04-13-81 PC Agenda l
� GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Aprit 13, 1981 --
(Civic Center, 7800 6olden Valley Road)
7:30 p.m.
A G E N D A.
I. �proval of Minutes - March 23, 1981
II. Introduction of A1d�. Peikert, Planning Assistanf, to the Planning
Commission.
III . Informat Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat
APPLICANT: Taco Bell , Westmont, [LL
LOCATION: 2480 Winnetka Avenue North
REQUEST: Approval of Preliminary Plat of
�'Teacher Additionr`
� IV. Informal Public Hearin - General P1an P.U:D. Z�i-A
APPLICANT: Calvary Community Services, Inc.
LOCATION: 7600 Golden Valley Road
REQUEST: Approval of General Development Plans for
P.U.D. 26--A, Calvary Square Apartments
(Phase II)
V. Referral to Planning Commission '€rt�m City Councit of Request for
Special Use Permit.
APPLICANT: 5th Northwestern Bank (Banco)
LOCATION: 650 Douglas Drive North
REQUEST: Special Use Permit for a bank in an Industrial
. Zone District
VI . Review and Discussion of Section 400:15 ''F1bor Area Requirements"
City Building Code.
VII . Review and Discussion of Merits of Introducing "Zero Lot Line"
Subdivision Procedures into City Platting Ordinance.
�
April 13, 1981
City of Golden Valtey Planning Commission
� Agenda
Page 2
Vllf. Subcommittee Reports on Review of Proposed Comprehensive Plan.
A. Housing Subcommittee - Mona Moede
B. Transportation Subcommittee - Bill Forster
IX. Report on City Council Meeting - April 7, 1981 •
X. Work Session on Proposed Zonin� Ordinance Revisions
A. Resident�,al (Single-Family)
B. R-2 Residential (Two-Family)
C. Multi-Dwelling (Multi-Family)
"= XI. Distribution of Additional Zoning Ordinance Revisions.
A. Industrial Zone District
B. Radio Zone District
� C. Railroad Zone District
��
�
--Minutes of the Golden Valley
� Planning Commission
March 23, 1981
A regular meeting of the Planning Commisston was held in the Council
Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, 6olden Valley,
Minnesota. Chairperson Eastes called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Those present were Commissioners: Eastes, Forster, Leppik, Moede,
Polachek, Singer and Thompson.
Also present were Michael Mtlter, Director of Planning and Redevelopment,
and Joan Thompson, Secretary. �
1. Approval of Minutes - March 9, 1981 .
It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Polachek, to approve the minutes
of the March 9, 1981 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried.
.i
' II . Set Date for Informal Public Hearing - P.U.D. 26-A.
APPLICANT: Calvary Community Services
LOCATION: Lot 2, Block l , Calvary Square Addition
� (7600 Golden Valley Road)
REQUEST: General Plan Approval (Phase II)
It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Polachek, and carried unanimously,
to set the informal pub) ic hearing for General Ptan Approval (Phase II)
for P.U.D. 26-A, for April 13, 1981 .
III . Set Date for Informal Public Hearing - P.U.D. 30-A
APPLICANT: Henry Hyatt, Technical Assistance Corporation
for Housing
LOCATION: Mendelssohn and Hillsboro Avenue
REQUEST: Concept Approval for Section 8 Housing ProJect
Mr. Henry Hyatt, representing Technical Assistance Corporation for Housing,
presented the proposed proJect.
' Commissioner Moede questioned Mr. Hyatt's participation in this project
_ stating that she has investigated and revealed inconsistencies in his
proposal with regard to who the developer will be.
It was moved by Moede, seconded by Thompson, to postpone setting of the
• public hearing date until proper documentation has been received. Upon
vote being taken, the following voted yes: Thompson,, Moede, and Polachek.
Md the following voted no: Forster, Singer, Lepptk and Eastes. Motion
did not carry.
Page 2
• Minutes of the Golden Valley Planntng Cot�nisston
March 23, 1g81
It was then moved by Thompson, seconded by Forster, and carried to
set the Informal Public Hearing date for May 11 , 1981 , contingent upon
�eceipt of proper documentation regarding this proJect, prior to the
public hearing. Commissioner Moede voted No. -
' Mr. Don Jacobson of Bor=son Construction spoke to clarify credibility �
_ with regard to this project.
IV. Set Date for Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat
APPLICANT: Harry W. Hamman
LOCATION: 6001 Glenwood Avenue
REQUEST: Approval of Preliminary Plat
� It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Moede, and carried unanimousty
to set the informal public hearing date for Approval of Preliminary
Plat for May 11 , 1981.
V. Informat Public Hearing - Rezoning
� APPLICANT: Vanman Construction Company
' * LOCATION: 9201 Plymouth Avenue
REQUEST: Change Zoning from M-1 , Multi-Dwelling to
� Industrial.
�
The staff report was given by Mike Miller. Staff recommended approval
of the rezoning request.
Mr. Richard Vanman, the proponent, presented his proposal for the use
of the property at 9201 Plymouth Avenue.
The Informal Public Hearing was then opened to the public.
Mr. Keith Hanson, 1301 Independence, questioned use of the property.
Mr. John Day, 4625 Drew Avenue North, expressed his concerns regarding
financing for the area.
There being no further questions, the informal public hearing �as closed ,
- to the public.
It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Polachek, and carrted unantmously
to approve the rezoning request at 92�1 Plymouth Avenue from M-1 , Multi-
• Dwelling to Industrial .
VI. Annual Election of Planntn� Commisston �Offtcers.
�
Commissioner Moede nominated Commiasioner Thompson as C6atrman. Go�nissioner
Forster was nominated as Vtce Chairman by Commission Moede, and Commissioner
. Pa9e 3
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
Flarch 23, 1981 -
�
Thompson nominated Commissioner Moede as Secretary.
It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Polachek, and carried unanimously
to approve the officers as nomtnated.
At this time Cortenissioner Eastes yielded the Chair to Cortanissioner
' Thompson and the meeting 'proceeded.
VII. Final Corrections to the Comprehensive Plan and Recortrtunnendation to
the City Council.
Chairman Thompson suggested that the Planning Corarnission take some
additional time to review the Comprehensive Plan, especially with respect
to certain issues of concern to the City Council and of issues raised by
other Tnterested parties.
• Chairman Thompson requested two subcommittees be appointed as follows:
Housing Subcommittee:
Chair - Moede
Herb Polachek
Peggy Leppik
• Transportation Subcommittee:
. Chair - Forster
Don Singer
Sue Eastes
The Chairman requested each Subcommittee to report back to the Commission
on Aprit 13. Commissioner Eastes also suggested that the Land Use Element
be taken up at that time.
