The URL can be used to link to this page

06-23-14 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting . Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, June 23, 2014 7 pm 1. Approval of Minutes May 28, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Continued Item — Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 221 Sunnyridge Lane — Kate's Woods — SU08-11 Applicant: David Knaeble Addresses: 221 Sunnyridge Lane Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. 3. Discussion Regarding Lot Width and Lot Depth --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 5. Other Business • Council Liaison Report 6. Adjournmen# ' This tlocumen#is a�ailable in alternate formats upon a 72-haur request.Please eall 7b3-593-8QQb{TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate fa�mats may include large print,electronic,Braille,audiocassette,�tc. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, May 28, 2014. Vice Chair Cera called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Cera, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Community Development Director Mark Grimes, City Pl��ne� Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commission��Boudreau-Landis .�,. and Kluchka were absent. r�a ° � � ��;.e h . 1. Approval of Minutes �:1� `�� i F r. � 9FE� = d April 28, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting �:_ � �� ;�� ;��„ MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaurr��a�� m�o�i'�I��a�-ied unanimously to approve the April 28, 2014, minutes as submittedr. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Final PUD Plan �- Morri�'s Automotive - 7400 Wayzata Blvd. - PU-115 Applicant: Morrie's Autor�Qt��i+�G'r�a�� 4 '�'�° Fr 'y �� Address: 7400 Wayzat� Blv��(�� 7 .,.; = �� Purpose: To aH�ni for the a�c�l�i�on of a new standalone dealership with custorr��r s��vice sup�ort area within the existing parking lot. Zimmerman explained that xhis is the Final PUD plan for the Morrie's Automotive Group proposal to build a new dea�ership building within their existing parking lot. He stated that Lot 1 will contain th� cui�r`ent Cadillac dealership and will be 4.6 acres in size. Lot 2 will be located=i`��tl�� so,u�k��'�;�corner of the property, will contain the new Maserati & Bentley'��a�e��hip��i��il) be 1 acre in size. He added that access to the proposed new lot would beE�hrough an existing private, shared driveway along the south lot line. ��; �,�,� Segelbaum referred to the comments in the staff report about the applicant's request for a third pylon sign on the property. Zimmerman stated that the City sign ordinance allows one pylon sign per lot so this proposal would be allowed to have two pylon signs. Zimmerman discussed how the Final PUD proposal has changed since the Preliminary PUD stage. He noted that the proposed building will be slightly larger, the proposed car elevator has been relocated to the interior of the building, a covered service drive has been added on the north side of the proposed building, windows have been added to the east and west facades to match the front facade, additional trees have been added along Pennsylvania Avenue and a bicycle rack has been added to the front of the building. He referred to the parking requirements and stated that the City Code requires 217 parking spaces for this use. The applicant is proposing 255 spaces for the Cadillac building and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 2 28 spaces for the Maserati and Bentley building for a total of 283 parking spaces. Cera asked if the parking requirements apply to each lot or to the overall property. Zimmerman said the parking requirements are considered for the entire PUD, not individual lots. Peter Coyle, Larkin Hoffman, representing the Applicant, stated that they were happy they could make the changes the Planning Commission recommended during the Preliminary Plan review because they feel they now have a better plan. He said they will review the Sign Code requirements with staff during the building permit phase. He referred to the City Engineer's memo regarding sidewalks and said he is cQncerned about the language requiring a sidewalk connection south to the pede ��an �b�ri��e. He asked if part of the required park dedication fees could be used to pa��f�r that !<< connection. =k `° �_ �. E Segelbaum asked Coyle if he thinks there is the ability to find a �� t�omise regarding � the signage and asked if they need to have three pylon signs� �oy�e�said th��;�r do need to have three pylon signs and he could argue that the exi��ing two�pylones�gin�s should be "grandfathered-in." Cera opened the public hearing. Hearing and se�ing no or�e wish�ing to comment, Cera closed the public hearing. �s�� z�°a�P ��. �¢�� '.; Waldhauser said she is pleased with th��chang�s the`��tic�ant has made to their plans. She added that the landscaping, stormwater irnpravements and sidewalk are all good assets and she will defer to staff to negotiate the signage issues. 3EP£ � Baker said he is curious ab�ufi��e��id��nialk connection issue and asked staff if they know the costs involved. ��-rmes �aid ��would have the City Engineer address that issue in further detail befo�`� this��i-opos�l Egoes to the City Council. �;, ��,��<<a� �o=� MOVED by Baker, secanded 6�=$egelbaum and motion carried unanimously to � recommend approval�qf the�F�naI=PUD Plan for PUD #115 Morrie's Automotive Group subject to the following�fi�dings��nd conditions: Findinq� �` ' � 1. The F�U� pl�� is tail��red to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a .��igher q�a�litj�chf site planning and design than generally expected under conventional pr��visions pf the ordinance. 2. Th€��?UD �t�n preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's chara��i��ics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 3 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by mfra, dated 4/25/14 submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Public Works Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated May 19, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo fr��ri�the �Fir� Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, d�ted May 't.�9, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. Access to the newly created Lot 2 shall be maintained via a driveway`e�s�ment. 5. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 115" in its title.ax 6. A park dedication fee of$80,640, or 2% of the land valu�, shall be p��i��t�efore Final Plat approval. �� « `��,��' ,�_ 7. All signage must meet the requirements of the �ity's ��,n G�de (Section 4.20). 8. This approval is subject to all other state, fe��-�I; ��d loc��jr�linances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. : 3. Informal Public Hearing — Final P�1D R�an �mTennant Company— 701 Lilac 4 , Drive North — PU-114 Applicant: Tennant Com��hy �� f � � e, '��E Address: 701 Lila,c prive'I��h ,�, ,�, ,, Purpose: To allouv for�ki� con'S��lidation of multiple properties into one parcel to �nable irYt�r'�ampus connections. Due to the lack of a quoru�ri'; this item was tabled to the June 9, 2014, Planning Commission meet�ng � � , � . ° ,� ��,;: 4. In#or�aY Publi�;�-iearing — Preliminary PUD Plan — Marie's Woods — 7200 and 72�8,Harold Av�'nue — PU-116 Applicant: `Peter Knaeble AddFess: 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue Purpose: To allow for the reconfiguration of the existing two single family properties into a new six-lot, single family development Zimmerman explained the applicant's request to develop six single family homes on finro existing single family lots at 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue. He referred to a site plan of the properties and noted that two of the proposed homes would have direct access onto Harold Avenue and the other four homes would share finro driveways. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 4 He stated that the applicant held a neighborhood meeting as required and four neighbors attended, however, the applicant did not meet the 10-day notice requirement. He referred to the staff reports and discussed some of the concerns including the length and maintenance of sewer services, the confirmation of the high water level of the wetland and the inadequate width of the driveways with no turn around areas. Segelbaum referred the Fire Chief's staff report which states that Lots 3, 4 and 5 do not meet the requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code and asked hov�„t��,;:Planning Commission can review the proposal if it doesn't meet the Fire Code r,,�q'uirem�nts. Zimmerman stated that there are things the applicant can do in order��meet th�� requirements. He added that the plan would not go forward until t�e Fire �qde is�( �es are addressed. _ ' y(��s 39k� G.� I��t }cy ` + g� ��f. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending approval of the�prop��al bu��iinks there are some improvements that can be made. �� r�°�� Segelbaum asked if analysis was done on the pqssibility Qf ha�i`r�g��a cul-de-sac instead of all of the proposed driveways. Zimmerman sa;id he thinks it is possible to have a cul- de-sac, but it is a question of how many lots,the �p�licant w�uld then have. ' ��,�. Baker referred to sheet 8 in the plan se��ivhich s�iows��a= ��onforming lot layout and asked Zimmerman to explain the purpose �e��ind it bi�ii�g��uded. Zimmerman stated that the conforming layout shown in the pl�jils wQuld �#ill be a PUD it would just consist of finrin homes instead of single family hri�ies arid was:��cluded to provide a comparison. �, Segelbaum stated Golde�n�Valley�has°several existing flag lots and asked if they were allowed before current City �od�°r'equir�r'�ents. Zimmerman stated that flag lots were allowed at one time,;Grimes"��fi�ied that the City Code was amended in the early 1990s to not allow flag lots ��c�use of;�egative feedback received from residents. � ��c�E:�� "�.;, Baker questioned who`uirci�ld ovrin the driveways. Zimmerman said they would be shared driveways varitl� an easem�nt over them. t Baker asked how the width of Lot 5 is measured since there is no street frontage. Zimmerman stated that the front of Lot 5 is the east property line along the proposed driv�way and i�t measures 40.6 feet in width. Segelbaum asked about the distance between the houses on Lots 4 and 5. Zimmerman said there would be 15 feet between the houses on Lots 4 and 5. Baker questioned why the plans show a berm being built on the lot to the west when that lot is not part of this proposal. Zimmerman said he thinks the plan is illustrating what the area could look like in the future. He added that a similar proposal with a cul-de-sac could possibly be replicated to the west but another proposal like this current proposal would more difficult to replicate. Baker asked if this proposal would constrain future development. Zimmerman said it's hard to tell without knowing a proposed layout. