01-12-15 Joint CC-PC Agenda AGENDA
Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
Monday, January 12, 2015
7 pm
1. Subdivision Moratorium Study's Findings for Potential Zoning/Subdivision
Changes
2. Adjournment
: This document is available in alternate formats upon �72-hour request. Please call
� 7b3-593-�OQ6 (TTY: 763-593-396£�j to make a raquest. �xampl�s of�Iterrrate formats
�' may include I�i•ge�rint,electranic, Braille,audiocassette,etc.
br��0.^'�'� i.� �°-�y't�"�3�.� .R�.. ��
4�
. . . . � � �;� �HI � �� ��
Planning Department
763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley City Council/Planning Commission Meeting
January 12, 2015
Agenda Item
Subdivision Study's Findings for Potential Zoning/Subdivision Changes
Prepared By
leff Miller, HKGi, Project Manager
Summary
HKGi planning consultants and Staff will be present to discuss with City Council and Planning
Commission members the potential zoning/subdivision changes we have identified to address the
community's concerns with R-1 residential subdivisions.
Following the two December listening sessions (public, CC/PC), we summarized all of the input
received related to new subdivision concerns, posted the summaries on the subdivision study's
website, and began our analysis of which issues the City has the ability to address with Zoning or
Subdivision Ordinance changes. At Monday's joint meeting with the City Council and Planning
Commission, we will present our findings regarding potential Zoning/Subdivision Ordinance
strategies.
Monday's joint CC/PC meeting will be organized around the attached matrix. For each identified
subdivision concern, the matrix provides a description of the current situation, outstanding
problem(s) that could be addressed, strategies to explore, and timing/relationship to the
subdivision study. The concerns are listed based upon the community's prioritization and the
ability for potential Zoning/Subdivision changes to address the concern. Also attached are some
background information and maps related to the high priority concerns of average lot size and
tree preservation. The two maps show the variety of existing lot sizes for R-1 lots city-wide and a
zoomed in view of the Tryrol and Tralee neighborhoods. We invite you to review this information
prior to Monday's meeting so that we will have sufficient time to discuss your questions, input,
and priorities relating to our findings and potential strategies. At the meeting, we will also ask
you to indicate your level of support for each of our potential strategies and to identify any gaps.
Along with reaching consensus on priorities for potential zoning/subdivision changes, we also
would like to gain agreement on which issues have already been sufficiently addressed or must
be addressed outside of zoning/subdivision changes.
We will use the direction we receive from you at Monday's meeting to prepare for the January
215t community meeting and to move forward with drafting the Zoning and/or Subdivision
Ordinance amendments. In February, we will present the recommended ordinance amendments
at a joint CC/PC meeting prior to bringing them through the public hearings at the Planning
Commission and City Council meetings.
Attachments
Background Information (5 pages)
Potential Strategies Matrix (3 pages)
Lot Size Information (2 pages)
2
Golden Valley Subdivision Study ��
Background Information ��
New Subdivision Concern Too smali/Too dense/Loss of open space
Potential Problem Identified New lots being created, while meeting the zoning code, are smaller
in size than existing lots
Strategy To Explore Creation of a higher minimum lot size for all or part of the City
Background Information
The size of new lots created by subdivision is currently guided by the applicable zoning district.
In the R-1 Zoning District the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet. As noted in the chart, the
City's overall average lot size is around 15,000 square feet with individual neighborhoods of
larger lots being spread throughout the City. The distribution of larger lots can best be seen by
looking at the attached maps showing lot sizes. Maps have been created city-wide, as well as
zoomed in on the Tralee and Tyrol neighborhoods as those are the areas where a lot of
concerns have been raised. In addition to showing the individual lot sizes, the maps include an
outline of properties that the City Staff believes may be subdividable based on having sufficient
size and shape. This is notable as while there are many lots which have sufficient size, some are
not wide enough to be subdivided.
The difference between the R-1 minimum lot size and the existing average lot sizes indicates
that an approach to address concerns may be increasing the minimum lot size in part or all of
the City. The Project Team is aware of a number of approaches that can be further explored if
the City Cauncil and Planning Commission select that strategy for further exploration.
Potential Challenges
The following are potential challenges that will need to be overcome in creating a new
minimum lot size requirement. Many of these challenges will also apply as the Project Team
develops other strategies.
1) Ensuring Uniformity—Zoning Codes must be uniformly applied to all properties that are
similarly situated. Thus, careful consideration will need to be given to where a new
minimum lot size would be required. There are many neighborhoods throughout the
City that have larger than average lots.
2) Historical Assessment Application—City policy has assessed street construction based
upon the potential number of lots for a property. These assessments have been
deferred but are required to be paid if a property is ever subdivided. By raising the
minimum lot size, some properties would not be able to yield the number of properties
for which they have been historically assessed.