VIII . Finat Review and Recommendations of Revisions to the P.U.D. Ordinance.
It was moved by Potachek, seconded by Singer and carried unanimously to
approve the P.U.D. Ordinance and �that it be sent to the City Council for
approval.
IX. Human Rights Commisston Regarding: 1 . Management Plan for Calvary
Square Apartments;
_ 2. Management Plan for Scattered
Site Houstng
Mr. Jay Pearson and Jaye Krantz of the Human Rights Commtssion were present
to answer questions.
It was moved by Moede, seconded by Potachek, and carrted unanimously, to
• approve the Management Plan for Calvary Square Apartments as amended to
make reference in the plan regardi�g regulatory clarification and documentation..
It was moved by Leppik and seconded by Thompson, and carried unantmously
Page 4 -
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
• March 23, 1981
to recommend .approval of the Management Plan for Scattered Site Housing
as amended to omit the sentence "and not second rate citizens" from the
first paragraph of Section 11 of the .Management Ptan.
Jaye Krantz requested a copy of the Planning Commission minutes to
- reflect the change and a letter of confirmation to Mr. Hobbs regarding
the same.
X. Report on City Council Meeting - March 17, 1981 •
Bitl Forster represented the Planning Commission at the Council Meeting
and briefed the commission regarding the meeting. Mike Miller is to
prepare an updated attendance list for Planning Commission members to
represent Planning Commission at City Council meetings. Dave Thompson
is to attend the April 7 meeting, Herb Polachek will attend the May 5
meeting and Bill Forster will attend the May 19 �eting as the Ptanning
Commission Representatives.
XI . Report on HRA Meeting - March 10, 1981 •
Dave Thompson gave a report on the HRA �eting.
• XII . Valley Square Update.
� Final presentation of Galpin-Poppleton report is to be given on April 2,
1981: All Planning Commission members are requested to attend this
meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Civic Center.
XI11 . Residential Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Cort�nisslon was asked to �eview the Residential and Multi-
Dwelling Zoning Ordinance revision for the next meeting.�
XIV. Sectton 400.15. Building Code.
This item was deferred until the next meeting.
XVI . Cor►enunication from General Mills regarding �Comprehensive Plan.
Mike Mitler informed the Ptanning Commission of a letter from Stan Tabor,
Vice President for Real Estate of General Mills, Inc. regardtng the
Comprefiensive Plan.
_ It was noted that the Planntng Commtssion members express thetr appre�iation
to Sue Eastes for her service as Chairperson.
Meeting adjourned at 9�50 p.m.
• Respectfully submitted,
pson, a rma� ona oe e, ecretary
•
April 8, 1981 -
T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission
FROM: Mike Milter, Planning � Redevelopment Coordinator
SUBJECT: Introduction of Alda Peikert, Planning Assistant
It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the Planning Commtssion, Alda
Peikert, who will replace Marty Farrell as City Planning Assistant. Alda
comes to Golden Valley from the City Planning Staff of the City of Plymouth.
- She has in excess of five years of comprehensive planning experience in
the Twin Cities Metro Area, and is particularly familiar with planning
activities and procedures in the western suburban area.
I feel that Alda will be a tremendous asset to our planning team, and I
hope that the Planning Commission will welcome Alda to the Commission and
to the City Staff.
• MHM/dp
�
� April 8, 1981 .
T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission
FROM: Mike Miller, Planning � Redevelopment Coordinator
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of "Teacher Addition"
Taco Bell , Westmont, Illinois, is proposing to subdivide 1 .76 acres of
land located at 2480 Winnetka Avenue North. The proposed subdivision
would create two lots where one lot now exists. Lot 1 would contain
30,060 square feet, and Lot 2 would contain 38,410 square feet. The
property in question is zoned Commercial , as is the property to the
north. The property immediately south and west of the proposed plat
is zoned Light Industrial and the property along the east side of
Winnetka Avenue is zoned Residential (single-family) . Lot 2 of the
proposed subdivision is the site of the Town Crier Restaurant, and Taco
Bell is proposing to develop a drive-in restaurant on Lot 1 with both
restaurants utilizing the same common driveway entrance off of Winnetka
Avenue.
At the present time, the Town Crier Restaurant utilizes the entire 1 .76
aere site for its building and required parking. If this preliminary
� plat is approved, and two separate lots are created and developed as
proposed, it would create two non-conforming uses under our existing
Zoning Ordinance. While the existing and proposed land uses are permitted
uses within a Commercial Zone District, such uses must comply with all
applicable standards. In t�is case, the non-conformity would result from
a lack of sufficient off-street parking area for eac� restaurant. As a
Class I , sit-down restaurant, the Town Crier is required to provide one
(1) parking space for eac� 2-1/2 seats, or in this case, 58 parking spaces.
Taco Bell , as a Class Il , drive-in restuarant, would require one (1) parking
space for each 35 square feet of gross floor area, or a total of 45 parking
spaces on-site. Neither restuarant facility would be able to meet these
parking requirements wit�out a variance from t�e Board of Zoning Appeals.
In addition, the lot line dividing Lot 1 from Lot 2 would run through
the existing parking lot, and the common driveway entrance, making it
necessary for both restaurants to appeal to the BZA for a variance from
the required 10 foot stde yard setback to allow for a ttD�� setbac�.
Therefore, in addition to the questionable suita6ility of the existing
and proposed land uses on parcels of tand obviously too small to adequately
actommodate said uses, there is also the question of increased traffic
generation and congestion that has not been addressed by the proponent.
In view of the aforement�ioned land use discrepancies and potential non-
conformities, I must suggest that the Planning Commission constder a
recommendation to deny approval of t�e preliminary plat of �'Teac�er Addition".
• To approve such a plat would 6e contrary to the spirit and intent of both
the City Subdivision Ordinance and the City ZonIng Code, not to mention
the fact that approval of said plat would in no way benefit the Community.
MHM/dp
---• --- ,
CITY . OF ,�,`��?��� NEW
..... • Eosr ��0..._; ::.:.
:�`M«K'. �6 ''� 826•. � 3228Z � j-g -�757 98' . EAST� � �1e4�e'e,�w .g:.NYO• .,«•,, +
` = 292.84 ... . '^ Re� 'ito'��
• o '• (30 -- "S74' %OO.g
4z': a�o^' � � 7T�5-TT�, Q� ' sa2��3�E;;,;� , .•�,s S�•.
° 622 �W — .\'?y� 5° , �O� ,��. e
� � � �6�0�N � � a � 4 Pti h Q �.