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 5 Peter Knaeble, Applicant, reminded the Commissioners that his previous plan only included the 7218 Harold Avenue property. Since then, the 7200 Harold Avenue property became available and he feels this proposal has a more creative layout, and creates a larger development with higher density, which is what staff and the Planning Commission wanted. He referred to the questions regarding a cul-de-sac and said there are a number of reasons that a cul-de-sac would not be a good fit. He stated that the site is 1.6 acres in size and the average lot size he is proposing is 11,800 square feet. The minimum required lot size is 10,000 square feet. He referred to the recently built homes on Rhode Island Avenue near this proposal and stated that the lots in that development are 50 feet wide and have a 5-foot setback on one side and a 10-foot setback on tt�e other��ide and no less than 15 feet befinreen any of the homes, which is what he is afs��proposi�i�. He �., �� referred to the proposed berm and said he included it on the plan� #o shd�Thow it;would fit with future development. He stated that the Engineering and;Planning Departt�ents have recommended approval and he is working with th�e Fire�F�ief �e�arding�his comments including the installation of sprinkler systems on ar�y of'��e homes not fronting on Harold Avenue. He showed the Planning Commissi4n a pro�osed�l`a��i�t that had a cul-de-sac in the center with three lots on one side and �v�::�n tF�� other: He stated that when he showed the neighbors this plan they did, �id��'ti��it as i'n�� „ because the houses would be closer to their side yard property line. F�;e added��at a cu�de-sac would also add more impervious surface. '��, �� , : ��, , � � ' ' �ka% .:�i Waldhauser asked Knaeble if he consid�red a 6`-1ot, cul-de-sac option. Knaeble said no because the relationship to the nei�hbors�+�n the eas� and west would be the same and he is trying to maximize the densit�. Baker asked Knaeble if staff required that the density be maximized. Knaeble said no, staff asked him to look at a range of densities and to consider options that w.ould`it�orease the density. Grimes agreed and stated that the properties are zoned R��L and:;that:the previous proposal for this property was almost d3: the same density as the R"�_Sin��'� Farriily zoning district. � ;; Cera asked about tli��nr�c�th of`��rold Avenue. Knaeble said that Harold Avenue is 26 � feet wide. Knaeble sa��l h� h��,��`�sidered other options but he thinks this proposal is the best. He har�d�,d ou��n illus�`ration of a proposed layout that addresses the comments in the s��fif reports and reiterated that the neighbors were supportive of the shared driveway ca��pt`instead of a cul-de-sac. e�r F a, � S�gelbaum askec�,4f staff had reviewed the plan Knaeble handed out. Zimmerman said no. Baker aski�� about the distance befinreen the houses on this new plan. Knaeble said the setb�cks are the same as his other proposal, 5 feet on one side, and 10 feet on the other per Zo`rring Code requirements. Segelbaum asked about the trees shown on the new plan. Knaeble stated that it is just a rendering showing some existing trees and some proposed new trees, but it is not an actual landscape plan. Grimes stated that each lot will require a tree preservation plan. Cera opened the public hearing. Mary Jane Pappas, 20 Ardmore Drive, said her lot size is half an acre so when she sees this kind of development with 6 homes on 1.6 acres it upsets her a lot. She said it would Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 6 be fair to allow 4 houses but not 6 or 8. She said Golden Valley is losing its natural landscaping, privacy and appeal every time something like this is built. She said the proposed houses are clearly too small and this is a big departure that she is not comfortable with. She said the applicant should be asked to use geothermal energy because the future is in front of us and we need to make these types of changes to benefit everyone. Larry Kueny, 7303 Ridgeway Road, said he received a notice from the applicant regarding the neighborhood meeting four days before the meeting. He s�id;he knows that the neighborhood meeting is nothing official but something is not right. He said at that meeting the neighbors thought they approved the first plan that th�:Planning , Commissioners discussed and that they haven't seen the new plar� hand�d out a#this meeting. He stated that the first plan showed two driveways or�}Marol��venu�,a�rd the second plan shows four, which is a lot. He said he originally��id`��li�C��he idea-of a cul- de-sac but that sounds better than this new plan the Applican��hd��d. H��Gestioned which plan the Commission would be voting on if approval is reeomrrient�ed. ,, fr1}, , � �'� � '� ��i Susan Kelly, 7324 Harold Avenue, said she is nc��d�� to i�l��ge. She said the hearing notice for the neighborhood came in an ��velope �nrith no return address. She said she was told that the first plan discussed is uvhat would be approved. Now there is a new plan that would change the neighborfiood �rarriaticall�rkand she is opposed. Seeing and hearing no one else wi��,ing t�;c�r�rn�nfi, �era closed the public hearing. �� r@; Knaeble stated that the properties3in que�tion ��-� zoned R-2 not R-1 which allows 8 units per acre so the propo��er��3is appropriate. He stated that geothermal energy is a good idea and if the f��ilies�' urcf�asing the properties want to do that there will be no restrictions against it, �but he;y��uld k�esagainst geothermal being a requirement. ,�d:. Baker asked Knaeble,if��t�� horrt�s will be "spec" homes. Knaeble said they will be custom built homes. He added th�t he has finro or three families interested in building houses similar to the ones down"the street on Rhode Island. Waldha��user asked�aE�out�t�e price of the homes. Knaeble said they will be in the $450,OOa t� $�fl0,000 range. ��, ��r � Segelt�aum as[�ed �Cnaeble which plan he is asking the Planning Commission to approve;:Knaeb�le said he is asking for the plan originally submitted to be approved. The one he s}i�a�i�� the Commission at this meeting was just another concept. Baker asked Knaeble if he would be pursuing that second alternative plan. Knaeble said he wants to hear the staff's response on the second plan. He stated that staff was concerned about the proposed shared driveway and his newer plan addresses that concern. Baker asked Knaeble how this plan would affect parking at Lion's Park. Knaeble said it won't affect it all and noted that parking isn't currently allowed on the north side of the street. He added that the spacing of the driveways would not be unlike the homes on Rhode Island Avenue. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 7 Cera referred to the 16-foot private driveway on the project Knaeble did on Turners Crossroad and asked how that is different than a public road. Knaeble stated that the Turners Crossroad property has 4 homes that share a driveway whereas this proposal would have 2 homes sharing a driveway. He added that in his experience there have been no issues with cars being on the driveway at the same time. He said he feels it is more appropriate to have less impervious surFace. Segelbaum asked if the Planning Commission can require that geothermal energy be used. Waldhauser said doesn't think they can address that at aIL EG ;;t�, �. �� '€�, Cera asked if the City Council will see the same plans the Planning Cornmission : received. Zimmerman said yes. , 2�, � a, h .�� : Baker asked for clarification on the density issue. Grimes st��d�t��ie appli�ant originally submitted a proposal for two smaller single family home`s��Me ex�l�'ined that the City Council designated this area R-2 to encourage higher density and ��ferent types of housing. Baker said $500,000 houses won't achieve higher density or more affordable housing. Grimes stated there are other reasons t�re area was zoned R-2 such as the desire for single level living, smaller lots, and properties wit� less maintenance. Waldhauser added that people really want bi� houses on sr�all lots. She added that she � � k m ��> would like to see a private road up the ce��e��th��a�ope,,p �� rather than private driveways along the sides of the proper��. She��tatec��l�'a�� 16-foot with road won't change the amount of impervious su��ce�t�,�`��rrr��,; ��= ti , � ��'� ��sa ar3 Cera said he doesn't like the ideagof allov�ring�fla� lots and a cul-de-sac would make the project look like a more cohes�v� deuelopment and not like homes were just "shoe horned" in. Segelbaum agreed Wfth Cera. He said he appreciates that the applicant is trying to meet the requirernents, but the City would be compromising in so many areas to get more density. Hs said the proposal seems far afield from things that have been granted in the past a�d t�tat the �rawbacks outweigh the benefits. Baker also agreed and said he is not c� fider��.th��#he �urpose of the R-2 zoning is to put more expensive houses in that s��e. I��aid �i��thinks the purpose was to create diversity in the costs of homes�r��t:quesf�aned�.if this is the correct use of the R-2 zoning designation. He said if the C.i�y is'�g��rig�#�fit��ori�es in the R-2 zoning district, more affordable homes should be encou�r'agecl;�,} � Grimes suggested giving the applicant some further direction or asking him if he would like to table or v�+ithdraw his request. Knaeble said he may proceed with this plan or he may come back with different plans. He said the question of affordability is a relative term and that it is up the families who purchase the homes how much they want to spend. Segelbaum said he would like the proposed new homes to be commensurate with the existing homes in the neighborhood. Cera asked about the square footage of the proposed homes. Knaeble stated that the homes would be approximately 2,200 to 2,400 square feet. He said that $450,000 is relatively affordable for a new home in Golden Valley. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 8 MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of the proposed PUD plan because the access and safety issues were not adequately addressed and because of the impact this development would have on future development of the two adjoining lots. Segelbaum asked that the motion be amended to add that the proposed plan compromises many different City Code requirements, flag lots being one example. Waldhauser said she does not want to add that language to the motion because she appreciates that it was brought to the Planning Commission as a PUD and she would expect deviations from City Code requirements with a PUD. 5. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment Qefinition�of Lot Width and Lot Depth —ZO00-94 °° �� ,,� ,. rt� �� ' �� ,,E; Applicant: City of Golden Valley ,<< � Purpose: To consider amending the definitior��c�f Lot Width�and=Lot Depth in the Zoning Chapter of the City Cod�. dT il��d�� ` 4 zt �� ' �, Zimmerman explained that staff received an ap��cation fo�� a subdivision and a neighbor pointed out that there is an inconsistency in �ow I,�t width and lot depth is determined in the Zoning Code versus the Subdivision ��de�:_Jale��ted tt��t staff is now looking for direction on how to interpret and apply t�e langi�age. ��e�'�� He stated that the Zoning Code def"rnes lot depth as the mean (average) depth between front and rear lot lines and lot width as the mean;,(average) width measured at right an les to the mean de th T��u��v�sion code defines lot depth as the shortest 9 p � distance between the front��'nd t��r I�a��lines measured at right angles to the street right of way and lot width as the �ri��,im��distar��e befinreen side lot lines measured at right angles to lot depth at the mi`r��r�um building setback line. � ' �3 ��.. He discussed s�veral oth�r�ci#i�s��t�equirements and showed several examples of various lot shapes and fit�w width and depth are calculated. He stated that the options are to: 1.) keep the Zonir�g and $ubdivision Codes unchanged (new lots must meet minimum width at front yard setba�I� and maintain the minimum average width throughout the lot). 2.) Modify th�e Subclivision�ode to define width as average width throughout the lot (to match Zo�ing Cod�� 3.�;Modify the Zoning Code to define width as width at front yard setback (to match Sub�"vision Code) or 4.) Other options the Planning Commission would like to see. He:statec��hat staff is suggesting, based on past precedent, ease of interpretation and admirii�ti�ation, and conformity with neighboring communities, that the definition of lot width within the Zoning Code be revised to define lot width as the width of the lot at the front yard setback line to be consistent with the Subdivision Code. Segelbaum wanted to clarify that staff is not recommending the elimination of lot width requirements; they are recommending that the Zoning Code be revised to be the same as the Subdivision Code which requires 80 feet of width as measured at the front setback line. Zimmerman said yes, that is staff's recommendation. Segelbaum stated that this is Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 9 the way the City has been determining lot width for a long time and won't make any lots become non-conforming. Baker stated that there is a Zoning Code and Subdivision Code for a reason and asked Zimmerman to compare and contrast the two. Zimmerman explained that the Zoning Code deals with setbacks and the Subdivision Code deals with the creation of new Iots. Cera opened the public hearing. , ;� , Mary Jane Pappas, 20 Ardmore Drive, said she did not understand thattt'his disc;ussion was to clarify the definitions in the City Code. She thought it was to discuss eliminating lot width requirements. She said there is more to the "buildability" of,a'proper#y,such,�s overall square footage and the terrain. She said she gets freak�d'out when'�he.Vvord subdivision is used because she has seen some subdivision� tha� she doesn't get, and as a neighbor, she wants to know how the subdivision on Glenweiod was allow�ied to happen. She said she wants the integrity of her neighborhood rr�aintained and t;t��t�this isn't a money making operation, or maybe it is, and if so th�t.sho�a�d be,said. �he said she doesn't want every single lot to have finro or mor��d�`��pn it'��=.�r�� Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, sai� he'Cpncurs with staff's recommendation. He said he has been doing infill developments'in Golderl�Valle�°and in several other cities and he is encouraged by people wantin�to bui�d houses'�a look for properties that are "close-in." He said he sees this issue:more as a hou��keeping item than a big change in the zoning and subdivision ordin��es �}�e s�i,d the requirements have been consistently applied for 27 years and in his �k�erien�� for t�� last 10 to 12 years. He said he thinks it would be grossly unfair to try and cF�an�e the definitions now, especially with finro or three .�� proposals pending. �,E� ''' ,.� ` _�� Ralph Jacobson, 51� Parkview.Terrace, said he has watched his neighborhood dramatically change over something that looks to him to be arbitrary and not very good practice. He said this is a very important topic that warrants greater discussion. He said his neighborhood is ver�concerned about the travesty that is happening and how the things that,attracted them:,to Golden Valley are slowly being eroded. He said he thinks there ar,� ver�r;difficult d�cisions to be made with a little more seriousness and a little more corr��ste�t��r. ��, �, a�r Harry,Pulver, 1Q5 11lleadow Lane North, said he would like to concur with what others have s�id. He �aid there seems to be an explosion of development in eastern Golden Valley. He �aid he understands that people can divide their lots if they'd like and that there is great demand in Golden Valley but he gets concerned when comparisons are made between Golden Valley and St. Louis Park and New Hope because they are very different communities. Richard Hockney, Attorney representing the Knaeble family, said he has been working with Peter Knaeble for approximately 25 years and has made hundreds of appearances in dozens of communities throughout the area. He said he appreciates the effort that staff has made in looking at neighboring communities to see what their ordinances say on this Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 10 subject. He said the Golden Valley's ordinances are consistent with many other cities that measure the width of a lot at the front yard setback line and that standard is overwhelmingly the standard used. David Knaeble, 221 Sunnyridge Lane, said he is in favor of the proposed Zoning code amendment for a numbe.r of reasons. He said Golden Valley is a desirable city to live in and the proposed text amendment is just a formal change that doesn't impact or change the status Golden Valley has as being a great City to live in. He said the proposed amendment ensures that the Code is aligned with a development strate�y�� it clarifies the Code for the City and for residents. He said the proposed amendr�$r�t su�'�o�ts what has been used to guide development in the past, and how it should.gu�� develo� ent into the future. The Code has been used consistently for over 2Q�rears ��i��the p�posed amendment does not represent any significant change to the (��i's int��t. F��S�id�he and his wife are landowners in Golden Valley and this amendmerl� ch�r� ��'directly'rt'npacts their ability to use their land in a manner they choose. He said�their� �,ropertyt is large enough to divide into two separate parcels based on th�,City's��rren��ubdivision and zoning regulations. The amendment to the Zoning code would allow him to subdivide his property without the need to remove the existing kidr�i� d�,apply f�r a variance to allow the existing home to stay. He said if this amendmen�ys not app�oved�ffiere are many other property owners in the City who will lose thei� rigFtt,to subdivide their property if they so choose, so he is in favor ofi the proposed �meridmen;� �d��P }s , k, t Pam Lott, 220 Sunnyridge Lane, sai� she��(�id��r�he impression that the purpose of zoning is to keep people from inappropriately "shoe horning" houses in to areas where they do not fit and any change th�# mak�s dev+�lppment that much easier will have an oversized impact on her imr��t�1r��ig'�borhood. She said she believes the Tyrol Hills neighborhood is one of th��fines"C �art�,of Golden Valley so she would hate to see the one really unique area being s�bdiv�d�'d into Brooklyn Center, and that is what staff seems to want to do with smaller and smafler lots and more density. She said higher density is not necessarily the highe$f�ar�d best��se. �, � � �, �� a��'��a�� Perry Thom, 320 �.ouisi�r�� Avenue North, said he appreciates the effort to combine the two definition�.and#�te fe�ls for the folks who are concerned about high density in their neighborhood, We�cautiQned them to think about high density befinreen single family homes artd;multi-family homes which may fit the criteria of an individual home, and would be less desirable than a single family home on a slightly modified lot. Mary Jane Pap�as, 20 Ardmore Drive, said the definition of density is all relative. If the common 1i�'ts��re half an acre, putting two houses on half an acre is high density from her perspective. She said the landscape, animals and trees have to be considered as well. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Cera closed the public hearing. Cera clarified that the proposed Zoning code text amendment will just make the current Subdivision code and Zoning code language match each other. There will not be any impact on density and it won't change how anything is done regarding the subdivision of property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 11 Baker said this may be an opportunity to visit and broaden the issue. He said the Planning Commission's action could be to ask staff to give them more options on how to calculate lot width and depth. He stated that if they go with staff's first option, subdivisions would slow down. Grimes noted that every neighborhood has the option of putting covenants on their properties to not allow for subdividing. Waldhauser stated the City could also be carved up into different zoning districts with different requirements. �iyconsid�erin Segelbaum stated that there is more than just this one requirement wl�±� g subdivisions. Zimmerman agreed that there are many more require� ��ti�� in the Zoning code and the Subdivision code that need to be met in order to su��ide a propert�t. Segelbaum questioned if Golden Valley is encouraging subdividing. Gr�mes stated that Golden Valley is almost 100% developed so most new devefopm+ent is'going to be through the tear-down process and subdividing larger lots. ,a` Segelbaum asked about the impact on developmenE��if tli�z�s��nin�_code`text amendment is adopted as recommended by staff. Zimmerman ��t�t��l��t if ap��ants have to meet both the Zoning code requirements and the Sub�vision co�e requirements, as they are currently written, there will be a small subset that v+ron't be ��le to divide their property. Segelbaum asked if the proposed Zonin� cr�d�te�{�han��s made, if the requirements would be the same as they were a month ago, �nd th�`r�quired lot width wouldn't be expanding or contracting, it would be #he �ame as it has been for many years. Zimmerman said that is correct. Segelbaum asked if the ide�>�s;�o c��more o�a "front yard" community. Waldhauser said she thinks most peo��e'would. rathgr have a larger back yard. Grimes stated that generally a 35-foot front y��d s�tback is �lightly larger than other communities. Cera asked when th� ��Q��00 s�►�are foot lot size requirement went into effect. Grimes � said that in the_�;970s��he i,�ir�imur� lot size was 12,500 square feet. That requirement was lowered to '��Q�Q00�=�quare feet to increase affordability and encourage people to stay in Golden Valley. � �r�� j ,a, ";iE+�(I ��:F °.J' Baker said he`�i�et�ot b�j��ng that it is difficult for staff to implement an average lot width requiremen�:;�irriri�erman said it is possible, and wouldn't be insurmountable, but it would be more difficult. B�ker questioned if the information regarding other cities requirements was camparable to Golden Valley's single family zoning district. Zimmerman explained that the width""�requirement is located in the definition section of the Zoning code and applies to all zoning districts, not just the Single Family zoning district. Waldhauser said she doesn't like the Subdivision code definition even though it is what the City has used for 27 years, and it is the common definition. She said it works great when most of the lots are rectangular. She said she appreciates the difficulty of measuring the averages, and thought maybe requiring that a lot maintain a certain width for half of the depth or something like that might v�ork. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 12 Baker said he would like this item sent back to staff for more analysis. He said he is struck that a standard based on the width of the front may have made sense in the past, but he is not sure that applies today. He said that Tyrol has very unique characteristics and the rate of infill there is quite dramatic, and he wants to moderate that trend. Segelbaum said this is a sensitive topic, and he understands the neighbors' concerns about over-development, but he would prefer to go with the staff's recommendation and maintain the status quo in how the width of a lot is measured, and maybe examine it the future. Cera said there are several pending developments waiting for resolution on this item. He said making the two different definitions match won't change an�rt#�ing regarding htiw lot width has been measured for many years. He also agreed tha��t�e Plar�ning��Qr��nission might want to study the issue in a broad context in the future � � .;. ��a� �' �, � Baker suggested that subdivision applicants be required;to follo�yv both�.�e�nitions for the next month, and then staff can report back on how it is going, Cera saicl there is an iE 6�%� obligation to address the applications that are pe�din� �_,� � e��;,, Grimes suggested bringing this item back to Planning Comr;�ission next month when the fiull Commission is present. � �' MOVED by Baker, seconded by W��lk�aU��r a�rd rr,�Q��pn carried 3 to 1 to table this item to the June 23, 2014, Planning Co � ��i`ss��r� m`c�ting. Commissioners Baker, Cera and Waldhauser voted yes. Commi��Qner S;�gelba�m voted no. ` �� :�3 ,� a ��r � ,�K�� `' -=S�a.ort Recess-- � 6. Reports on Meetings.o�'the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Boalr'd of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were'g�yen:�, ��;� 7. Other Busi��s^ �� a' � . �: �� • �I�ctic�n�of Officers and BZA Liaison � � a� 9q:,> This ife� wasx��bled to the June 9 Planning Commission meeting. Segelbaum suggested,the Commissioners consider rotating their attendance to the BZA meetings instead of having one Commissioner be the designated Liaison. • Council Liaison Report Council Member Snope updated the Commissioners on the May 20, 2014, City Council meeting. He stated that the Council approved the subdivision request at 400 Decatur Avenue North. The Council also approved a resolution supporting J-HAP's TIF application. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 13 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 pm. f , ,._ ._�:�-. Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administr��ive��istant �� =.c ^��a� �4k�: �# 9�� =4 ��. �'�� ' ��I� ,p�� ,, ,�a �,<r � f a� �,� �� &�& �fr� ) �� a; t�� R � �9 i3�1� � s � �ak� ��pa � _ �� ,: �o��. ��!: i ''. jS 6 r C ��p � i�q�. H ?"i;; � Gz�"� +�� Z � � �l� t� . � Plannin D e artment V c�. �"�T� � � 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) _;;, . ",?�,�,�I�`d�k"�» %:..��`r�� . ��'�``��"�-� , .�•..::;;a ,!��1��=`;; E `=,°�m"i;�'�4h��s:«.x"t'""�" �....."�w� x�"::�r i��ek,i.�.,. x'�"��ta�ip�`�r Date: June 23, 2014 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat for Minor Subdivision of 221 Sunnyridge Lane—David Knaeble, Applicant �_.-�� d= Summary of Request David Knaeble is proposing to subdivide the property located at 221 Sunnyridge Lane into two separate lots. The existing house at 221 Sunnyridge Lane would remain and the northern portion of the lot would be developed separately. City Code requires that each new lot be a minimum of 10,000 square feet in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. Lot 1 to the south, containing the existing home, would be 10,467 square feet and the new lot to the north, Lot 2, would be 11,038 square feet. City Code also requires that each lot have a minimum of 80 feet of frontage at the front yard setback and 80 feet of inean Iot width. Lot 1 to the south and Lot 2 to the north would have 119.1 feet and 84.8 feet of frontage measured at the 35 foot setback respectively. Lot 1 would have a mean width of 109.8 feet and Lot 2 would have a mean width of 84.2 feet. The dimensions of the new north lot would provide a sufficient building envelope for development and the existing house on the south lot conforms to the new building envelope of the proposed subdivision. Qualification as a Minor Subdivision The proposed subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the property located at 221 Sunnyridge Lane is an existing platted lot of record, the proposed subdivision will produce fewer than four lots, and it will not create need for public improvements (such as street construction). The applicant has submitted the required information to the City that allows for the subdivision to be evaluated as a minor subdivision. Staff Review of Minor Subdivision Staff has evaluated the proposed lot subdivision request as a minor subdivision. As previously indicated,the proposed subdivision would create two lots in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. The Applicant has submitted a survey of the existing lot prior to the proposed subdivision, as well as a preliminary plat displaying the two lots after the subdivision. The documents show the existing home will be kept. These documents provide the City with the necessary information to evaluate the proposed minor subdivision. City Engineer Jeff Oliver has submitted a memorandum dated March 17, 2014, regarding recommendations from the Public Works Department concerning this request. Since his review, revisions have been made to the preliminary plat; however, Mr. Oliver has stated that the changes are minor do not necessitate a second review. Requirements set forth in Mr. Oliver's memo are to be included in the recommended action of this subdivision. Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Subdivision According to Section 12.50 of the City's Subdivision Regulations, the following are the regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions with staff comments related to this request: 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. Both lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not buildable.The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utility systems by the addition of the new lots.The addition of the new lots will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the City. The drainage and utility easements shown on the preliminary plat are acceptable. 5. If public agencies other than the City have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the minor subdivision,the agencies will be given the opportunities to comment. No other public agencies have jurisdiction over the streets adjacent to the site. 6. The City may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney for dedication of certain easements. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 7. The minor subdivision may be subject to park dedication requirements.A park dedication fee of $2,930 (2%of estimated land market value with credit for one existing unit) shall be paid by the applicant prior to final plat approval. Recommended Action The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. A park dedication fee of$2,930 shall be paid before final plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated March 17, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated March 17, 2014 (2 pages) Lot width and Iot depth calculations (4 pages) Site Plans (4 pages) �� =�. � ��_ �� 315 x24�; 325 � �43QQ 1'.�3 �&veeiy Ave �,..�- r �� , A101� ar 320, " ��2tl ��4� �` " � � 4221 ,�15 .Y10� i773 �� ur �,316 32t �� 3 2 741 2 1 411 7 � � �J15 �� 118.._. 319 � ' Y5 � �.:�� '�u�� ., � s�_� �� . +2 � � � �� 307 ;�.; �J08 932�, ; 312 � ' �� ._ � � 3Ct4� ``� 341 3Q0 A216 +i212 4124 4112 � � �% ( �, ''�� tt1 �109&� 303 30A �`* �p 2A3_ �` r,� � � �� Subject Property: t � - � � €��ar t�� i . � �� 221 Sunnyridge Ln ' 227 � 4216" 4�5 � 39q1 �$ 2�5,.. 234 � ��`� ' 222'� � i 720 �215 22t � �200 � � � � 215 � "�,� 22(I� 221� 2Q9 �2i1 � - �� , � � �.�`� _.. � 2t9 ti � 207 `z�`' � ,, 214�` � "__,_'_,.. ;156 � � >�`„� �� 272 �' __� � ' �� 20U ' � . � 127 �,`"��' � 2(1S ��`� �� t,�� 218 _ �'�,y �� .�, �.r: 1 G5� �?�01 =� �y�`Ctt � 185 =� 204� � 2U8� �� 208 � �,� � � � 145 � ; ��s�, , �zoo � � �°� k.� �,: t y^� Y� ______ ��u.,:�� 4140'� �'•120 Ap07 �OO+i �� ti0il °�124 925 t�� ,�IN°� \� � �`�;� � � � �3189 � � �� 4Q20� �(MA , 4t108< "M � 2� 2+i ��°� i Q� �. � � �SOa6 ��.0 �' �. � � mm 1 , � ��'`��, '.H'::J �JS , ��` ,s 4f��25 `�f� �i2c+:rnaka C#r �i�� , r � i 20 �r3 ' i n AfS"1 S F 4A1 S �4.� � '' �' �093 r46fi9 4C109 = �, ,��s, �� i 7 �'' -� �,�.s _ J" --<.. �270 �'� �, �,� �� C�� .. Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: March 17, 2014 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Community Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Joe Fox, EIT, Water Resources Enginee� Subject: Minor Subdivision —Kate's Woods—221 Sunnyridge Lane Public Works Staff has reviewed the application for a minor subdivision to be named Kate's Woods. The subdivision is located at 221 Sunnyridge Lane. Preliminary Plat and Site Plan The proposed subdivision includes dividing the existing single-family parcel into two single-family lots with frontage on Sunnyridge Lane. The existing house will remain. The Developer will be required to obtain a City of Golden Valley Right-of-Way Management Permit for the installation of the driveway apron onto Sunnyridge Lane for the new home. Utilities The Developer has proposed the installation of sewer and water services for the new house. A City of Golden Valley Right-of-Way Management Permit, along with Sewer and Water Permits, will be required for the installation of these utilities. The parcel being subdivided was platted with drainage and utility easements which must be vacated. The Developer must submit an Easement Vacation Application. The preliminary plat for the current proposed subdivision shows six-foot drainage and utility easements along the sides of the new parcels and ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and back of the new parcels. These easements are acceptable as drawn. The existing home at 221 Sunnyridge Lane is compliant with the City's Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance. Stormwater Management The proposed subdivision is within the Wirth Lake sub-watershed of the Bassett Creek Watershed. This project does not meet the threshold for review by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). G:\Developments-Private\Kate's Woods-221 Sunnyridge Ln\Memo_PW_MinorSubd.docx The Developer will be required to obtain City of Golden Valley Stormwater Management Permits for each new lot. At the time of permit application, Grading and Erosion Control Plans that meet City standards must be submitted. Tree Preservation This development is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Because each lot will be custom-graded at the time of home construction, the project will be considered a single-lot development, in which a separate Tree Preservation Permit will be required for each lot. The Developer has submitted a Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan which will assist in the review of each permit application. Recommendation Based upon a review of the materials submitted by the Developer and appropriate City ordinances and standards, Public Works staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision for Kate's Woods. Approval is subject to the Developer obtaining the required permits and the new home becoming compliant with the City's Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Mark Kuhnly, Fire Chief John Crelly, Deputy Fire Chief AI Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester Jerry Frevel, Interim Building Official Lot Depth Calcu�ations n �i=1 Di x Ai 2215unnyridge Lane �AVE- n E�_1 A[ Lot 1 DA�E= 99.0 FT Lot 2 DA„E= 132.8 FT Lot 1 Lot 2 L# DEPTH[FT] AREA[SF] D X A L# DEPTH[FT) AREA[SF] D X A 1 104.9 524.7 55062.0 1 140.9 704.6 99292.2 2 1053 526.6 55451.0 2 140.7 703.3 98926.2 3 105.3 526.5 55429.9 3 140.2 700.8 98210.1 4 105.1 525.4 55198.5 4 138.4 692.2 95814.3 5 104.7 5233 54758.1 5 135.2 676.2 91435.8 6 104.0 520.2 54121.6 6 132.0 660.2 87159.6 7 103.2 516.2 53292.5 7 128.8 644.1 82973.0 8 102.2 511.2 52265.1 8 125.6 628.1 78901.9 9 101.1 5053 51055.5 9 122.4 612.1 749333 10 99.7 4983 49660.6 10 119.2 596.1 71067.0 11 98.1 490.4 48098.4 12 96.3 481.5 46368.5 13 943 471.6 44481.3 14 92.1 460.7 42448.9 15 89.1 445.7 39720.8 16 85.9 4293 368511 17 823 411.7 33899.4 �� dr� ��"� ' � ��6� ��` 5��• �e � N � I� � JI � � " ^ `\'�,� � QFPTH LINESi � � � �' L� — Lio � �. is ' / i I� V V/ ~ I � „ /� � � ,a ♦ �4 � � .� ` � ct' PTH I �� aie�� 'r�t+. J �� ♦ '��,�� ti � � � �� r'' , ��z�t x�t p�v� — � LOT 1 LOT 2 ��=1�i D�vE = 99.0 FT D�vc = 132.8 FT . _ _ 221 SUNNYR/DGE LANE LOT DEPTH EXHIBIT 6/i6/14 , NORTH 0 50' 100' 150' Lot Width Calculations n �i=1 Wi X Ai 221 Sunnyridge Lane WAVE- n E�=1 A� Lot 1 W,,vE= 109.8 FT Lot 2 WAVE- H4.Z FT Lot 1 Lot 2 L# WIDTH[FT] AREA[SF] W X A l# WIDTH[FT] AREA[SF] W X A 1 100.0 500.1 50010.0 1 87.2 436.2 38054.1 2 104.4 521.9 54475.9 2 84.8 424.2 35980.6 3 108.8 543.8 59132.8 3 82.4 412.1 339653 4 110.1 550.4 60588.0 4 80.0 400.1 32008.0 5 110.2 551.2 607533 5 77.6 388.0 30108.8 6 110.4 551.9 60918.7 6 75.2 376.0 28267.7 7 110.5 552.6 61073.4 7 72.8 363.9 26484.6 8 110.7 553.4 61239.2 8 70.4 351.9 24759.7 9 110.8 554.1 61405.4 9 68.0 339.8 23092.8 10 111.0 554.8 61560.6 10 65.8 329.0 21648.2 11 111.1 555.6 61727.2 11 64.2 321.0 20601.8 12 111.3 5563 61893.9 12 62.6 313.0 19587.5 13 111.4 557.0 62049.8 13 61.0 304.9 18592.8 14 111.6 557.8 62217.0 14 61.6 308.2 189913 15 111.7 558.5 62384.5 15 63.6 318.0 20224.8 16 111.8 559.2 62540.9 16 65.6 327.9 21503.7 17 67.5 337.7 228083 18 75.7 378.4 286373 19 84.3 421.7 35566.2 20 93.0 465.0 43245A 21 101.7 5083 51673.8 22 1103 551.6 60852.5 23 119.0 594.9 70781.2 24 127.6 638.2 81459.8 �v�,� �� `"�3 � � �� o o^ � � '� � � N O 1 I y N 3 C ` � � � / � 3 ' / " .�'i � � �� ,a.., „ � , • �� . ► rH i � 7i'' ia�a v�6 .r�� v e�M1� � v � � �� ti �" � �� ,�� r ��1 W, x A; LOT 1 LOT 2 �,�v� _ ,; ri_r�i W�v� = 109.8 FT W�v� = 84.2 FT 221 SUNNYRIDGE LANE LOT W1DTH EXHIBIT 6/16/14 � NORTH ' 0 50' 100' 150' ' 1� �� \\�\� \�N� �� o 1� /r d.� �!� �j�L\\�' � B-5 DENOTES SOIL BORING � ti �I ��h qj �I �k`L' ,N`�\� ------- DENOTES SILT FENCE/GRADING LIMIT � � � � � — —1056- - DEN07ES EXISTING CONTWRS m W � ��'I`` � � /� �(� �� ,�s r\ Uy�� —1056— DENOiES PROPOSED CONTWRS 'c y ~ �� 1 ��/ � � � �i� �� Z »�»— DENOiES STORM SEWER Q � LL �� G� � � � � / � G �' >�>� DENOTES SANITARY SEWER � i�/ ,��Jyt,�� k�'�6 �j/� I/ � � S. �SNO� ;�j�a�\ / �io5e.z� DENOTES EXI TNGISPOT ELEVAiION 3 N � +p �� / �� li F 8�� k � � Gj� X 1056.0 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION °� c. ro �C' �� / � I �I � \� \, � \\ �J�'j� E��O.�.O DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION a a10i � � k�3a0l��' "��a—'$�/ i ��,/ \� \�� \ � \\ / \ �4-- \ .��L o � m a , , ,��,. � � g ti ��// � �� 'u �� \� G�/ R-1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING STANDARDS� � �� e4?-� � � �� MIN. 10,000 SF LOTS �� ^ �s-e'ec.rur � �� BO' LOT WIDTH (MEAS. AT 35' FSB) � �� `` i � � 35' FRONT SETBACK (OPEN PORCH 30' FSB) � �� ,��r-�w � s �� 20% REAR SETBACK y �� 6/� (]� � I c..�� 12.5' SIDE SETBACK (LOTS<100' AT FSB) CSEE HT� RULES) � � �� o � �' IS' SIDE SETBACK (LOTS)100' AT FSB) CSEE HT. RULES) � -��,�� (°�°°4°i o- � i MAX. BLDG. HEIGHT 2B' � ��\ ,�66a �� 'P�: \� � MF1g5p / MAX. STRAIGHT WALL 32' CTHEN 2' SHIFT f�R 8') \ \ � � ,\ � , � � �g45.58/9�3.97 EAVES CAN PROJECT MAX, 2.5' INT❑ SETBACKS �,_ , QJr � �,� � fz,��*7,��,� 3�. � � � � DRIVEWAY 3' SSB� MAX. 40% COVERAGE IN FRONT YARD � ��\ � ---_ �8,� a�bu o (� � "� � >--�+�-- � yRtS�'� �a• �a'rt�. b'vr ''�� su�r�w„�.uio wr,s�-wr�� , � � ��c � a� / _-- �� 6 \ � 5 �.� � ` —a4s—�� —\ ,?�.;�----\�'� e�,m. �6 \�\ i� �� , V \ � � � \\\�1 � � �s•at�erF"`3/----------848-----��,_ � � \� � - .,r�.m.p ----__ � in,w �^_ SHEET INDEX � 19 SHEET DESCRIPTION � �� ,----- ----�550-----___ —�--r848,, --- � K �8- �� —� ' � \ ,�-w, � i� 1. COVER SHEET / EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN � � _ � C e�s�.nw se _ Q----852--,.`-----_ ir�.ni a:+r�,+•��' re�� \ 2. PRELIMINARY PLAT �� ¢O°" +a`M 10��`ONr �� `�\'O" �,6 �� 3. PRELIMINARY GRADING/UTILITY PLAN m---- �` � � "�"�"� �' �Q�'---852—f0�,"°°'�` �10��"' � 4• PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN � �`_ � s� 6z �'�w i� m.oar \ �p \ ffrm�n v..ur. \\ ��: ri � s� i �p°'� CS� aa�� — \ �� 11 � \ m�►ar iw.. 41 t,F• / e t-�Y AN l !'C`�i [�� 73��/l'�� --u-Q \ \ � ' � / / � �'V �lYG�a.�� e�^— qot Tir '�Lr�' � � pEpIED P..AIL _ � � Il� �'/ / � � 0 a�� -'--- � �� \�.w.r0� \� \ /� � �� \ � I/ � i�——--V� 5 � i3Q � � 1Qo � � �� DAVID CROOK, RLS � � O c„ � �� $ sr� 8 ir ar_�O � 0 1 PETER KNAEBLE, PE � � V � _ �� O ' S8 ��.�„ »��sp� 1 � TERRA ENGINEERING INC. DEMARS—GABRIEL SURVEYING �\ \� � �" �� / � � �� \� � �� 6001 GlENW00D AVE. 6875 WASHINGTON AVE. SO., #209 � ' � � / �� ` � �� .S � EDINA, MN 55439 � � o \ \ � p � � � � \ / � p�� MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55422 �S o � � \ � dsr �h / 8 � 1 / 763-559-0908 0 . . � � �� i 85 � ° � rar: � � 1\i � 763-593-9325 0 � � � � � � ll �y i�g � \ �y � � peterknaebleOgmoil.com decOqwestoffice.net �e.g�'� � � , , � , ,, GAR. ,d, �,. vr aao, � 1 s�z:_ � � � �� i 1� ��=ass.90 �r I s �\ ----- �, �\ � ; ��0�•�„c. � ,YJ BO � ;�'' I � $$�;=� ` � � \ �� ,o°' +r 1 i I � Pe'o€ e \ N � � \ � �W � � l � � � �p'E�S �e \ I NaO, \ � � �\ �\ � I / �� ' � $tETo` . �� mj-� -- i \�"J�\ \� / � � � , I �I\ go `a�^ o c \ � i �' rn\ � \ � i / I / E��win a� � � � I \�� i�'ry ,��/ /0�;qk°�"� �N� �i � � i � ''I �j�l �� SITE ADDRESS: 221 SUNNYRIDGE LN., GOLDEN VALLEY, MN � ,, �� m� #221 � I � ,� �� ,s5e--,��, ,'i EXISTING �� SITE AREA: 21,505 SF � � i r s� �� HO USE � i �c� � i �� 1 �\y� � �'' '�� 1sr F7onra es3.ao \ ��.� p �k��' � /Q � EXISTING ZONING: R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Z j ,�� \ $ya�—� Bsmt =856.75 ` � ��O i � i �0� Q � � i � �* � L E G A L D E S C R I P T I O N: L O T 1, B L O C K 1, K U C Z E K A D D I T I O N a � �' » �'\ � / \ � i / � �� il i�� ,',?O ��\�� O�% � � ��/ ///}� �� i��,,,y�o� ABSTRACT PROPERTY Z � �'T ; � �' �'"'" u�`\ 6�� \ � �� ; � ; - F � i ,,�. , � � �a ,. � � � j/ � � 10.159 �F �0 �� 25ss��sa� �» �� son.c� ,v �� /// �(/ � Z O � � � 6 � � W (�j > i i i 'i 5 9 � �6�' 6'6�,E`�� 6�,' i�`O� ��I �� u N N �Z � � i 6�' ��s \$\�. i�� °��/ � �/ �/ � Z N laJ i i ii ' i.,�r,» �'� �i � �� > N Q O �i ��i �i ,�� ,��y�b i�� W E V W Y C9 i i �� i � � � O ^ i � � '�i '��i i ��cy� I�/ �r �i � // J ��L�� S �� 2/17/14 � � , � �, `� __ , � �6 i �. �i 3n; i i i�� ,s o ,s so �.� �y�py�yn � SCALE IN FEET �� DI ISION PLANS �"� M IN O R S UB V THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERf�tWND UlILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMAiE WAY ONLY. iHE EXCAVAIING CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE 7HE EXACT LOCATION OF '�T� ALL EXISTNG UTLITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. THE CON7RACTOR AGREES TO BE � FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCAiE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. � LE�Ed� � � � � B-5 DENOTES SOIL 80RING � ti ------- DENOTES SILT FENCE/GRADING LIMIT � m — —105s- - DENOTES EXISiING CONTWRS � � � —1058— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS c � (V »�>� DENOTES STORM �WER a c LL J�� >�>� DENOTES SANITARY SEWER � �� ryn� �'� DENOTES WAIERMAIN a � � y, x�o5s.23 DEN O 7 E S EXI S i 1N G S P O T E L E V A i I O N � y m 3 . '4` Lj� X 1056.0 DENOiES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION °� n m ��' �J�'j� E�♦�O.�.O DENOiES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION o � m Q ��ry c�o � ti GV R-1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING STANDARDSi �� MIN. 10,000 SF LOTS �j ^ 80' LOT WIDTH CMEAS. AT 35' FSB) � �g i � 35' FRONT SETBACK COPEN PORCH 30' FSB) � � s 20% REAR SETBACK $ �� rj�i� \� �+' 12.5' SIDE SETBACK <LOTS<100' AT FSB) CSEE HT. RULES) r9 FAi � 0 15' SIDE SETBACK CLOTS)100' AT FSB) (SEE HT. RULES) 6 � �- MAX, BLDG. HEIGHT 26' 116 68 i� \� 'r�c; MAX. STRAIGHT WALL 32' CTHEN 2' SHIFT FOR 8') � .'� � EAVES CAN PROJECT MAX, 2.5' INTO SETBACKS , �l �� .�� '� � � DRIVEWAY 3' SSB� MAX, 40% COVERAGE IN FRONT YARD � y2,�a �� '•� � � � � 5k '� 58�� N 5 � y5 �• � �o . •�_ � .� . 12:� '�� '� � ,' �.�� '•�� .. .\� � 'a� � . . �� '�� i� � , \� � & O r I ,..� � '� -� \� �� v I � � � � � �+ l f,P38 SF j 0�' i� ' �� arsia�ro r..ix. � . �Gj�� \ U tw�va �w.. � � I tj� � � ^\ �� \ �W n1 i � \� / '�j�J � � � G`A�� \ w� irrr"�n P../X. � / Q / � �j �\ � co0 �O � I ` i' / �/ � ��. \\� \1 �ry $ �' l N��. � � , �s �� . o.g •�_ � / �� \ �V`�\ j� � � �� \ I 'E.� 's $ � � � lr!'l11. � �� c�'f�� \ /. / / F/oor=B5d90 � o � i i �. s:g7oo a � v i i �$•rs� � � :�e�9o� a N �\ // 6 ��// I I �o�Ea� Y N� � � 6 �.� i ! I �,.€o� � � -� � i' � � ezo—�o � a �O �ry/ � L�;_=s �� Ui / / �10/ � wa a ��r . Cn\ � OQ•� .�� % 1 ``�, � � Q�� ,��,/ #221 � T� � � i EXISTING � � i /\�10,467�F 1 i7oer 6�0o i�0 �� ,,�V, � <. �� /• .��`' is � /;� /.`� �. i\�\ �`S' :/�.�� Q / �� \� � � �/ � � � � Q r .