Golden Valley Subdivision Study ���
Background Information ��
3) Increased Complexity—Depending on how it can be applied, a new minimum lot size
requirement would likely add complexity to the Zoning Code, particularly if it is
determined that it should only be applied post-2014. Currently the Zoning Code has
separate provisions for properties post-1982 and post-2008.
4� Creation of Nonconformities—In the area where the new minimum lot size would be
applied, any existing lot that is under that minimum would become nonconforming.
5) Inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan/Metropolitan Council Regional Plan—The
creation of a new minimum lot size may require a change to the City's Comprehensive
Plan. Increasing the minimum lot size would decrease the overall future potential
density for the City and decrease the potential for additional new housing units in the
City. Given the Metropolitan Council's focus on efficient land use and providing a variety
of housing options, there may be broader repercussions from an increase to the
minimum lot size.
Golden Valley Subdivision Study �a
Background Information ��
New Subdivision Concern Too many trees removed
Potential Problem Identified Some neighborhood residents feel that current tree presenration ordinance doesn't result in the desired level of
tree preservation.
Strategy To Explore Consider lowering the maximum%of trees that can be removed and/or amending the dimensional definitions
of Significant Tree,Specimen Tree, and Significant Woodland to include smaller trees. Explore whether a
different tree standard could be applied near Theodore Wirth Park. Consider moving Tree Preservation
Ordinance into the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance.
Background Information
The following table shows other cities'Tree Preservation Ordinances to help evaluate potential opportunities for changing Golden Valley's
ordinance.
City Tree Removal Threshold Definition of Significant Trees
Golden Valley Single-lot development: maximum of 20� Significant Tree= minimum 6"diameter for hardwood
Multi-lot development: deciduous trees, minimum 12" diameter for softwood
Single-phase development—maximum of 40% deciduous trees, minimum height of 12 feet for
Multi-phase development-maximum of 25%(initial coniferous/evergreen trees
site development) plus maximum of 20%per Specimen Tree =30"or greater diameter for hardwood
individual lot development deciduous tree, 50 feet or greater in height for coniferous
tree
Significant Woodland =contiguous crown cover occupying 500
or greater square feet,comprised primarily of deciduous
trees between 4"and 12" in diameter or coniferous trees
between 4 ft. and 12 ft. in height
Minnetonka Maximum of 35%of site's high priority trees or maximum Significant Tree=8"or greater DBH for deciduous trees, 15 feet
of 25%of a woodland preservation area can be removed. or greater in height for coniferous trees
High Priority Tree= 15" or greater DBH for deciduous trees, 20
feet or greater in height for coniferous trees,
Woodland Preservation Area =a remnant woodland ecosystem
that is a minimum of 2 acres in size and generally mapped in
the MLCCS
Golden Valley Subdivision Study ��
Background Information ��
Bloomington Maximum of 50%of the total inches in diameter(DBH) of Significant Tree= minimum 12" diameter for hardwood
Significant Trees. deciduous trees, minimum 8" diameter for
coniferous/evergreen trees
Burnsville Maximum of 40% removal of woodland -applies only to Coniferous trees that are 6 ft. or taller,deciduous trees that are
deciduous trees 4" or greater in diameter at 4%2 feet 4" in diameter or greater require a tree removal permit
above the ground and coniferous trees 6'feet or taller.
Plymouth Developments in residential districts may remove or
disturb up to 50%of the total inches of significant trees.
Any removal or disturbance beyond this threshold shall
require reforestation or restitution.
Woodbury Up to 30%of the diameter inches of significant trees on Significant Tree= minimum 6" diameter for hardwood
any parcel of land being developed may be removed deciduous trees, minimum 8" diameter for
without replacement requirements. coniferous/evergreen trees, minimum 12"diameter for
common trees
Specimen Tree=30" or greater diameter for hardwood
deciduous tree
Wayzata All property within the City of Wayzata is located within a Applies to any tree more than 32 inches in diameter at breast
tree preservation zone.Within the tree preservation height (DBH).
zone, it is unlawful for any person(s)to remove any live,
healthy tree or trees totaling more than 32 inches in
diameter at breast height(DBH) per acre in any 12 month
period without having first obtained a valid Tree
Protection/Removal Permit from the City of Wayzata.The
removal rate of parcels which are less than one (1)acre
or more than one(1)acre is mathematically
proportionate, subject, however,to the maximum
density of 32 inches diameter(DBH)for each acre.