, o0
� V � � � ���
�� C.f2Ac. = I ..1
��_:- . zss : — I3 0
, � �
° Eas! 235 N 292. 9 h ° � �•
.� ` Eost � � • I ; �`�=
�
`d : a • 1 :n o ! 1 g ��-+.'a±i
4; ._Eost 235 _• � s r ~ I s •
,w 2 � ' , �
!V� VJ -�i
�, • � ° Q O � = n c+0
�; EOS P235 _ � .13 b I W�v $ �,;,,N•
o: (��� .n East M � p � �w s $�.�'i
�$: V 3 w: 8 ,.c �' �v -a
f� t� I ��O 7t
x' p 293.22 ` _
�33. -• •-Sd9°67'S4"W 558. i � • � ' �
�4/ r+
� � �
1 �i•-
� ' � I ' 1 ��.
� i — — �, — � � ''
� z � , o, so �
� ' i 5
� 1 + J
P�e»Po.rF,c� .oc��r v�' _ , '
.f ��%Ef'�GDI/�iP I�L�fT/Dit/" b _ :.,, --BSB.41•-. EAST I
. ,
o /. '
�' �
_ _ __- ------- --- y, ---- —--
b ti -- ----- - - �,r- —
� 1 �`:
l
� °` � ^�;
�o
� , w a� i
p
Q � I ^ �
�
� � � � �
a � (850> ( -�1po
� a
�� .
� CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY � s,.
� ,
� �,
1 4�
I ��
N
I V
� (629) n � N
� , � • P
0o N .�-� �
o g . a
� _ .� � �`r`3 °rf �/1 j�/-�' t• o, ?n '63 �e9°51'
�o . � �!� ' t� erT.N0. 346472 i� / VAC.4-T-� ' I.,/ • �
N � o g� g� '�Jf.
i3�fo i.srfa � �.r -� �37Jr, `^-� 30 30 �0163 � ,�°�►2r,s
, ? � 785�3 � 7B3i 3 q -
'� ' q • V � : � N89 58'io"E --o Z�
� • � � ` 2 � � � o• o r ♦.
ia7.I0 l�tso ° �� ` k) ..,,L
o=�f�� � � ti e � 4 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY ' ��a
�, . -��� �
a �„ 3 � � ! `�.—, ' 3 •
� V V � Q� �N�.4 o f S.W'�4 o f N.W.'/4� � 0 � ;,y Ho :�
„ �r
.eo �( 30 ;� �st�
o Q` �OQ� �— — — — N.�$�"SZ'so E: — — — — — � _ � ; � g� 9 ' �SS�
3�No�� 4 P � � ,O j I a N8958'l0"E 163� `
. f p 4.N���Q
a ' z�s.aa � � OUTLOT I O O,� _ �J � � r� ��y �S
� �� Q �`'w��� r-' �`�� `i - _i-� '_�1 N � 8 ..s ���°�i! , ..
� �R S.� s� _...p7Q0 .....' � "` �° S�*
� `a -� Ico . . .. . .. � •• �oo Ioo.oZ 3a N ���ebE��l� 6�r
'" z � �- v ���� ��9
M 2 '� 3 4 � 6 T � 9 = 10 I I 12� _ �13�M � N ;��10'���� . .
M 7840• •� •� �• • 7T� 76• 76P0 760• • 100 DO~ !0' ,:����''S.6 � �t1±
� � .. .. . ( 14 ��
..-ILb3.bl:...5.49°51•W • 4 °..... 1
33� �•� � - l��l 7 S/ �� 'R 'e�o.''° ` p q``�y?j, �
:,y i2c l2s � 12 ltS _ �0 /ZS __ ItS_ 6e - - ►�e N 14 � �1°I°' .:�:iyr e.,� r%`�
. . ..
� April 8, 1981
T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission
FROM: Mike Mfller, Planning � Redevelopment Coordinator
SUBJECT: General Plan Approval - P.U.D. 26-A, Calvary Square
Apartments - Phase II
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
On September 24, 1980, the Golden Valley City Councit granted approval
of P.U.D. 26 (Phase I) altowing Calvary Community Services to construct
and operate an 80 unit apartment structure providing subsidized dwelling
units for the elderly and handicapped. The site in question is located
withi,n a 3.72 acre parcel of land in the northeast quadrant of the
. intersection of Golden Valley Road and Rhode Island Avenue. Phase I
(P.U.D. 26) consists of 80 subsidized apartments, and Phase II (P.U.D.
26-A) will consist of 120 co-operative apartments.
At .this time, Calvary Community Services has applied for General Plan
Approval for the final phase, construction of 120 co-operative (unsubsidized)
� apartments (P.U.D. 26-A) . Phase II of the proposed project will consist
of one building ten to eleven stories in height with dwelling units to
accommodate between 120 to 140 elderly, or handicapped, adults. It is not
anticipated that there would be any children living in this facility. T6is
second phase will occupy 2.18 acres of land out of a total 3•72 acres
for the entire P.U.D. Estimated density for this phase of tF�e project is
approximately 55 units to the acre, with 20.6 percent of tE►e site to be
covered by structures and 60 percent of the site to be landscaped. An
additional 19.4 percent of the site area will be covered with interior
streets and/or outdoor parking. Please note that on March 17, 1981 ,
the City Council approved a variance allowing Calvary Community Services
to reduce the number of indoor parking stalls from 120 to 80, and also
reduce the number of outstde parktng stalls from 120 to 46.
i4 review of the plans for the proposed. development by the Inspection Depart�
ment indicates that this second phase appears to be consistent with what was
presented for overall concept approval along wtth Phase [ wF�ich is presently
under construction. White construction will conform to the Building Code,
the Inspection Department does recommend that a condition for approval
be made that would require tf�at carbon monoxtde detectors 6e installed
in the garage area of the building. This conditton should also 6e. clearly
stipulated in the P.U.D. Use Permit issued prTor to issuance of a 6uilding
permit.
The Rublic Safety Department Fire Marshall has reviewed the plans for P.U.D.
26-A and has made the following comments , or suggestions:
�
Page 2 __
� Memo to Planning Commisston
RE: General Plan Approval - P.U.D. 26��, Calvary Square Apartments, Phase II
1 . Kitchen area on second floor - hood protectiona Fire Marshall
will accept mist type sprinkler beads.
2. All exterior security doors must open on activation of the
Ftre Alarm System.
3.. Fire extingutshers - type, size, and distribution with cabinets
shall be as recommended by the Fire MarsE�all.. 'Tbe Fire Marshall
will also assist wit�i special types and placement.