� � �\ ^ � '� / / a � � � � s �,�\ ��' � � 10,159 SF s�� qS,F�. �� '• � / � � N Q F� `� /i Oh �/ ? N W 8s \\\v/ �� Q�� W a0 ,��y�� W E a Y C9 OJ�^ �� 0� BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY AND ��r� J lV^ TREE SURVEY BY S m�I I � C/� �l DEMARS-GABRIEL LAND 2 17 14 SURVEYORS. 3O 15 0 15 30 ��T� �y�pV�� SCALE IN FEET �J�� a�v��s iHE LOCATIONS OF EXIS7ING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE yy�� WAY ONLY. THE EXCAVAiING CONiRACTOR SHALL DEIERMINE THE EXACT LOCAl10N OF � � ALL EXIS7ING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. iHE CONTRACTOR AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS fPJLURE TO EXACTLY LOCAiE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDER6ROUND UT1LIilES. L�LO ZSS E9L:xe� gZ£6 E69 E9L �,�;� 48" '°" ��°a��°'°0 NW 'Jl3'I�VA N3o10� •t ZZb54 elosauuiW'si�odeauuiW � 3'd waouM •p,o3ad � � � � �°� Sa00M S 31V� .�, � � anuany pooMualJ ti009 •oiosa,ulw owis � '�I�V�1�3 a43 W aMq ay}�apun�aau78u3 r �l �,,,on H�P o Wo,�„ NVId Jl1nLLf1 ONV � M � p�� ~�:��°�.� .�a� � � � P��.��P�.�P°° �NIaV2l� Jl21VNIWn321d �N � � � sw � si7+ '+a r S lo •aw �tq pa+odaid aoM NoCa srarsln3r +! �o uold alVi io41�1Maa Aqaay � 3 F � <�� vl z n Q XZ YW Opm� f '�� W �<NWF 2 W a(JWZ� � o F aoWO 7 N <j 3 y y Q N <J��Z ZVaV� 2�j y�jy�j� �j a <x <�� y� F�� C Z M �W f�K 2��0y�3NZf/ipV =S �y0 � Z O=��mj �NI�=Oa�<CWZOaC7 WW (�a� � . �j o W2-�� J f N p�Z F N O W � �+W W Z i <�W V C o��crcr-«xrc� - vi v ��.. �' '�'�- f/1 N W 4 N N;W d W � W W � N yJ� NW F;� VI N N N N N f/)41 f/1 f/1 `� y^� �� ly 6 F� } �� M �Vl O� W � '' N 7 �Wz O O O O O O O O O O �^ � H W � F��< W W W W W W W W W W Vl V Q� N Z� O � � < G C O G C C G 0 G O l�� a Z�O � — ��rc 26a' � o W N V � � �o��t� ; I I I o� <`'�a �o vNo � 07 Z c°�S«<� � �h ntG Qa FN NQ� U �' O�Uie � 1 00��, `°�� OODM�Q wm a 2 ��w<< � I I �Xy, yW y YvN JV� �] K J c�c��Td'< �I � � � 1 W ��a¢aa��3ov�i � � amW N<00�� rw�~a¢awF-�y I— �' �>m WVW4Y NqNNyW n�.ZM Q ��y O�.xi7mUQ o3r�W�+�¢ar ~ w G�fn� NIJ��X o ZaqWFaa'UQ � J � � � �W I �O��VIQPJOV~1VlW J U �w�K �}FVa1� ZJ�\�(7NXX1� m�GN �zR�w EO�DMN.Nr.�.ffWQ W �Z WOWJJ Z Q �`3a�� S��{r �� oy ,\ .\ \ �� - f°�d 1�,� � i � _------ �� ///'��\ =E __��d `� �� %'�-____ _�-_ ��•s �`'� J' �\ i � �� _- � ��i �� /`/� \q �o i"� �i� �� \�/�y� \� \�� i i� \ '�� i� � / ----1'� �\\ � �\ �O �� / �� / i/ i�/ �/' �---/ �'bS9 �\1� \�� J I = i� � � � � � \ �� /�' \ // � / �� \� i� I �/ � i� i� �� _�\\ �� 'I�I�� I i � i i i ,gs /�\� �\ (� � �� 1'� I �� j / i �� \� 8 ___, � 7� �� v 1' �r Cl i� �/� � � i � � J � � rr � i � i l� i I i i�JC�' / �,, � —� �� > 9° f��"K .� � � , i i i i P , � _ `� � �� ♦ � � � _ �-� � �� l9� �� i � °° j i i i � 858,�\ i�� `�98,, Y3� �' �— \�9 �� I 1 � � � i� � � ` 8� �� `� �.�i 1�,i ��\ I I °� � � � �i � 3 `� � �J � � � [�� I I i � � i �, / i p �� 9� i ji c�� /� / i `r� i � � ,_.._.._.._/�..�. � \ � / � 98 �+ �� y69� M� i ` i� � �� i c, � ,9ss,� �i \ �\ .��2� � OIP� ,�� -n � I ��i i � i i .�h �'i��6, \ �S� �. i � � i � � i i� � i i � i �.��e � � �� _ �� o � o� � i i � � � � � �!` \ vc�v , � i i � �U� � i � i� r � � �' ��' �' — � \ c� �' � � � I I I `c' � �'� `od� 1 �� ` � ,�� ; i �y5 �t' ,'�� i j i `p \ �� C9 $N ��-' � � �, �� Z�g�'O�?� ar� ,� � aka�. �$r� � \� � •.� � �h� �� 1�� .8�;Y3`��,�\ � � pS I j 'I � \� .,� �2�0 � � � �� ,� , - �� -�-�� ry i �' � � � �� w� � ; --- , ._- '";�o-�, � �\\�_\-- �v� 1 %� �� i i i � �\\\ � 1 \ � i � � � '�,,�i � � ,\ ,, _J k � � � � \� �,� ,��. � y� , o __--�� \`� �\ \ ' � � `\ �`� iSb`�`scy�. \, 1 � � \� \ � I � � `�`�' ` \�� r �s��• � 09 , � � � ��. i i -s*• � _ � , � �., i - 8 ,n �I 1 � � � o� � \� �� J � �'�v � o � s`� � p�h O�,,, \ � `lo �. i � =nsi;�.n � h qi N�ti s,� � �� d� \`� � � � °P i � ��wf mih m q� � ��•�. `°,t,� S'� \ �S� O��r i i � � � �i� a a, '. � O �� i � , `, ..\j �� ,�� ) �.� /_` \ �\ o � h� �� . �i ��"� �' �`.. � !� s�8 i� �i �� s d, � i \\ 5 I � '�.� � � � \ �, � � ``.X .i.._.._.._.. '26i � i �� `—'-- --- � �i�� ' �� / � �� ' ---------- / �� j \�� \�____ ___ _--- � \� \� `(��J \ \� '--------- � �, �� '---� ��$ \ ll'6l! i S�, �� ,' / � � —'— ,�S Z# � ,� i ` , `� �'--____ _____ _------ �py �� ,' � —'�S8_ �\ --- � �� i �� ' i � Z��'�\ �_�� i � i/ i \� .� � Oy i � \`� S i � i i �� > � i �' i � i � —' i ' ,� � 1 i� � 1 � i� �� \ � �� ' � � �� \ � � �� \ � �� \ / % /� � / � / � � � / � � / / �� / 1 � � � /'O \\ `\ � � N N �h � \ L � B-5 DENOTES SOIL BORING �v � . i� �, �� ------- DENOTES SILT FENCE/GRADING UMIT �n � �6 �� —1056- - DENO7ES EXISTING CONTOURS d W ao —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS c � ~ �^ i� \��..-'p ��Z �»�>� DENOTES STORM SEWER a c LL J�� O r �� >�>� DENOTES SANITARY SEWER o � � O ,� 8 S$ � �8'�YV— DENOIES WATERMAIN 3 N m � .r �[� f 5�3 g.8 \� xio5s.23 D E N O T E S E X I S T I N G S P O T E L E V A i I O N � � � �iN 8 \ � Gj� X 1056.0 DENOIES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATON � n m �.� � OJ�� E��O.�.O DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVAiION � � � Q� � �� ry � � ti \ ��.0 \\ � \�� GV R-1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING STANDARDSi � � � � MIN. 10,000 SF LOTS �� p+.� � �\ 80' LOT WIDTH (MEAS, AT 35' FSB) � � 35' FR�NT SETBACK (OPEN P�RCH 30' FSB) � � �� 20% REAR SETBACK y � ��Vi�i� �� 12.5' SIDE SETBACK CLOTS<100' AT FSB) (SEE HT. RULES) b � '�� ,� �� IS' SIDE SETBACK CLOTS>300' AT FSB> CSEE HT. RULES) '� �� MAX, BLDG, HEIGHT 28' MAX, STRAIGHT WALL 32' CTHEN 2' SHIFT FOR 8') �/� �� M8H4,85.�3.97 EAVES CAN PROJECT MAX. 2.5' INTO SETBACKS M r O�O O �u_ *�, �� jaO � �� \ DRIVEWAY 3' SSB� MAX. 40% COVERAGE IN FRONT YARD �� '� � �� \ , �l �r rr�. re�wr e`''n�„� v�„ .��"u�1n„ ie'n�.� r�„� / � �� \ # ��m*�� a�'�r' i � �`°°' �\ �\ � 8 V ii m,m.� s� � \ j�'='��O �� ,o ��\ NEW LOT TO BE CUSTOM GRADED ` � / �%s«� � � AND CLEARED BY BUILDER. &� (� i �r w r,�r��,•xpr.�,. ,r,w�a� � •; ��s' ��mr ,o�"w io'a.m, � Qss Q n � � \ �� ,r,w �60�� ay, iQm�.cw ,n m.rw Qrw ao. �\ �.vorm v...ur. s�� '¢ \ O` 81—tY M �� p,) T2 !3 O ff � \ � . IYPAVN MAL. E'CiAr� � O S5r�� Dpe Mp 1Y Ba¢ \ � O \ UIELXCD i..AIL ` � �� 7? � ` � �(l `� �� Qa� irnm� �� » >oe��., \ ��' � �o'� �� o86 14'M � � f1'S�w f0' O � 1 � o � o � 0�� `�� B \ 1 oSo � � �r \ oE.�§�5 $ 1z' s �, I s e C �� o � ,o•�, 1 , ��zos � �� (� I �9� � 67O2Y�ruoe �Y BO �1G � I � �ge�p d 1Y ? � j �o9o�c o � ur �� y �; ► �€og ' j I �g9sa� o e ry �� /� 0 ��y ,cm.m. _e§sW�, a �F I � EXISTING � � ,��,,,,, � HOUSE O�' ��r rx�.�-esaan �'° �� '' em,r. =B56.75 'r"�"' �OQ /� r s�. �. /Q �r /� �� e'sp�. / /+ Z p � � n / �� '� s� j � W � `� �a ��+�� ' � // �a N} va e�s�. �'s" o� �.�o Jl� �' �<v �F �> � � r / ��\�// /.v� N �� N W � r,» % � �v �� QO �O i O � �� W E a a x c9 OJ�^ / / � � / �/ � � � � �0� BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY AND �� / (/�� 1�Cry EMARS RGABR EL LAND S �2/�7/�4, � SURVEYORS. / �es�.H/s�5. 15 0 15 30 aeo.cti/a 30' � �/ yr�pv�� SCALE IN FEET �� v«z / / THE LOCATONS OF EXIS7ING UNDERGRWND U71LI71ES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE �r� WAY ONLY. h1E EXCAVATING CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF � ALL EXISTING U7ILITIES BEfORE COMMENqNG WORK. iHE CON7RACTOR AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCAIE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGRWND UTILITIES eity �� Planning Department 763 593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: June 23, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: lason Zimmerman, City Planner Subject: Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments–Definitions of Lot Width and Lot Depth Background At the May 28 Planning Commission meeting, Staff discussed with the Commission inconsistencies between the Zoning Code and the Subdivision Code with respect to the definitions of lot width and lot depth. At the conclusion of the meeting, Staff was asked to do additional research regarding potential variations to the proposed zoning text amendments. Two main concerns have been raised as the issue has been explored. The first is the specific inconsistency between the language in the definitions of lot width and lot depth. While Staff still recommends modifying the language of the Zoning Code,there are a few requirements that could be added to strengthen the criteria for approving a subdivision. Second, the City Council and the Planning Commission have both expressed some concern regarding the creation of lots that deviate to far from what might be considered a "regular" shaped lot. Staff has found a potential litmus test that has been utilized by communities in Massachusetts that could be used to limit the creation of"irregular" lots. Current Issues Of immediate concern to Staff are the two different definitions of lot width found in the City Code. While the definition of lot width found in the Subdivision Code measures the width at the front yard setback,the definition found in the Zoning Code measures the mean width of the lot. In some cases this is easy to calculate, but in other cases—especially with more irregularly shaped lots—the calculations are more complex. Regardless of which definition is used, a key point in the interpretation of lot width is that the orientation of the lot depth must be defined first (lot width is measured at right angles to the lot depth). Lot depth is typically oriented perpendicular to the street right-of-way, but there is no provision made for cases in which the street curves. Staff believes that drawing a line that connects the front corners of a lot is the best proxy for a line parallel to the street right-of-way. Once this line is established, the orientation of the lot width measurements will be parallel to it. Using the Subdivision Code definition of lot width, the official width is the distance between the side lot lines at the front yard setback (35 feet in R-1 and R-2 districts and 25 feet in R-3 and R-4 districts). Using the Zoning Code definition, the width must be taken at every point along the depth of the lot and averaged. Not only is this a more complicated measurement to calculate, but it is not consistent with how lot width has been applied throughout the rest of the Zoning Code. In each residential section of the Zoning Code (R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4), lot width is used in two ways. First, it is referenced in the requirements for determining if a lot is buildable (a minimum width is necessary). Second, it is used to determine the side yard setbacks in each residential zoning district. In the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning districts, lot width is specifically defined as being measured at the minimum required front setback line for both determining if a lot is buildable and determining the side yard setbacks. In the R-1 zoning district,the side yard setback is specifically defined as being measured at the minimum required front setback line. It is only within the section on Buildable Lots for the R-1 zoning district that lot width is left undefined and the more general definition in Section 11.03 comes into play (mean width). Further research into previous Zoning Codes shows that although the original definition of lot width used mean width, the 1960 