St. Louis Park No land shall be altered which will result in the removal Any tree,with the exception of Salix(Willow), Boxelder,
or destruction of any significant tree unless the Siberian Elm and Black Locust, is considered to be significant
destruction is authorized by a permit issued by the city. under the landscaping section of the zoning ordinance if it is at
Approval of a permit for the removal of any significant least 5 caliper inches for deciduous trees and 6 caliper inches
Golden Valley Subdivision Study ��
Background Information ��
tree or for land alteration which results in tree for conifers.Aspen,Cottonwood or Silver Maple are considered
destruction shall be subject to and conditioned upon the significant if they are at least 12 inches in diameter at 4.5 feet
owner or developer replacing the loss or reasonably from the ground.
anticipated loss of all live significant trees.
Shorewood Developments shall be designed to preserve large trees Any healthy long-lived hardwood deciduous tree measuring 8"
where such preservation would not affect the public DBH or greater; any healthy softwood deciduous tree
health, safety or welfare.The City may prohibit removal measuring 12" DBH or greater; or any healthy coniferous tree
of all or part of a stand of trees. measuring 8' or more in height. Box-elder,cottonwood, and
willow trees shall not be considered to be significant trees.
. . � . . . . .
. • . . . - . - - . . . . � .
A Too many trees removed Tree Preservation Ordinance is part of City Code but not Zoning or Subdivision Ordinances.A tree preservation Some neighborhood residents feel that current tree Consider lowering the maximum%of trees that can be Part of subdivision study.
plan,including tree inventory,required to be submitted or incorporated with a grading,drainage and erosion preservation ordinance doesn't result in the desired removed and/or amending the dimensional definitions
control plan,which is required for a subdivision application.An individual lot tree preservation plan is required for level of tree preservation. of Significant Tree,Specimen Tree,and Significant
building permit applicants,however,tree preservation plans for single-family homes are not required to be Woodland to include smaller trees. Explore whether a
prepared by a certified tree inspector or landscape archited.Tree preservation plans are reviewed by Engineering different tree standard could be applied near Theodore
and City Forester.Note that while residents may not believe it,developers do want to keep trees.May be a Wirth Park.Consider moving Tree Preservation Not Supportive Supportive
process and/or education issue. Ordinance into the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance.
See attached materials for additional background 1 2 3 4 5
information.
B Too small/ Lot area(density)is currently regulated through the Zoning Code.Minimum lot size in the R-1 District is 10,000 New lots being created,while meeting the zoning Create a higher minimum lot size for part or all of the Part of subdivision study.
too dense/ square feet.Overall in the City,the average lot size for properties in the R-1 Zoning District is about 15,000 square code,are smaller in size than existing lots. City.Changes could occur in either the Zoning or
loss of open space feet.The average lot size in Tralee is about 27,000,while North Tyroi has an average lot size of 20,000 and South Subdivison Code.See ottached materials for additional
Tyrol an average lot size of 18,000.The map of lot sizes shows that there are additional neighborhoods that also background information. Not Supportive Supportive
have larger lots.Changes to the Zoning Code to address minimum lot sizes need to be broader than just the 1 2 3 4 5
neighborhoods that have recently experienced subdivisions.
C Irregular lot shapes/ Concern was explored as part of Planning Commission study in 2014 but no zoning amendments were adopted by Existing definitions and/or standards for lot width Amend definitions and/or standards of lot width to Part of subdivision study.
too narrow the City Council.Evaluate Planning Commission recommendations from that study. may be insufficient for controlling the creation of require that minimum dimension must be maintained Not Supportive Supportive
irregular shaped lots. for a certain portion of the lot.Amend definitions of rear
and side lot lines. 1 2 3 4 5
D House too big for the lot Concern was explored as part of study preceding 2008 code changes.2008 R-1 ordinance changes included Sizes of rear yards and placement of houses on new Establishment of a fixed minimum for rear yard setback Part of subdivision study.
increased side setback requirements based on the height of the home,a new requirement for the articulation of a subdivided lots can be substantially different from rather than the current 20%a of lot depth.
wall longer than 32 feet for any new house,reduction in maximum building height from 30 to 28 feet for a those of existing adjacent lots.
pitched roof and 25 feet for a flat roof,and changes to the buiiding height definition and standards. Create a lower building coverage maximum for part or
New homes,while meeting the zoning code all of the City.
Rear yard setback minimum is calculated as 20%of lot depth.Since there is not a fixed standard for lot depth,the maximum,may have a larger building coverage than
resulting rear yard setback minimums vary by lot and can result in small rear yard setbacks. existing adjacent lots. Not Supportive Supportive
A review of existing building coverage in the City found that it is generally tied to lot size.The City's current 1 2 3 4 5
maximum is 30%for lots 10,000 square feet or greater.Excluding the newest lots where the data is not available,
the average building coverage in Tralee is around 11%with both North and South Tyrol around 15%.Precedents
from other communities found some communities that did not regulate it.Of those that did,the maximum
allowed ranged from 20 to 35�0.
