At the present time, the Golden Valley Zoning Code does not allow any home occupations except for day care. However, there are probably many people that do have home occupations in Golden Valley. These home occupations may include the person who does typing at home, works at a computer with a link to his/her office or cuts hair. The Planning staff believes it would be in the best interest of the City to recognize home occupations and to permit certain home occupations. The staff suggests the permitting of certain home occupations for several reasons. The � reasons include the changing types of work in society (i.e. the use of the computer and other high technology at home and the move to more service oriented work), the increasing need for the income of two persons to maintain a household, the desire for a family member to stay home with young children, and the recognition of existing home occupations that do not have a negative effect on the City. , The staff has also received two recent inquiries about starting a beauty shop in a home. These operations are not permitted. However, these persons would like to see some method to allow their operations. The staff is recommending that the attached definition (which includes perform- ance standards) be considered. The staff has studied many home occupation codes from other cities and the method suggested here appears to be the best. This method will allow, by right, certain home occupations in the residential and two-family districts. There would be no Conditional Use permits involved. The definition clearly states the conditions that must be met in order for any occu- pation to be permitted and also specifically lists a group of occupations that are not permitted. The definition does not specifically list permitted home occupations. Home occupations are permitted as long as they meet the conditions and standards in the definition. The Planning Commission may have questions or concerns regarding the permitting of some home occupations and not others. There may also be concern regarding the method of permitting home occupations (i.e. why not require Conditional Use permits?) . The staff has tried to suggest a method that would permit certain common occupations that would not upset the balance of a neighborhood and a meChod that would be simple to administer. Therefore, it is recommended that Conditional Use permit procedures not be used. Please review the information for discussion at the February llth meeting. If you have questions or concerns, the Ordinance may be changed to reflect the � wishes of the Commission. Attachment • DRAFT OF HOME OCCUPATION DEFINITION AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS A home occupation is an accessory use of a dwelling, exluding an attached garage, conducted entirely within the dwelling. The occupation or profession may be carried on by one or more persons, all of whom reside in the dwelling unit and where no persons are employed other than the residents. The occu- pation or profession shall be of a service character (in other words, no tangible commodity is produced as a result of the home occupation) . The use of the dwelling for the occupation or profession shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes and shall not change the character thereof or adversly affect the other uses permitted in the Residential District of which it is a part. In no way shall the appearance of the structure be altered or the occupation within the residence be conduct- ed in a manner which would cause the premises to differ from its residential character. There shall be no outside storage related to the home occupation. No home occupation shall be conducted in an accessory building or garage. No home occupation shall be permitted involving the receipt or delivery of inerchan- dise goods or equipment by other than mail or parcel post. Any activity resulting in noise, fumes, traffic, lights and odor, electrical, radio or TV interference, fabrication of materials, mechanical repair or mechanical testing to such an extent it is noticeable that the property is being used for non- residential purposes shall not constitute a perm.itted home occupation. No stock in trade shall be displayed or sold on the premises except for the incidental retail sales made in connection with permitted home occupations. • There shall be no signs or advertising except as permitted by the Golden Valley Sign Ordinance. A permitted home occupation shall not be interpretted to include the following: repair and painting of autos, boats and other vehicles; restaurant; tourist home; animal hospital; veterinarian office; funeral home or mortuary; medical clinic; stable or kennel; music or dance schools except where the instruction is limited to a maximum of one pupil at, a time except for occasional groups; repair shops or service establishments except for the repair of small electrical appliances, radios, televisions, typewriters, cameras and other items that may be carried by one person; schools, instruction or classes (other than music or dance schools) except where the class size is not greater than 4 persons at any one time; gift or antique shops; any business in which there are more than 4 clients or customers in the dwelling unit or premises during any period of 60 minutes; any business where clients or customers come to the dwelling before 7 A.M. or after 10 P.M. � o