recodification of the code began using width "at the minimum front yard setback" for all Residential and Open Development districts. The 1988 recodification preserved this language when it created what would become the R-3 and R-4 districts. At some point after 1988,the specific front yard setback language was lost in a portion of the R-1 section of code but retained in all of the other sections. This omission, coupled with the original, general, definition of lot width as mean width, is what presents the problem today. Although Staff feels changing the lot width definition in the Zoning Code to match that in the Subdivision Code would solve the problem,the Planning Commission has asked for some possible variations that would go beyond simply codifying the way lot width has been applied in the past. One option is to set lot width as the width at the front yard setback, but require this width be maintained continuously for a certain percentage of the lot depth. This would allow for some variation in the shape of the lot but would ensure that a targeted area would have enough width to comfortably construct a home. A second potential option was found in a zoning code in Virginia which allows lots to have portions that are narrower than the required lot width, but these portions are not counted towards the required minimum lot area when evaluating a potential subdivision. As pointed out in the option above, this would allow for some portions of a lot to narrow while still requiring a majority of the lot to meet the minimum width requirement. Because the narrower portions would not count towards the minimum lot area, in these cases this option would, in effect, create slightly larger lots when subdivision occurred. Finally, a third option from a community in California uses the following lot width and Iot depth definitions: Lot depth is measured along a straight line drawn from the midpoint of the front property line of the lor to the midpoint of the rear property line or to the most distant point on any other lot line where there is no rear lot line. Lor width is the horizontal distance between the side lot lines, measured at right angles to the lot depth at a point midway between the front and rear lot lines. This option ensures there is sufficient width across the middle of the lot, but does allow for potentially significant narrowing at either the front or the rear of a lot. If this option were to be pursued, Staff would recommend using it in conjunction with a required minimum lot width at the front setback line. Any of these three potential variations could be generally consistent with how minimum lot width has been interpreted over the past 24 years (which is based on the lot width definition from the Subdivision Code), but would also ensure some additional width or area would be required to be maintained as part of the subdivision. Additional Considerations Addressing the stated concern over "irregular" lots, Staff found a formula that is applied in a handful of communities in Massachusetts that mathematically evaluates a proposed lot for its level of irregularity prior to examining the minimum lot width and lot area requirements. Under this evaluation, the following formula is used: PZ/A =X where P is the proposed lot perimeter and A is the proposed lot area. If the result is 22.0 or greater for any proposed lot, the proposed subdivision is not allowed. If the result is less than 22.0, the proposed lots are then evaluated further to see if they meet the other subdivision requirements. Using this formula, a perfectly square lot would have a result of 16. A rectangular lot with a 2:1 ratio in length to width would have a result of 18. The more irregular the shape of a lot becomes, the higher the associated output number. Recommendation Based on past precedent, the ease of interpretation and administration, conformity with neighboring communities, and a review of homes built under the current application of lot width as defined by the Subdivision Code, Staff recommends a revision of the definition of lot width within the Zoning Code in order to continue to review subdivision requests in a consistent manner. If any additional variations to the subdivision requirements are desired by the Planning Commission, Staff requests direction as to the specific language and values to be included in any proposed text amendments. In addition, consideration of the inclusion of an "Irregular Lot Test" in the Subdivision Code should include a recommendation as to the threshold level at which a lot is considered too irregular to be approved. Attachments Draft Zoning Code text amendment with underlined-overstruck language (2 pages) Memo from Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 2014 (3 pages) PowerPoint from Council/Manager meeting of May 13, 2014 (13 pages) §11.03 53. Lot: For zoning purposes a lot is a parcel of land intended for occupancy by one (1) principal structure and any accessory structures and of at least sufficient size to meet minimum zoning requirements for use, coverage and area, and to provide such yards and other open spaces as are required by this Code. Such lot shall have frontage on an improved public street and consist of a single lot of record or a parcel of land that has been historically described by metes and bounds. No division or combination of lots shall be permitted that fails to result in all lots conforming to this Code. Where City approval was obtained before the effective date of this amendment (October 3, 1991) of a combination of more than one (1) lot or parcel, the combination shall be considered one (1) lot for purposes of this definition, except that: A. If a principal structure is situated on two (2) or more lots, but is located on and meets all zoning requirements for one (1) or more, but not all, of the lots, the lot or lots not required for the structure may be treated as separate lots if they met all other requirements of the City Code at the time of their creation. B. If a principal structure is situated on two (2) or more lots and additional land is acquired so that the structure may be expanded, all of the lots must be replatted to conform to this Code. C. If a principal structure is situated on two (2) or more lots and additional land is not necessary for a proposed expansion of the structure, replatting will not be required. Source: Ordinance No. 73, 2nd Series Effective Date: 10-3-91 54. Lot Frontage: The front of a lot shall be construed to be the portion nearest the street. For the purpose of determining yard requirements on corner lots and through lots, all sides of a lot adjacent to streets shall be considered frontage, and yards shall be provided as indicated under "Yards" in this Section. 55. Lot Lines: The lines bounding a lot. 56. Lot Measurements: A. Depth: The mean horizontal distance between the front (street) line and the rear lot line.- measured at a ninety (90°) degree angle from the street right-of�wav. B. Width: . The minimum required horizontal distance between the side lot lines, measured at right angles to the lot depth, at the minimum front yard setback line. Go/den Valley City Code Page 9 of 17 § 11.21 structures are located in a conforming location on the lot. (See Subdivision 11.) B. Home occupations, as regulated by this Section. C. Home day care facilities licensed by the State of Minnesota serving twelve (12) or fewer persons. Subdivision 5. Conditional Uses A. Residential facilities serving from seven (7) to twenty-five (25) persons. B. Group foster family homes. Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots No dwelling or accessory structure shall be erected for use or occupancy as a residential dwelling on any tract of unplatted land which does not conform with the requirements of this Section, except on those lots located within an approved plat. In the R-1 zoning district a platted lot of a minimum area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet and a minimum width of eighty (80) feet at the front setback line shall be required for one (1) single family dwelling. Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility All structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code. Subdivision 8. Easements No structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. Subdivision 9. Building Lot Coverage No lot or parcel in the R-1 Zoning District shall have a lot coverage of more than thirty percent (30%) for a lot or parcel over ten thousand (10,000) square feet in area, thirty-five percent (35%) for a lot or parcel between five thousand (5,000) square feet and nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine (9,999) square feet in area and forty percent (40%) for a lot or parcel less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in area. This requirement excludes swimming pools. Source: Ordinance No. 292, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-12-04 *Subdivision 10. Impervious Surface Total impervious surface on any lot or parcel shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot or parcel area. Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-28-08 Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 10 Cl�� U� ' �� Plannin De arfiment �c�.. �'�� - - � p 763 593 8095/763-593-8709(fax) _ ��. �� Date: May 28, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Subject: Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments—Definitions of Lot Width and Lot Depth �. � � Background The City Council has directed Staff to bring to the attention of the Planning Commission inconsistencies between the Zoning Code (Chapter 11) and the Subdivision Code (Chapter 12) in their respective definitions of Lot Width and Lot Depth. A recent application for subdivision raised the issue and Staff has performed research to understand the nature of the problem and how it came about. In the Zonin�Code, Lot Width is defined as: "The width of a lot is its own mean width measured at right angles (90 degrees)to its mean depth." In the Subdivision Code, Lot Width is defined as: "The minimum required horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth, at the minimum building setback line in the Residential and R-2 zoning district, or the front property line in the Business and Professional Office or Terminal Warehouse Zoning Districts." The difference here is that under the Zoning Code the width is defined as an average measured along the entire depth of the lot. The Subdivision Code only looks at the width at the front yard setback line. It is possible, then,to have a proposed residential lot that meets the minimum width at the front yard setback (the Subdivision definition) but narrows enough so that the average width (the Zoning definition) is less than the minimum required. The Lot Width definition in the Zoning Code seems to be unchanged dating back to 1938. The Subdivision Code was adopted in 1987 and revised in 1989. From what Staff can determine, subdivision review in Golden Valley seems to have used the lot width definition from the Subdivision