E Use of PUD for large lot Review other cities standards and make recommendation about how large of a project is needed to use the PUD Small residential PUDs may avoid some zoning Establishment of a minimum size for residential PUDs. Part of subdivision study.
subdivision tool for residential subdivisions.In report mention the trade-offs PUDs provide. restrictions that would otherwise regulate the Consider exceptions under certain circumstances. Not Supportive Supportive
development of the lot.
1 2 3 4 5
. . . - . . . . .
. � . . . - . • - . . . � • .
F Drainage patterns An increase in the overall amount of impervious surface is a reality with additional development.Stormwater New subdivisions create additional building pads No new strategies recommended.If additional study N/A
disturbed/ management is regulated by Section 4.31 of the City Code.A stormwater permit is required for any activity whose elevations may not be regulated by 2008 warranted,recommend that it be completed outside of
Increased risk of flooding/ defined as a land disturbance in that section,this includes the construction of homes.Currently,a preliminary amendments to R-1 zoning district,especially since subdivision study and involve Engineering and Building
Building pad elevation grading plan is prepared as part of the subdivision application materials and is considered as part of the public subdivisions typically involve major site grading. Inspections.
review process.Final plans are prepared at the time of application for the Stormwater Permit and the review is
handled administratively.Stormwater permit applications are reviewed by Enginering and the appropriate
watershed management organization.
Concern also addressed by impervious surface limitations.This was explored as part of study preceding 2008 code
changes.At that time a new 50%maximum impervious suface coverage was added to the zoning code in the R-1
Zoning District.The Zoning Code was also revised to reduce the amount of the front yard that could be covered
with concrete,bituminous pavement,or pavers from 50%down to 40%. Not Supportive Supportive
The elevation of building pads was also addressed with 2008 amendments to R-1 zoning district.This included a 1 2 3 4 5
revision to the building height definition that requires the average grade of replacement homes to be within one
foot of the previous structure.Given that the 2008 amendment primarily deals with tear downs and replacements
of individual single family homes,there still may be an issue with new subdivisions-particularly when entire sites
are regraded to make new buitding pads.However,maintaining a similar grade to the previous strudure may be
challenging when multiple new building pads need to be established and there is additional stormwater to
manage.
G Cookie-cutter appearance/ Difficult to address in Zoning or Subdivision.Explore the use of Design Guidelines or Conservation District to Houses in new subdivisions can be too similar in Creation of residential design guidelines or a Further changes would be
Style too different/ address. character to each other. neighborhood conservation district. outside subdivision study.
Maintaining housing variety Not Supportive Supportive
1 2 3 4 5
H Quality of construction The Zoning Code does not currently address the type of exterior building material used in the City.The City does Types of building materials selected do not fit with Establishment of standards for exterior building Further changes would be
prohibit in Chapter 4 of the City Code the use of materials that will rapidly disintegrate or look unsightly,such as surrounding neighborhood. materials,which could potentially be addressed in outside subdivision study.
unfinished sheet metal or unfinished exposed concreate.There are examples of cities requiring certain types of Zoning Code or part of residential design guidelines or a Not Supportive Supportive
exterior building materials,such as masonry,brck,stone,stucco,wood,cement-based siding,and/or glass. neighborhood conservation district.
1 2 3 4 5
I Taller than surrounding Concern explored as part of study preceding 2008 code changes.Height maximum lowered from 30 feet to 28 Contemporary house styles can be significantly taller No new strategies recommended. N/A
homes feet for pitched roof and 25 feet for a flat roof.Definitions for grade and height were changed. and perceived as incompatible with the scale of Not Supportive Supportive
existing house styles.
1 2 3 4 5
J Not enough space between Concern was explored as part of study preceding 2008 code changes.Spacing between houses was primarily Houses in new subdivisions placed too close to No new strategies recommended. N/A
houses/ addressed by increasing the side yard setbacks and linking the side yard setbacks to the height of the strudure. existing,adjacent homes.
House faces adjacent lot The Project Team did explore whether a minimum building separation requirement could be a potential strategy.
rather than street However,precedent research did not yield examples of building separation requirements being used for standard
single-family residential properties.Precedents found where a minimum building separation was required
generally occurred in three situations:1)between principal and accessory structures on a lot;2)between Not Supportive Supportive
buildings on properties zoned for multi-family;and 3)in PUDs.Development of a minimum building separation
requirement is therefore not recommended.If further study desired,case studies on sample lots should 1 2 3 4 5
performed as placement of homes on adjacent lots will significantly impact the application of such as
requirement.
K Silt runoff Proposed Construction Management Agreement drafted to ensure developers/applicants understand existing Insufficient understanding of existing City regulations Review proposed Construdion Management Concurrent study underway.
rules.Additional code changes not proposed at this time. by property owners and developers. Agreement. Not Supportive Supportive
1 2 3 4 5
- . . . . . . . .
• � . . . • � - - � . . . • .