4. Illumi.nation of ineans of egress shall conform to Life Safety Code
11-3•2•9•1 , Section 5-g,
5. Emargency ltghting -� Life Safety Code 11-3�2.10.1 , Section 5-9.
6. Fire lanes will be established by the Fire Marshallz ,
To date, the Park and Recreation Department has not submitted any written
comment or recommendation retative to this proposed development. It may,
therefore, be assumed that the Park and Recreation Department has no objection
to the General Plan of Development for P.U.D. 26-A.
� A plan review by the Engineering Department has indicated no significant
design changes .from the Concept Plan state. There appears to be no indication
of any potential problems retated to drainage, grading, or utility service
to the building or to the site in general . In addition, access to the overall
site was considered at the time Rhode Island Avenue was re-aligned and
�ebuilt with curb cuts provided where needed.
It is impossible to review P.U.D. 26-A (Phase II) without including at least
a cursory review of P.U.D. 26 (Phase I) as approved. The entire 3•72
acre site will contain two connected apartment structures (Phase I - 80 units
Section 8 subsidized) (and Phase II - 120 units co-op market rate apartments)
intended for elderly and/or handicapped occupancy. The 80 unit subsidized
etderly apartments are located on a site approximately 1 .54 acres in area,
which provides for a density of approximately 51 •9 one-bedroom units to the
acre. Phase II density on a site comprising 2.18 acres in area would be
approximately 55 one and two-bedroom co-op units to the acre. Attached for
your reference is a comparison sheet fndicating the densities for other
� elderly and multi-family developments in Golden Va11ey.
The underlying zoning for the P.U.D. site in question is Institutional , as
is the property to the north and east of the site. All of this property
is owned and utilized by Calvary Lutheran Church. Land use to the south is
Business and Professional Office, being occupied by a three-story office .
building owned by United Properties, Inc. The Golden Valley Civic Center,
including City Hall , Pu61ic Safety building and Public GJorks buildings
� occupy the west side of the P.U.D. site.
Page 3
� Memo to Planning Commission
RE: General Plan Approval - P.U.D. 26-A, Calvary Square Apartments, Phase II
While both Phase I and Phase II have sought and ultimately received zoning
variances waiving the minimum off-street parking requirements for both sites,
it should also be noted that Calvary Community Services, Inc. , has also
entered into a written agreement whereby they woutd be allowed to utilize
parking facilities available on the Calvary Lutheran Church property.
Also attached for your review is a complete set of General Development
Plans for P.U.D. 26-A, Calvary Square Apartments. If you have any questions
regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
RECOMMENDATION
Inasmuch as the General Plan of Development is consistent vrcth the approved
Concept Plan, and considering that the proposed use is not in conflict with
sound land use practices within urban areas, I would strongly recommend
favorable action by the Planning Commission. Any favorable action
by the Planning Commission should be conditioned upon the recommendations
of the Fire Marshall . The Planning Commission may wish to also include any
appropriate conditions contained in the P.U.D. Use Permit for P.U.D. 26
(Phase I) , a copy of which is attached.
• MHM/dp
�
,
�
�• , �
� . ' " �
September 5, 1980
� T0: Mayor Thorsen and Members of the City Council
FROM: Martin Farrell ����
SUBJECT: Catvary Square Apartments - P.U.D. 26 % � ,��'�
'�o
I have gathered information regarding projects in Golden Valley tha
have experienced high denslties. The data is as follo�rs: • ���
Dover Hill Elderly Hi-Rise: Sp �jo Zy�,
�i�Total number of elderly units� = 122 •
Total area of elderly site = 1 .5 acres
Density = 1 unit per 535 square feet of land (81 .4 units/acre)
_ Total number of parking spaces = 58
*Number of residents who own automobiles = 35
(in the past, approximately 1 out of 4 residents have .
owned automobiles)
Entire Dover Hill Project:
Total number of dwelling units = 234
� Total area of the site = 13•6 acres
Density = 1 unit per 2,532 square feet of land (17.2 units/acre)
Total number of interior parking spaces = 132
Total number of exterior parking spaces = 166
�
*Figure is based on number of residents
possessing automobiles as of August 6, 1980.
Covenant Manor Congregate Housing Project:
Total number of etderly units = 105
Total area of the site = 3•14 acres
Density = i unit per 1 ,303 square feet of land (33.4 units/acre)
*Total number of parking spaces - 67
The management firm contends that only 1 out of every three units
possess an autorr�bi le.
*Figure is taken from the parking
variance granted by the BZA on 5/9/78
Kings Valley Patio Hort�es - P.U.D. 18:
Total number of dwelling units � 160
. Total area of the site = 30 acres
- Density = 1 unit per 8,167 square feet of land (5.3 units/acre)
Total number of interior parking spaces = 320
-continued
' .
, � }
. ' �� �
Page 2
September 5, 1980
Memo to Mayor Thorsen and City Council
� PUD 26
Laurel Estates Apartment Building -
Total number of dwelling units = 65
Total area of the site = 4.5 acres
Density - t unit per 3,016 square �Feet of land (14.4 units/acre)
� Total number of interior parking spaces = 77
Total number of exterior parking spaces = 65
�
Proposed Calvary Square Apartments - P.U.D. 26
Total number of elderTy and handicapped unfts = 80
Total area of elderly site = 1 .55 acres
Density = 1 unit per 846 square feet of land (51 •5 units/acre)
Total number of parking spaces = 28
- According to HUD, approximately 18-20% of the residents of
Section 202 housing projects drive automobiles.
•
•
f a
•
—_ _' ___!.___ ..
� � ' .
i / w����► _� ' � .r'� , ' �� L�e���.��� ������.�— • ��� �
� ' �� . . r . �� :,f � � • , .� ' . .' ..++ �
t �. . i , , + . ' • . • ; 1
� . „� i t �� ...: ��. . - .
. . �
; . � •p """,'� � . .� , � v ;�OL�11�IMa.11f 40«�A ; .
� ' "� _ .
}� . .
• ,, ;
�, � i < �,TOOL�Oii Y � �.�a,��. �.. . . !
i. . � . . ..;�x#?�'`�;:,y,''' , +
� �'}h.:Yti/�'J��\\�\h� '1
a //�� ..
•a' • . . •T .. ' . '.::.:w.,.. . r,`
i • � � .. O ••••••`•Y, • . .
:::••:•' v:' • i
'd�:v:�$i�:,: i ~,�l
� � � ' t, . ���,':'�;�:j�;;'J'�':a,:;:i i '. 7 �
1 � � '�;:+•'''?;c'':':sj;��+ ; ♦• ' � ;
": � �� , ' .��°����:�: . : t
i . . . ;•;2, .