Code exclusively ever since the code was introduced. A study of the zoning and subdivision codes of seven surrounding communities reveal that all seven use lot width definitions—with minor variations—that are based on the width at the front yard setback line rather than the average width along the entire depth of the lot. This is consistent with Golden Valley's Subdivision Code but not its Zoning Code. In addition, the Zoning Code text specifically defines the width necessary to have a buildable lot as the lot width at the front setback line (consistent with the Subdivision Code definition) for the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning districts. Only the R-1 zoning district uses language that is more ambiguous ("a minimum width of eighty feet shall be required"). This forces the use of the more general definition of lot width from Section 11.03 (the Definitions section) which uses the average width as outlined above. Most lots being reviewed for subdivision meet both lot width definitions. A few, however, meet only the definition of the Subdivision Code.These are typically "inverse pie" lots—where there is a large amount of frontage but they narrow as they move to the back of the lot—or irregularly shaped lots that are narrower than 80 feet for a significant portion of their depth. Current Issues Staff have been advised by the City Attorney that lots currently under review for subdivision must meet the definitions of lot width in both the Subdivision Code and the Zoning Code. This not only reduces the number of lots in the City that are eligible to be subdivided, but using the average width definition creates difficulties for Staff in calculating the true lot width for non-rectangular lots. This information is often requested daily when helping builders or homeowners determine side yard setbacks, which are dependent upon the lot width. A related issue is that the definition of Lot Depth is inconsistent between the two codes in a similar fashion. In the Zonin�Code, lot Depth is defined as: "The mean horizontal distance between the front (street) line and the rear lot line." In the Subdivision Code, Lot Depth is defined as: "The shortest horizontal distance between the front line and the rear line measured at a ninety (90°j degree angle from the street right-of-way." As lot width is measured in relation to lot depth, it is important to also resolve this inconsistency. Recommendation Faced with the above,there are at least three options for dealing with the situation: 1. Keep Zoning and Subdivision Codes unchanged, in which case new lots must meet the minimum width at the front yard setback and maintain the minimum average width throughout the lot. 2. Modify the Subdivision Code to define width as the average width throughout the lot (to match the Zoning Code). 3. Modify the Zoning Code to define width as the width at the front yard setback line (to match the Subdivision Code). Based on past precedent, the ease of interpretation and administration, conformity with neighboring communities, and a review of homes built under the current application of lot width as defined by the Subdivision Code, Staff recommends a revision of the definition of lot width within the Zoning Code in order to continue to review subdivision requests in a consistent manner. Attachments Draft text amendment with underlined-overstruck language (1 page) PowerPoint presentation given to City Council on May 13, 2014 (13 pages) 5/23/2014 - � � � � � ��,� � � � � � � � �� ,�", � � � � " '��,Tr�za� ��''" ��c�s ,�� F .� � t"`�v� .� �� a6'��.�, y��"-�''' 6 A. ,."F5 �. c'''�. s ,:wy „��t�N��?��,.44�� .. ... , � � {� r � � , / AY !`.�'d'r�A �/w3�v�RtH4el�a h t. .. � Residential Lot Width Zoning Code • Lot Depth: mean (average) depth between front and rear lot lines • Lot Width: mean (average) width measured at right angles to mean depth Language consistent dating back to 1938. �`'"vailey 1 5/23/2014 Resi�entia ( �at Width Subdivision Code • Lot Depth: shortest distance between front and rear lot lines measured at right angles to the street right of way • Lot Width: minimum distance between side lot lines measured at right angles to lot depth at the minimum building setback line Subdivision code established in 1987; amended in 1990. Interpretation of lot width for subdivision applications seems to have been consistent since originally introduced. ;s� ��. Residential �ot Width Lot Depth 35' --------- ROW Subdivision ; � c o Lot Width 6 � Zoning a = <' o0 N 0 � 2 5/23/2014 Residential Lot Width � �� Lot Depth 35' . _ ,.. ..._ -- � --------------- � ROAN Subdivision ; c o LOt Wldth a ' a 3 Zoning � a, N � � Residential Lot Width Lot Depth ------------------ 35'- _ --------___ _ _ --------- � ROW Subdivision ; c o Lot Width a' ' Zoning �� ' � � 0 3 3 5/23/2014 Residential Lot Width lot Depth 35'__ - ----_ � . . --- ------ --------- ROW � � Subdivision ' ' `� ^' Lot Width � ` � 3 Zoning —��- � � 0 � Residenti� l Lot Width Lot Depth ---------------------- � 7 35' -------------- __ � ------------- � ROW � Subdivision ; ; c o Lot Width a ' Zoning � 7?-? . � W � 0 � 4 5/23/2014 �esidentiaf �ot Width Implementation • Codes should be consistent. � Codes should be easy to interpret. • Codes should be easy to administer. Residential Lot Width Lot width definitions used by other local communities: St. Louis Park Zoning—distance between side lot lines at front yard setback Subdivision— lot width from zoning maintained for 1/3 of the lot depth New Hope Zoning—distance between side lot lines at front yard setback Subdivision— lot width from zoning but cul-de-sacs have minimum lot width of 40' b�,�d,t,;, � �=all�v 5 5/23/2014 Resid�ntial Lot Wi�th Lot width definitions used by other local communities: Hopkins Zoning— maximum distance between side lot lines within the front yard Subdivision — lot width from zoning Plymouth Zoning— distance between side lot lines at front yard setback Subdivision— lot width from zoning Residential Lot Width Lot width definitions used by other local communities: Edina Zoning—distance between side lot lines at a depth of 50' from the front lot line Subdivision — lot width from zoning Minnetonka Zoning— lot width from subdivision Subdivision—width of 110' at front yard setback, 80' at right-of- way (or 65' at cul-de-sac) ��;�4,�,� � ,�alle�� 6 5/23/2014 Residential �at Width Lot Depth Building envelopes ��,� ��.� �.:��"'�; .. �1 ��' �\`� �� *;�: �?�:'�. ��\'`\':�'�-ti;�:�; '� '�'��.�>�� ,�..` ��.;;:�,�-,;�� ;�ti.•-�� ;��`. �;;��,c,\`;;,,, ,.';'; �;:��'`" ``, ��;��\:;;��z;��.�1 �;;`��;��`�;;;�\ '_��100ivlslOii � � C O Lot Width � � Zoning � � � �� Residential Lot Width Lot Depth Building envelopes .__...__. 1�,�'�'�R\�?�'�;�'�� `.,.\i;�J ��`.;ti >>�\';�.�� ,`�� .� � ti�'"�ti;.`i�.\,'.�J : .� *,`.i ��i��'' , � ��;�� ..�.:,:�,��:� ��'�;�, �,��`�, �L ;,,`�:;\'\�� `�`4.�,�� "•��.,��\ ��,\�'�.�`��.��''� \\�.��,'.t1Y SU�C�IVISIiJfI �� p Lot Width � � Zoning . °� � N �.: � :)L��f 7 � 7 5/23/2014 Residential Lot Width iot Depth Building envelopes ,--- � l ��r.��.�,�;�., �,��;��.�tia ��ti��;�� ;�� 1��.:� 5ubdivuion c o Lot Width � � Q �. Zoning �-. �• � �: N � � .:''�i�(•l, � � Residential Lot Width Lot Depth Building envelopes ,--------_.._...__, ��\�;.�� t,�� 4�.�� '� .:. , �: \�. �;.>>`;�`' ��`�''�,;;;: �a ��;�� W Subdivision �. � o Lot Width s � Zoning � 3 = � ` � � �,1�' � , g 5/23/2014 Residential Lot Width �ot Depth Building envelopes S� �,�4*,. `;.;;�.�.�ati. ��•;-�,. , ,,�;..,:�,'�.\ \`�`�\`�'*,\�� :��::�.��:,� ��.�:��;;�4��:��r �'��\�\\�'\.' n. �,::..\,�.� � � ��,�`�:�``\,�\` �:.. ��:�.'. f � \\i,��`.�`� ��,�i��.��\�.'..:��7 C��`,�\'�`�y�"y * ' ��`�i ��\\�,��'\\��`j s.u�uuva�y Subdivision � o Lot Width Q � Zoning . �-?.� . � � N 0 � Residential Lot Width �� . ... ,_ , � . � . �� Y a �;� w .,.,x,..�. .� �,� / � Y`�. .. a s�`x°x�+ !� \, / � � � ' �� I - _. � f* . �'t� . ' � �: -. x �`�' u i � . � �. 6 ' . . ... �.. ... . � � �. .' , , i _,a� ��`:� _. � .c>� � � s� \� �` � � r�'".� �� {6.� '� /" �, � ��„ �,Bo �. ��F� � �`°� �n�v, r �W �� t, � � � � �I � �_ 1!' .�.�. �. � . kr�fi �,0'�� 'LL� ��]H:' r j y �}.�;��" 'v..°: ;.� �"�� c t�` k 'v � �� w }�� A�� / : � � � e � � � ,�---�— ��` -- �. � � �x � ^� =� � �. '�'"�� d � �� j f ' � � � , _ � ��; -�; �,; ��, *� `''�. � �.,�' - � . , :!1<<� 9 1 � � ' � � . • � ��:��`��;�� y !� � � �� t rr . ��. -�+�. '=� , ,a� =��a°'!'".. �i c. +�•'; .. •,fi� �. �9 �`' r ,,� �.:� a,�' � '�'2 i i��'�"� ,s`a . s..l�- ��'. .'""'�. j� � . t. � �.f,� . . � � � [�! g� ' g w -"� � , ,��5-�* ... . �._ �"" �7id yr _n' < �� " : ! w.h 4 �� . �'��E, .t q. A': ,s�`. �� ., ��.� " �'�+� '��'��'*. �+:�, �. ��„�t �i�'*� ` �� ;�".�,, �,�"� , � �� "� �k` °�`��»�`" � ,--��.� * ��.: r� ,�- ,: . � ,� � � x �� ,� s � �+ `� a�a�y�<�+ �r�a '�{* r�,�- .�r s �`� r�..c : ,�.nm,� .,.C<�. v o Ms� � �� ' � � � � � -�.cJ'3r.��Y .��d`� ¢eN: W d� „ . ., I a _. u� . ; t . , ^ � '�1 ��,� s �� x �� . �,�, :�, �.t� � .:_ � �..':� ,� ...� ^r":;. �_-�_ ,� -� � x,. �. ,,;., ^7'',. �.' _. .'�'„.''�"��,. � �-� ,� ��.,. .,,� � i£:.p's^ �, �.. ..q�"+, ::�.i . . ,..q fi , �„ / 5/23/2014 Resi�ential �ot Width �:�„��... ..��;: : � ��.�. '��. .. ^ M; � y' � �� .��u �•6`. ° .. A � . ... . � .. . . _ �� f� � � ,. . �\ ~ �e �_ �'` . \ r �;� �� ' � � �� . � �� z.�-�,"' .:�, ; � �� " � ..� _, "��,� �' �� ; :� �' � � ,� �.; �- � �"�� , '� � �� . � ` �'' ��~�� ,-},�.� � �� x� � . , . � � � `�� -:. � ;. �� . � � � ,. � ,�n^;' $ . � :�.%fX �� f /�Y.. � � �k r� �� ,�.�` � ' � � a - ' r �, ^��`,�"�` " �;nr ?��a , � �r � �:� . . �;` ;�. � ,, '� - .��:. � �� , �` � .x ,.�� . �� . �` r� ��::��_,,a�, Residential �ot Width �� _, � y� � - � ^ ';` ,. ;;�� r�'r � � �� t "" � .� / f .�i��5� `\ � �� t �_ �"� j�,� 7 i, A�! � r '� � �- '��_ � �.�,�� .--___ _ w��..� Y�._ ��3 �� 11 5/23/2014 Residentiaf Lot Width � x� �� ,� _ � �'Y,, " 'u> �. i 7 ,. r r : � �� +.�_ ° � �... � � ``� „ . � : ., i �� ' . _... ,,..N,.0 t..... t _......x. � � c .. .�.�. ,. �� # : 1 � "-"_ ......:.,.. .i..a.... ,_..._ ..—�—`'� ,.. �y �.yy� � ..�..-ae ._.... ' F' '" ,d..M1 tX''°'�'�±�'�*'�+Y��.�.^e :z t �::w.� . v.� � , x� . .. ..,., • ; �a� �.w'b:�My..� Residential �ot Width � ��. .�� .� �``�-�,�, ��; - ..:� ,� - € � I�III� � � } ; __ __ _��.__.____.._ 12 5/23/2014 R�si�entiaf Lot Widt� Options 1. Keep Zoning and Subdivision Codes unchanged (new lots must meet minimum width at front yard setback and maintain the minimum average width throughout the lot). z. Modify the Subdivision Code to define width as average width throughout the lot (to match Zoning Code). 3. Modify the Zoning Code to define width as width at front yard setback (to match Subdivision Code). Residential Lot Width Based on past precedent, ease of interpretation and administration, conformity with neighboring communities, and review of homes built under the current application of lot width as defined by the Subdivision Code, Staff suggests a revision of the definition of lot width within the Zoning Code in order to continue to review subdivision requests in a consistent manner. 3t�ss�t,i` � vailey 13