L Inconvenience of Proposed Construction Management Agreement drafted to ensure developers/applicants understand existing Insufficient understanding of existing City regulations Review proposed Construction Management Concurrent study underway.
construction rules.Additional code changes not proposed at this time. by property owners and developers. Agreement. Not Supportive Supportive
1 2 3 4 5
M Driveway location unsafe Driveway locations are evaluated by Engineering based on adopted engineering standards.If thresholds reached No zoning or subdivison related problems identified. Changes not recommended as part of this study. Further changes would be
then mitigation measures are required. outside subdivision study. Not Supportive Supportive
1 2 3 4 5
N Increased traffic Traffic impacts from potential development reviewed by Engineering as part of every application.Mitigation No zoning or subdivison related problems identified. Changes not recommended as part of this study. Further changes would be
required when standard traffic thresholds reached.In general,impact of a few additional single family homes outside subdivision study. Not Supportive Supportive
unlikely to trigger additional measures.
1 2 3 4 5
O Emergency and Proposed Construdion Management Agreement drafted to ensure developers/applicants understand existing Lack of understanding of City regulations. Review proposed Construction Management Concurrent study underway.
maintenance vehicle access rules. Agreement. Not Supportive Supportive
1 2 3 4 5
P Noise Proposed Construction Management Agreement drafted to ensure developers/applicants understand existing Insufficient understanding of existing City regulations Review proposed Construction Management Concurrent study underway.
rules.Additional code changes not proposed at this time. by property owners and developers. Agreement. Not Supportive Supportive
1 2 3 4 5
Q Neighborhood character Not defined in any City plans,policies or regulations.City's diversity of housing styles could make defining New lots and houses differ from existing lots and Incorporate neighborhood character preservation Post subdivision study.
preservation neighborhood character in terms of zoning standards challenging. houses in scale and style which changes the definitions and goals into the Comprehensive Plan. Not Supportive Supportive
neighborhood's existing character. Creation of residential design guidelines or a
neighborhood conservation district. 1 2 3 4 5
R Neighborhood covenants The establishment of neighborhood covenants has been suggested as an option.The Subdivision Code has a No zoning or subdivison related problems identified. Covenants not recommended as a strategy the City N/A
definition of restrictive covenants that states it is a contract between private parties.While a possible strategy, should further explore.
covenants would have to be developed and agreed to by a group of property owners.Each property owner would
then be responsible for recording the covenant against their property.Those who did not want to participate
would not have to establish a covenant against their property.Covenants have a limitation of 30 years so Not Supportive Supportive
protection of a neighborhood in perpetiuity is not guaranteed.Once established,the covenants would need to be
enforced through the legal system.This is generally done by surrounding property owners.The City has on a few, 1 2 3 4 5
limited occasions been a third party to a covenant.If this were to occur then the City would need to participate in
the development of the covenent and its enforcement.
S Wildlife impacted Wildlife habitat and movement is being impacted by subdivisions.These impacts are similar to what occurred No zoning or subdivison related problems identified. No new strategies recommended. N/A
when any of the City's neighborhoods were developed.No new regulations are proposed to address this issue Not Supportive Supportive
specifically.Relates to open space and tree preservation concerns.
1 2 3 4 5
T Boundary change Could consider modifications to subdivision regulations but recommend it be addressed separately after the Current regulations apply same public hearing and Explore creating the ability for boundary changes to Post subdivision study.
subdivision study. process standards to all lot modifications from occur administratively. Not Supportive Supportive
boundary changes to major subdivisions.
1 2 3 4 5
U Sustainability Likely broader than just this study and should involve multiple commissions.May be most appropriate to No zoning or subdivision related problems identified. Address in the Comprehensive Plan update. Post subdivision study.
reconsider as part of upcoming Comprehensive Plan update. Education will be needed about what City can
regulate and what it can not.
Not Supportive Supportive
1 2 3 4 5
, r
��— �- - --�11c;r'
� � r���� ' �ii * �. :
� , 1 �,��� � s r .�
, . , -���G��,'Yl
i ���. , � � .
, �■ , �
. ,
.
! �
� 100 ' i
, �'� �]
� , �
a � � � � �: � i �1 �� i }
� j
� � . � � � �t.,� � �..,� �� � ��, �� ,�?��, �
s . .