� . � L .;ti��,,. ,� .r� �• s I
� �t•s . * � . �� ` � �, �� ' � � , . ��
` � a �' �
� . a • ... ' • `' ' �•J'� ' . '�, i.
J t� 1
�' Cs r . ' ` � s NEw � , , : ��
�. :
9 - . � ,a f � p�r�R ,� . � - . ., •
� •__ ,,.�;,.,�„�, ` • ��o ,. �D �: '��-"��' .., { .�,,� .
.� �t� � � . , �� �
: � � . � t�i q . „ ' . T � ;
; . . � 1..�t� ��, ..y ,. . . �: •.
• . .;� w � 1� , . �. � �' � • �: i • '_ ' .
�F�^ �. � - :�
� � ' " . • ." • ' .+ : . . •
a � , i � �' . . � .�v� Q '
! ' � . . . . . . . ' ". � . ' �� � � `
, .. Y...�� ��i`� .�'•M� . . s . ..:�:��, � n
� . . ; :r.� ' t. Y, • �� • ' . . J�''� �`
� . � .. °� . . .. � .�:` q � " .
. �i . �� ... � '� � � �, �� ._ �q. � r�
, f , . . . . . .. . � �
,�+ . � p, �. : . •�. : .j!, ' . C� ` � �.:;
' ,� *� ' " ' .� t �. � . �,�:
� ' . � � � _ . . ` : � : . . .�-.. ,,, '. � '
y � . '. ' :,'�, • j' y . , � _ • i • .
�1� - .�....�►.:�..•'�rM-%�ii►•..+ �. __�..._ w.2+�.... ..��'�" . ..�.[•w•y1�..�..J-..♦ . ...�..._ .. .�r-_' ��-�__' ' r " �..w.�.f,
• ; , i • �. . . �i -. _..._.. _ . ' -.
. �..t�� ._A_.T�.��t
; , ,,
. ;. � .. � .
•
� „ . � .
• , � �► �_ ' � �y Council Approval :
a
• P.U.D. �26 - Phase 1
� � City of Golden Valley, Minnesota
Use Permit
for
Planned Unit Development
. PROJECT NAME: Calvar� Square Apartments
ADDRESS: 7650 Golden Valley Road
� LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1 , Block ) , Calvary Square, P.U.O. No. 26.
APPLICANT: Calvary Community Servtces, Inc.
AODRESS: 7520 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427
OWNER: Calvary Community Services, Inc.
ADDRESS: 7520 Gotden Valley Road �-
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427
ZONING QISTRICT: Institutional �
� PERMITTED USES: The following uses are atlowed in the development:
A. One structure containing eighty (80) units of subsidized (Section 202)
apartments for the elderly and handlcapped.
COMPONENTS:
A. Land �Use Component:
1. Special precautions shall be taken during and after construction to
protect against eroston, silting, excesstve grading, or any other -
conditions detrimental to tF�e area. Grading and excavatton for footings
�nd other construction needs shatl be done in a manner so as to avoid
dtrt storage, disturbIng of trees, or other activities beyond the
prescribed constructlon limits..
2. Landscaping, as sf►o�m on Sheet #A-3, dated September 23, 1980, shall be
completed within 210 days following the completion and occupancy of
the building.
3. Landscaping shall be replaced if damaged or harmed by winterkill ,
' drought, or other causes.
4. Shrubs surrounding the front entrance should be chosen and planted
in such a way as not to obstruct the vtew of the entrance from the
• street, or provide a hiding place for persons lurking in the area.
S. Parking for the P.U.D. shall be provided as approved by the Board of
Zoning Appeals on �Septemlie�'9, �1980.
J
. , ` ' ' ; �
t� ;
• Use permi"t - P,U.D. 2b
Page 2
• Land uses within Phase 1 of P.U.D. 26 shall be limited to those uses
indicated on Title Sheet #A-1 of the plans approved by Gotden Valley's
Department of Zoning and Inspection, dated September 23, 1980, marked
with the file and permit number and duly signed by the City's Building
' Official. The use shall be a seven story etderly apartment building
. consisting of 80 units.
B. Circulation Component:
1. Interior sidewalks and concrete curb and gutter shall be located
where shown on Sheet #A-2, Site and Grading Plan, dated September
23, 1980. Sidewalks and curb inlets shall be designated to accomodate
the handicapped.
2. Interior concrete curbs shall be constructed within the property
lines to separate driving and parking su�faces from landscaped
areas. Interior curbs shail not be less than six (6) inches in
height.
C. Populatian Com onent:
T 1. No more than one family shall be allowed to occupy each unit of tfie
eighty (80) unit development at any given tirt�e.
� 2. Calvary Congnunity Services shall file and perfect a Management Plan
as heretofore filed with and approved by HUD and which is to be
approved and accepted by the City no later than November 30, 1980.
3. An cngoing educational fire safety program shall be established by
Calvary Community Services in crder to keep the residents Tnformed
about horv to act in case of an emergency.
D. Subdivision Component:
1. The described property has been platted and is knoMm as Lot 1 ,
Block 1 , Calvary Square, P.U.D. 26.
E. Services and Facilities Component:
1. All mechanical services shall be screened and alt new utilities shall
be underground.
2. Trash, garbage, wastes, and other refuse shatl be stored in the
manner as indicated on Sheet #A-7, dated September 23, 1980.
3. All identification, rental , advertising, or other signs shalt be in
conformance with the Golden Valley Sign Ordi�ance.
4. The entire stte othe� than that devoted to the structure or landscaped
areas shalt be surfaced with concrete or bituminous surfacing to
� control dust and provide adequate dratnage.
5. Handicapped facilities shall be provided for atl areas in conformance
wfth the Minnesota State Code.
' � � " �
�. Use Permit - P.U.D. 26 �
. Page 3
� 6. Water service for Phase 1 shall be installed in 1980.
7. Service driveway shall be widened to fourteen feet (14') at street.
8. All Phase I street openings shall be campleted by 1980.
9. 8prinkler systems shall be provided as shown on Sheet #M-4, M-5,
M-6, M-7, dated September 23, 1980, and also on the addendum to
these sheets dated September 23, 1980.
F. Construction O�der Component:
1 . A bond running in favor of the City of Golden Valley as obtigee
for the amount of $20,000, as set by the Building Board of Rev�ew
on September 2, 19 0� , shall be provided for two growing seasons for
the landscaping that will be provided in accordance with the Land-
scaping Plan, as shown on Sheet #A-3 dated September 23, 198�•
2. A bond running i� favor of the City of Golden Valley as obligee in
the amount of 32,763•0� will be required for all: bituminous
surfacing and the concrete curb as provided on Sheet #A-2, dated
- - September 23, 1980.