' �"`` < i � � vr
� � � � � `--�� ���� I �� � �.� � I
� ��-� 11� � .�:wr �
�----.._.._..�__ Medicin_Lake Rd i .-------------- -- -�-� - ----- - - - • - � �� - ' '� ��� �W � � Lot Size
I � � �. � � .� � �' � �� � � �C j '£� I
. _� � ! � � �I r,
i -� ■�*�' ■ b � - .� i
. �'� � n � R-1 Zoned Pro erties
i � � � b �� �-' � �-`_� � � ��i p
� 1.. �
�. �� �,�� > � Sandbuzg Rd � i Parcel S uare Feet
� � � � , � � p
� ;
��� � ,E_� \ �� �� �-=' n ��� �� � � 'a '1
�� � �� � .r..�■� � �• �� � �, � , - 10,000 & Under
r ��
169 � � . � ►� ,' � � r,�"Z �!
i "� � ���� "11� � � ,. ,�e � � � •. ��� � - 10,001 - 20,000
' � � " lu ; � �'. :- ;: �, I �
� �►��� " ` ' � `, �� ' � 20,001 - 40,000
1 t=: �, a �, rh st �i ' .
� r o� ; .�s�r � '�, _ � , !� � _ : , :. �. ��� , �
, : �
i `, � . � ��1/.,�� � I � ���� ������ �; 40,001 - 100,000
�' � ��� � � ` � �' �► � ;� ,, � �
,:�t
� ' , �■ri■� � � � ��j �'' � � � 100,001 & Over
;�� ���■ �.� ' . _ "'�� � }-� ,
; �:: � �� i � �. ;,:%' ; �:� :
1 r
� � �' ��. � � . . .; h � , .
i �r � ���► � �� � �A� � %'� �� �?� ' � ' �� Subdividable Parcels
. 1 , � � � � � . � , � � __,
; ��'� � _ ,�+� . � � � � � �� �
1 � r � �� ,,, � Q,� .
` i- � � �-^�r`�...-�� r� ,, --, �tx� � � Identified Parcel
� i
! �� Z �' � � , ' � r Z f� Lia a �� ;j � �,/ l��`�' .j� � NT� I
� 0� i y ,� lOth Ave ' � Q - J,�l . - & � Methodology:
. -�-�_�i� � - �+ ��i� `� � . � r' Y ,
� A � � In order to be subdividable,a lot must be at
I �� '" o° � �� � e^l�� � �� � ��"'��"`--��- �` ' � ,��� � E" ' �� j g least 20,000 square feet and 160 feet wide,
, i� � a �� ya'1� � a �: --- x� '� t � as measured at the 35-foot front setback line.
I U � y v � G°��Q� a � � '� ` t��' " �- � � In addition,corner lots must be a minimum
: v ^' � � �° � � , � "�`:�, ��-�s j" 180 feet x 100 feet,and"through lots"
� q Yth � �� 3 �,,, Country Club Dr ;_' - � fronting on two streets must have at least 80
�GoldenValle Rd AVe a� N Fr ntage Rd � � � j
I _ y 55 ,� � � �-° t. � � �a � � feet of lot width on both streets.
� >. � --:�,_ � �� � � Olson Me C.� �� � �" rJ�J fi, ------_..� .� y
�-�'��� � ____..�.
Note:This stud does not take into account
I � - �, Z � .�xontag ! � ���� (� fe; � �� lot depth,setbacks,structure size, homes
� �
I � p � � � ���Harold Av� �•��., ,,y . `� � '�� ��;'���� � � situated on multiple lots of record,or unique
� � � ,� �� ����� � physical characteristics of the lot. In addition,
� � �-� � � � � � � D � {. `� `� �� ' I it does not account for wetlands,flood lain,
i , � ' �' � �' � � ��t� �, c'�� �� �� � � '� � shoreland requirements,easements opother
� � n G � � � �. , ._. :��,• �
. ,,, � � � ��- encumbrances.
--- Z y craCk i t`; ��" � !4. �,=,;` ,. .
- `�- i� , ���� , � The study was completed using ArcGIS
�
�.
� ~ e�b: � �� � ��� �� • � �1�f-, � l a '�`' � software and 2014 Hennepin County parcel
�1
� <
169 �� � p p _
� ry � !,�'' �. �1 � ` � � � --•------------�.-------� information.
� �t � � � � � A � ` �
� �� `e� �' / �r �-� � �� ,� � �`�'"' �
� � �� � �F �
• ,_ I,au�,___� , � �
,
. > r�
� --� �� � � �� � �oo q,�� � �
; - � p � � ;
-� -�-�
� � _
�....._, ! � �° ro � ,� �-_ __.-_ M � ''r� ,� �' � � `�:_�
! I � ,I� �,n '� `�'' a o �, Golcien�ii s Dr � ��� � , � a
' �-•----••------ �� �a ta �� ,' '� � � w � �;` � � ��
- ' 'a $ �'�� 'k� r�.� ..�"�"�"r"� �� r�� � �
�' "- •------------,...----•---- �------_.._..---------- �i�a gj�,d l_ �
. v ------------ � Print Date:1!7/2015
�� j ' Sources: e
���� -Hennepin County Surveyors Office for
� � � �1`� � Property Lines(2014).
_ � � , � f -City of Golden Valley for all other layers.
s �
� � �. � �
�--� ° ' �,
I � _�_ i ( � o �,000 z000 a,000
� "�"._ ------�'- _
� � Feet
� �
o z
�
3
d u>
� Z � a �
p` � � o r @ �et9� Meadow Ln N
� � � 3 3 . �;,
rn a' m 3 1 i. Schaper Rd y m z $�� �.l µ
� c A � ' Z � � � � ���
o N 3 c" �
o � f , � '; � ,__ , o
�N Frontage Rd � ��' � 'l"11� � � �`�.
` � N Pronta e Rd � � f,
Olson Memorial Hwy Hwy 55 ���, N Frontage Rd � �
9
S Frontage Rd °.��._ : Olson Memoria!Hwy �,� ,� Hwy 55 Olson Memorial Hwy
G � �: '�'-.' ;�.
�+ S Frontage Rd S F�ontags Rd
�y � -�. � +
( z
�O � x: �l �; -�. , _ , pr y - _'_� __i >
° � �% 2�t,4 4 1 �a�r � � d a Lot Size
i ai�¢ - ��erleaf ��'�� � °o '� _ c
V � � O �-G , �,-� -�a1` �f��n. �a
�L �"- � C ~ ti.y Z� � �`...� , ` uYri� 'O
y� � `� �2a.o9g ,� r^ � Woodstock Ave
.� �WoodstockAve > � � �, � R-1 Zoned Properties
0
� � Woodstock A�e > N 1`V��s��� � �
Z O J
�=� � �. o � � et`ea�p� �zo.o�. I�,e 5�f24,o�0.22 - 0 3 � � � Q Parcel Square Feet
__ 'y D y � o� y �. N B e v e r l A v e a d
( ^ S9 9g'� 40,232 y,`�p � � N O G� __�_ i 2 6 225 3769�,� o � Y O ¢ � u
� �- �'�su �' a�' v`°��f �� Z Loring Ln ij � �1 �; �Zt 793 ' �1� � °¢ y � � � t`' - ��,��� $c UIIC�@r
Alle d � ;°
� .. ��,� . t � y ... �L u. r -,
�
./ �� _../ N, . ` , , k _
' r� N , % �I ' �p �!� .
e� 9,16 � L r�a r�'Ln a� ��� r ��,001 - 13,0��
�A
W . � „
A ,454
d � ��1, � A4 37 � � �1 � y o 22, + 3,04 23,029 �
Q ^' a�`� �33,435 4Bq '�o �� �� �, ._ �Qt - � � � �._�-- 6p,38a �
I �. =' -�- �� 24 ': � o, > 36228 31,305 � ��9 , p - 13,001 - 16,000
,1 � .862 S `�' °se U ��a � N m
O 46. O�'y.�� S 'W � ,.
6+ j- < �� �, '; o� 23,849 �n d
p •,9 7,98 s.. C' ' �It2 � � ..., _ y C�� � V, ON
� � t � . . �_J , 4 . ��� �� . � g, 26,78 �� ���22.387 ��n, * n3 e
� f � � g �. � 16 001 - 20 000
o, -�; � � '3. ` �ti� � ' �
a 26.702� d t , ^ , _ , ,
9 _ I l �
1-� 1 ; �a ��" i � � � _
W `� 23 4 5 / I. 37 772 t��� ?r
37872 : � �---� 799 `- ?d,�86 25,913 S
.� ,53� � 20 001 -40 000
�i. Zg 6 34,623 � 24,203 ___ I �
�.. o F y;� � � _ � _- �y ��---t � 32 758 �� 9.041 39.580 � � r
� ��� � � �� _.--- �.,. ����'�. � � I .26.747 �90 .�--� A .I
5,77 g9� 30 231 �� ^• � � o""
3 � g �.. �� Li/d� � Q35 � � haK t�d _ ��, 124,632 '�23��. 20, 3� �F � 1 ' �� 0�
. � °- � ` .__ � ,�^ T� � oan � �,Q �,0
_
County Rd 40 enwood Ave ��O^ � IQ,- l -�' ,: N 3,a"' �25,325 -��� �23,093 --� -
2 ,c �, � � 2�i 81 Z4.538 _ J 31 49g l 7 361
N � �s. C � � `n - 3 ,� � o� a- � �' 21,221 � o, �
� � �., �UI) � 397�� ''Z- o `° °�' �q8$28 i i � v `-- � � m eo
a = � � �Rd4o � ,o� , � ; ��- �;'s'�°s,�_-� � � -� W �° �� 3a'� �� � � , Subdividable Parcels
� a� aYi ��' T- � - �-__�ount Rd40__ � 1 lenwoo r�------•-
3 � y � �' Q �498 20,274 �y ��
u, d Q Y c� � Turn ik d �' - �
_ � � � le�wood Ave �� ,29,597 � �,4 � .4911 _:� -��� � ��� _� � i
rn > c P e � ` 42 ° 27 S4s rn � �
W � � K�ra .� N Q 3 ti� 2 >. 20,930_ ; � 6 ,d 4�o �, , , ,, �, � � 23.092� � , Identified Parcel
Y = � ,a l. 3�'a � .3 21,121 �._ 22,3� , �� _-�o -ti 2 � ��!�n;� :u� ,' t& ,.,'
o '3 t � � � �.. „��0 2S�$ r
S
� ` „ � ,98b �.352
- o ` •� � � � �� y �� t° 3 � � � zs ns Methodology:
r m N �� ' zo sad I N '" I � '-' 22.z�s+ In order to be subdividable,a lot must be at
� ° �
v 2o,sss - 1 ,i j� U - � � � , 27 598 least 20,000 square feet and 160 feet wide,
� ��_ �- sa,ias ��
' r �, Colonial�r __ � , ' -�° ' ' as measured at the 35-foot front setback line.