G. Maps and Reports: -
• 1. The builder or engineer in charge of the project shall provlde monthly
written reports for each phase of the construction process.
�
2: The builder or engineer in charge of the proJect shall inspect the site
during construction. When the project is completed, the architect or
engineer shall indicate in writing to the Building Department of the
City of Golden Valley that the project has been constructed in conformity
to the approved plans dated September 23, 1980.
It is hereby understood and agreed that this Use Permit is a pa�t of the City Council
approval granted on September 24, 1980relative to Planned Unit Development #26.
CALVARY COMMUNITY SERVICES
WITNESS: BY � �-
�, l9. TITLE
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
�IITNESS:
Vl. BY
Rosema -Thor I Mayor
WITNESS: -
� V�, AND .
J f S et, ts City Manager
�
.1
Aprit 8, 1981
TD: Golden Valley Planning Commission
FROM: Mike Miller, Planning � Redevelopment Coordinator
SUBJECT: Referral to Planning Commission from City Counctl for
Recommendation on "Special Use" Permit Request from 5th
Northwestern Bank
At their April 7, 1981 City Council meeting, the Council received a request
� from the 5th Northwestern Bank (Banco� of Minneapolis for a "Special Use"
Permit to construct and operate a full-service banking facility, including
drive-up service, within an Industrial Zone District. As a matter of
policy, the City Council has . referred this matter to the Planning Commission
for review and recommendation prior to Council action on tF�e request. It
is my understanding that the City Council will take this matter up again
at their April 21 , 1981 meeting.
� The site location is at 650 Douglas Drive Nort[�, comprising 3.1 acres of
land on two undeveloped lots in Expressway International Park, This
site is bounded on the west by Douglas Drive; on the nortF� and east by
the T.H. 55 Frontage Road; and on the south by Sambo�s Restaurant. The
entire neighborhood area is zoned Industrial , and except for Sambo's,�:tlae
surrounding land uses range from �ieavy industrial to light industriat to
buslness and professional office .uses. Section 7.03 (A) Special Uses
of the Golden Valtey Zoning Ordinance, allows banks as a Special Use only.
Subsection 7.03 �A� 2. . lists the following criteria for consideration
of a "Special Use" Permit.
"No Special Use Permit shall be granted in an Industrial District � �
unless the Village Council shall find that:
(a) The proposed use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
(b) Adjacent residentialty o�rned land will not be adversely affected
because of traffic generation, noise, glare or other nuisance
characteristics.
(c) Existing business operations In the dtstrict will not be adversely
affected because of tntruston of additional traffic or ot6er
nuisance characteristics.
It is the proposal of Fifth NortFiwestern Bank to provide for a phased
development of the site in question. TE�e first pfiase wil.l include a
• building with approximately 7,000 square feet of floor area witfi five drive�in
lanes. Two additional drive-in lanes and approximately 8,000 square feet
of building area are proposed for the second phase.
Page 2
• Memo to Golden Valley Planning Commission
RE: Referral to Planning Commission from City Council fior Recommendation on
, "Special Use" Permit Request from Sth Northwestern Bank
tn addressing the specific criteria which the City Council must consider
with regard to a Special Use Permit, it must be admitted that any development
of the property in question would involve increased traffic generation, ,
regardless of what the land use might be. The site plan for this proposed
deveiopment provides for a rather prudent method of handling traffic entering
and leaving the site. Major vehicular access to the site will be from
north-bound Dougtas Drive, with a right-hand turn at the Frontage Road. All
vehicular circulation on the site will be one-way with an entrance only
access at the north property line from the Frontage Road, and an exit only
point onto the Frontage Road at the southeast corner of the site. In this
manner, traffic into and out of the site can be controlled to provide for
the alleviation of any possibte traffic congestion, particularly at the
intersection of Frontage Road and Douglas Drive. The addition�l traffic
volume placed upon the street system in this area does not appear:to be
significant enough to place an unnecessary burden on the design capacity
of any of the streets involved.
Inasmuch as there is no adjacent residentially zoned property relative to
the site in question, there would be no adverse impacts to consider within
that area of concern.
, Existing business operations in the immediate neighborhood should not be
adversely affected because of additional traffic or other nuisance characteristics.
As previously stated, ingress and egress to the proposed site would be
properly controlled by means of one-way entrance and exit facilities. In
addition, traffic disbursement from the site should not provide an adverse
impact on adjacent land uses utilizing the Frontage Road. Traffic disbursement
would be more spread out over the normal operating hours of the bank with
no apparent conflict on rush hour conditions. Entrance from the Frontage
road should not be more difficult than what is presently experienced. It
is difficult to visualize any specific nuisance characteristics directly
related to the proposed land use that would be in conflict with adjacent
land uses. On the contrary, it is perceived that the proposed land use
would not only be transitional in nature, but a rather beneficial , as well
as compatible land use.
Finally, the proposed use of this property for a fullFservfce banking
facility is by far the most desirable land use proposed to date for this
site. Other proposals have included such uses as a pre-fabricated motel ,
and mini-storage warehouses.
Therefore, in consideration of the fact that the proposed use meets the
criteria for favorable response to a Special Use Permit request, 1
would suggest that the Planning Commission seriously consider a favorable
recortmiendation to the City CouncTl .
• MHM/dp
` ;�i±ye�� i � " �, I��y . �
• � %/� _ ' • � � . . T'�
,.�.,-,
. ��' \ �� � �,.i;�ilil •L•• u
f� ` ,.��... - '�� ' .
u5 • �
� , �,,,- �}�f /�'�1� L�� �l� .
� i, I i�,{,.l.c`�
i'� 1
� •� � � ''• l.:�it /
� � � ���`� � ���t
� � � � S �f� • -
•
� ' �� ►� � , �o►s '�f -
��,� � r�
f ��_'r111� 1� � y�- .♦ � / .-�✓,j/ .
. s :.�
� . - � _- � . ,., �� .
� � i ,
� � � , �: `�'
i ' �:'i�' ," � -�' !`�
. • � �
� / '''� �' � �
r •� ;
� , �� s� M �+.
' - � �� a �� �
� --�-- .
� � �-��
� _ —- - - '_ r �� `�
' . - '� �� ,�,�...�� i � �y.
� pt,r,�m ' - � � �+�r,v �.
_ � � � . --c
1. � .