� 24049 t` 8.65 ��� . � � __ n 20,004--- 24,84 i7
'�� " �� �� °' o ��,�,�-,�,�,�A� ---' � � ,__ � In addition,corner lots must be a minimum
�`` " � ' ! ' � �_- u�l�n.•tts��� � zi,aas 180 feet x 100 feet,and"through lots"
_..__ .�_._M' z� 30,284 � -
Laurel Ave Laurel Ave ?i ��� �-� >_ 0 552 ' ''- 22,�57 fronting on two streets must have at least 80
-` -- �n ke � �- � `3 '�� + _° ��` o �22, s5 s feet of lot width on both streets.
Turnpi � O a `� �2s,5 io '
F�
---� � 0,331 y
a� R w _�, wN �,sr , .rri ' ,ana n ir ro �-�
a d s ` � -�-L°' L�� 5•29� ,53 21, } a �3�23'�24� Note:This study does not take into account
a so 3 R 2zsa� ;zi,os2 - � 7a�
a n Rd pike Rd z r f�, � 2s,aoa 2o,s�as�Y 23437 lot depth,setbacks,structure size,homes
� .� � :� � 2o,ss8 ro r ��a
a �' i 312`,,o i � 43 � ' �„,�,.� � situated on multiple lots of record,or unique
� �� � ��ti��;�a ` ��078`�� ,sss �3�4 ��o,s2� zz.3i�� physical characteristics of the lot.In addition,
i � i '� ' i,�o� s9 - it does not account for wetlands,floodplain,
�11s Dr �=� Golden Hills Dr � � Down �` �� �'��4 3? 2 _ i t
1• �,o� � ��3 : 444� �A 3�.68a shoreland requiremeMs,easements or other
w � Circle Down �� �. •- l �/� �` �= �e� �''
a � a ,, ' � ,� T d, encumbrances.
O 'p f �C nT�.,'. BA� ? Y � �T ,
C O f � b�y `, \./855 i�\. � �. � ` ��$ -��,„„•�
p 428
� �• � '�� � � � � , ,� F�'�- � .' The study was completed using ArcGIS
`D � �` aue y �� o,aa '�saoN+ry I o .o� 3q,�os� �i � ,� _�� rz�,aas software and 2014 Hennepin County parcel
t7 i `�°' %v� �
N ,693 ?sef:' y;`,.-`f . T+�ro 24.741
way2ata$��d Average Lot Sizes (square feet) , r �_ m / � � ' r; information.
� �zfI e � r��r � � � {vl 24,g99
"-'--"�". � � .. a�2
'_"_"_ � '2190d
( �'a'�^ �. _ i 2 .07�3 ( i � .
._
2
• ��•P--�°> �...�_�� � � I�
, , . , ,. ; �
�+'�z.afa,..T ..: �
• City-wide - 15���� Hwy 394 7 --•._...r -� ----------- �,; _ Hwy 39q �
�. ----
• Tralee - 27�000 Frontage Rd(SLP) I o tage Rd j
Q 5 o ar Wayzata Blvd �,..,
• Tryol (north of Glenwood) - 20���� ��'�,p� ���'� � a� 3�+ �9p,5�� � PnntDate:1/7/2015
d� � w�, S � Tyrol Crest Souroes: e
• Tyrol (south of Glenwood) - 18���� `O� °' � , T e�'e Id -Hennepin County Surveyors O�ce for
�� � W > > `�o� ,��a�� ��� �> PropertyLines(2014).
Nj La d 7,--.___-' ,o �y -City of Golden Valley for all other layers.
r' ' N a � v 7-Yr �, j c
� � d ei�� � �' °i N �`� o sso 72a i.uo
� tv J,65 � 'j � Feet
� g v� a ,s� A�o n S � 7ra�� m �
y dd m -