� • '
; , . ����f�/��.'�%' .:
�� "'�� Fi�TN �a�rs,�ca�r7��v.Bsls.
��p t t�. F�J�. �
, • i r . ' � °a�`��� �� sr��-�«,�
:'� �°,`- -,
�
- � " J ������ .y � ..
�.
� n ��X����: �
i �'�' s�r. �,s.�., 3
��
a4 w���� :
� ?v�'�tr;t�. .�.�' •_` � �
�
1 � �-^�°h,��ae�;. •\. �.
1 • ��+'�" �x IR -
� _ �° / .r N/ "a
, ' ����� .: a �
� � '�
� � ���.��: y ��
� `� �
`S£ � �,�:.�'"s�; � ` �s�.-
C � aF.� a� � �.'��" � �=E"' -
1 ��,�!"a �`� ;:�''. "�� .
a�. �9C g. c�i .r �
; ' -J ;��#��������A�a». �' a.C��
� � - �— �Y�'�� �a a 1ri� ' R. _ . . . . ._ .._--
� - �������� � � �� l�l�fi�U � � � �
�- � = �_ � ���" y,� °` �� ,11 � .. �
� � S - ,:a^;'h „C –' �
v� - _ ���� ��- a
� ,..�, „`! -�.. �
^� � ' ' .. � �
V .� i • �" �\ �� �
�a:. � W :
, _ ; ',�"� � � �c O
�' � � � ti
_ ' �
� a'J��
r"../;. ��! 'y.,.. ,.
% �� ) �r/�� - �Y '� o �1 4°r., �
.� `y�
M
�!/ i tV ! �
1:`'
. . �-�
. � , �
• , �� _
_� ,
��
� .
� •
. '
� S/a wt l�os �
�C .
. � .
� � 1 ' � r
, � .
M � -----
� � • i (�000) r, " o
' � i
a /� ^ r'_' ;u.�e R.R. ' s.�.«I.. . N
rr� c+ � �
M � • _
. � ��
� isi� �ee , • �.
Zy� l�f,e¢ 0 0 � •�i'•�_.. �.
� � ~ + t ��'�w. s �
� � ` ��
� +r''� � , � M '•'? t b' 't
�, - �..
� s� , t � ti
M � 1 �R
a �V � 1
�, � .
a ��
� ' • m
. v ti.n � � _ �
i'
� ,� �
z� • 5 4 � }���� 1
,
_ g ,' � ! q
�
N W . ��,�s/*� S'• � � o w� '
V
� S�� /� � O � � ' ��
i O
� � 3
i '
+ • so ��;' 3 �,
s '� rJ � � Nofe:
� y
, `1
� ',�._"�'�'t1/.!!'_� ', p�
� IK ti� 0
i �� f �• � �.
J
. � �r a � II t M
O�
e • 2 � ' Z •. �'�
_ ♦ _. � •
.°r r
-- . cn �� 14 � �
� tS �
.� � r4r.t '�s.
� . �� ' � (54i0) h
O �5'�,rr .r/o.e TNw�a'�6 g
� Z /��.�/.C� s/7C � � ` o 'f � r�
s h � , 9. ( g
m �,► , • � o .
:�t�� + � / , �
0
''"__ �o ; 0 � ; ..
t��. g Z �= 1 � : � ,
s °
�a� , �r. ° � � 1 � � ..; i
(�� t �� � � , , _'2�qi,4l N .,�
., t --• • . �� -�
, `. i.So" � � S's�,�✓�OaS � � ' �
�°' ���•� �se�►a� I i:. �e ► _- '�
..._. : -. � � • • � :,�`
f � lj• , t
.�.�• ' � �� � ri ?./� 1
:i.� o Q �r3 t ��;'' � �?�'s�oo asao I �
+ '�� / y 4 s� �• 't p4�i /t.lf tl�.f4 p 1
ri � � � 6P00 — �i--��` '�' � i L
i� . �� � �I 1
{�'•.� '�� . !� 1
»..r. �� �� . � � . �
s + �i� � ��� o =_. ' ye � ��' t1 --
. � - 1 ; � ��� _ ,. .
� A Sa: �
' �fAn��i La1H�11..�� . ; �s j 1 '1 '
f�t3 �i �'\
. w � e � w
� . . � � . � 4,� •� ..
� . ��,. �' �j
� 5w ^ �
� (a�sl � �� o �� 8''�
� .
�
__p4♦.7 4 _ �
:v •� ��
� � �
S�L.f1— .
3 •
8 Z � o.�� 0 4
. _ � � g
� April 8, 1981
T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission
FROM: Mike Miller� Planning � Redevelopment Coordinator
SUBJECT: Refierral to the Planning Commission .from City Council regarding
� Section 400:15 of the City Building Code
On February 17, 1981 , the City Council referred to the Planning Commission
Section 400:15 F1oor Area Requirements of the City Building Code.
In their request, the City Council is asking t�e Ptanning Commission to
review this portion of the Buitding Code and make a recommendation as to
whether the existing floor area requirements should 6e dropped altogether,
or modified upward or downr�ard in any fas�ion.
As a matter of background on this section of the City Building Code, these
minimum requirements were originally adopted in 1958• Subsequently, the
City Council replaced the 1958 Building Code with t�e State Uniform
Building Code with the exception of Section 400:15 which was retained.
At the present time, the existing City Building Code, which is the same
as the State Uniform Building Code, carries specific minimum requirements
for room si�e and efficiency apartments, thus making Section 400:15
� unnecessary if not redundant.
Naturally, the City has the right to establish standards that are more
stringent than the State Uniform Building Code. However, t�e primary question
in this situation is the necessity of more stringent requirements, particularly
with regard to minimum floor area requirements. With a definite scarcity of
available developable residential property in Golden Valley, and considering
the high cost of such property, it is difficult to conceive that any
individual , or developer, would construct an unusually small , or substandard
size dwelting, even if such structures were permitted under the code.
In view of the above considerations, [ would recommend that t�e Planning
Commission advise the City Council to drop Section 400:15 F1oor Area
Requirements of the City Building Code.
MHM/dp
•
. � ,
Section 400:11
" Sectivn 400:11. Fbr the purpose of designating Fir�e 2ones within the
meaning of the Unifozm Building Oode, 1976 F7dition, �zth A�ix,
hereinabove adoPted as the Building Coc7e for the City of�cbldeT Valley,
Q all areas withir� the City of rblden Valley presently cnnstitvted as
residential zoning districts ard o� develoFment zonir�g distri�ts are
hereby classified, anc3 hereafter to be oonsidered,_as ?�eira in Fire
Zc�e No. 3 arrd each and every ot�r area withi.n the City of f�lc� Valley
not so aonstituted as either a resid�tial zoning district or an o�en
developnent zoning district is hereby declared to f+e in Fire Zone No. 2.
Section 400:12, hfierev+er the words "Boan� of Appeals" occur in the
aforesaia Unifozm Buildinq Code, 1976 Edition, kzth A��dix, hereinahove
adopted as Building Code for the City of caolden Valley, thev shall me.an
the City Cauncil for the City of �lden Valle}•. Wfi,erever the words
°Building Official" occur in the aforesaid Unifoan Building Code, 1976
Fdition, with Apg�dix, hereinabove adopted as the Ruildine Oode f.or thA
City of Golden Valley, they shall mP.an the City Building Ins�ctor.
Section 400:15. Floor Area Reauire►ients. The Auilding Coae, 1958, is .
hereby ar�ended by str ing efro�+ S ection 1305 {h) 2, anc3 suhsti-
tuting i� lieu thereof the followi.ng language:
.� ' Floor Areas. Tne minirm�m floor area of an Ffficiesicy P.partr�er.t shall
� be not less than 400 sc�aare feet and the minirr�n floor area of k�adroor+
aPartments shall Le not less than the follv��s�g scheRule:
Single Bedz�ocar► Apartrnents . . . . . . . . . . . . .600 sc�uare feet
� Ztae Beclr+oom Apar�t=r�ents . . . . . . : . . . . . . . 725 squarP feet
• Three Bedr�aar► Apart�rents
� . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850 scruare feet
,
� Fbr each ac3dit3onal bedroom, add . . . . . . . . . 120 sc�uare feet
The minim�n floor area for single family c�wellings and for sincle f�ilv
residential units in two-family dwellings shall be not less than that
set forth in the following schedule:
On lots measuring 100 feet or m�re •
in f�ntaoe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,050 scuare f.eet
On lots measuring 80 feet to 100 feet
or more in fmntaae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950 square feet
Qz lots measuring less than 80 feet
in frontac,�e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850 sc�uare feet
� Section 400:20. Iandscapina arr] Ac�nds. �1ny landscapinc3 repuired by the -
Villac,�e Council pursuant to terms of any provisions or section of t�'►e
Village Code ar,d in connection �,�t1z building perntits qranted here�rxler
shall be also covered by the particular buildina permit 3nwlved and
bonded in such �unt as may be fixed by the Coiincil to insure the
perf.orntiance of the landscaping plans proposed or suhnitted by the
applicant for such pezmit. �
�
• April 8, 1981
T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission
FROM: Mike Miller, Planning � Redevelopment Coordtnator
SUBJECT: Referral to Planning Commission from City Council Regarding
"Zero Lot Line" Subdivisions
The City Council has asked the Planning Commission to review, and make
a recommendation, relative to the feasibility of amending the City Platting
Ordinance to allo�r "Zero Lot Line" subdivisions.. This issue stems
primarily from interest expressed by certain owners of existing double
bungalow dwellings who desire to sell each dwelling unit as a single-family
unit which would require a property subdivision witb one side lot line
splitting the structure down the middle of a common wall _that separates
the two dwelling units.
It appears that the primary question in this matter would be--is there a
real need for this type of subdivision provision in the CPty of Golden
Valley? If so, how would such ordinance provisions benefit the Community?
The questi.on of a �eed for ordinance provisions allowing "Zero Lot Line"
� subdivisions is a debatable one. At present there are two alternatives
available to prospective subdividers. The first alternative would be to
condominiumize the property in accordance w�th existing State Statutes.
!n the case of a double bungalow, the units woutd 6e split witE�out
requiring City approval , and would cost approximately $3,000.00 (or $1 ,500.00)
per dwelling unit� . A second alternative would 6e to request variances from
two City ordinances. First, the proponent would seek a waiver from t6e City
Platting Ordinance that would altow a lot division without platting the
property. This procedure wou.ld 6.e reviewed Gy the Plann%ng Commission
and a recommendation made to t�e City CouncCl... Secondly, the proponent
would also have to request a variance frort� the. side y�rd set6ack for eac�. .
dwelling from th.e Board of Zontng Appeals.. TFierefore� t�.ere is a remedy to
the situation tC�at v�ould allow a '�Zero Lot Line"` subdivision. Also, there
is a choice of remedies that the proponent can make with respect to
subdividing the property.
Equally important in formulating a basis for recommendation on this issue
is the question of what woutd the benefit to the Community be if ordinance
provisions were made to aliow "Zero Lot Line''' subdivisions. Upon ctose
scrutiny of this matter, it Is rather apparent that there would be little,
if any, benefit to the Community. Such subdivtstons would not provide any
increase tn the local tax fiase.. Per�aps more signtftcant is t�e possibility
t6at such subdivisions would result in a su6stantia.l reduction tn avatla6le
rental properties wtthin Golden Valley at a. time. wClen t�e Cfty is in need
of additional rental property for all income groups..
•
Page 2
• Memo to P.:lanning Commis�ion
RE: "Zero Lot Line" Subdivisions
Other communities that have dealt with this matter include the Cities
of Minnetonka and Brooklyn Park. Minnetonka does not. provide an
ordinance for "Zero Lot Line" subdivisions. instead, they follow the
variance: procedure which they feel allows more control on each proposed
subdivision with zero lot lines, making each proposal stand on its own
�rits. The City of Brooklyn Park has had an ordinance allowing "Zero
Lot Line" subdivisions as a Conditional Use followed generally by a long
list of required restrictive covenants in the deeds of the properties.
This process appears to be far more camplicated than necessary when consid-
ering that in most cases the subdivision only involves dividing one lot
into two .lots.
It would be my suggestion to the Planning Commission that they recommend
to the City Council that no action be taken relative to amending the
� City Platting Ordinance at this time.
MHM/dp
•
•
�
April 8, 1981
T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission
FROM: Mike Miller, Planning � Redevelopment Coordinator
SUBJECT: Work Session on Zoning Ordinance Revisions
At the last Planning Commission meeting, on Monday, March 23, 1981 ,
each Commissioner was provided with a copy of proposed Zoning Ordinance
Revisions for th.e Residential , R-2 Residential , and Multi-Dwelling Zone
Districts. The specific wording to be omitted or added was highlighted
to assist in your review of tf►ese sections of the Zoning Ordinance. It
would be very desirable if the Planning Corrmiission could complete as much
of their review as possible at the April 13, 1981 meeting, and put the
final touches to their review at the next meeting in April .
MHM/dp
�
� •
,*
