The URL can be used to link to this page

08-22-16 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, August 22, 2016 7 pm 1. Approval of Minutes July 25, 2016, Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 26 Paisley Lane— SU12-20 Applicant: GreenWood Design Build, LLC Address: 26 Paisley Lane Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. --Short Recess-- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 4. Other Business • Outdoor Storage Discussion • Comprehensive Plan Land Use Discussion • Council Liaison Report 5. Adjournment �T�his docu�nent i�availahle in alterrr�te formats upon a 72-hour request. {�lease ca31 763-593-8006{TTY: 76:3-5�13-3968}to n�al4e a requEst. Exampies of altern�t�forrr��ts � ; �nay incl��ie large�rint,electronic, Braille,autliocassette,etc. r��` Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 25, 2016 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, July 25, 2016. Vice Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka, and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Assocrate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Segelbaum was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes June 27, 2016, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka and mo#ion carried unanimously to approve the June 27, 2016, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Major PUD Amendment'- Central Park West— Southwest Quadrant of I-394 and`Highway 100 — PU-121, Amendment#2 Applicant: Ryan Companies US, Inc. Address: Unassigned (Southwest Quadrant of I-394 and Highway 100) Purpose: To construct an 11 story office building and a 1,214 stall parking ramp on the border of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. Goellner referred to a site'plan of the property and discussed the applicant's proposal to construct an 11 story office building and a 7 level, 1,214 stall parking ramp. She noted that the landscaping, ligh�ting and other civil engineering plans match the original PUD proposal for Central Park West. She showed the Commissioners architectural elevations and renderings and discussed the building materials which will include glass, brick, and precast spandrel panels. She discussed the proposed amenities including: a retail space/cafe facing the park, outdoor meeting space, a skyway to the parking ramp, balcony views c�f downtown, and a bicycle storage room with showers and lockers. Goellner referred to a plan showing the entrances and exits on the site and discussed how they have changed from the original approval. She noted that the parking ramp entrance on the north side has been moved to the east side along Lilac Drive and that the ramp has been tilted slightly on the site to better align with Lilac Drive and to allow the Central Park area to be larger. She added that the intersection of Quentin Avenue and Wayzata Blvd. will be improved by adding an additional turn lane and all-way stop signs. Goellner referred to the north facing wall of the parking ramp and stated that the original proposal included a "green" vegetated wall. She stated that in order to meet the intent of Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 25, 2016 Page 2 the original concept, the applicant is proposing that a mural be painted instead because vegetation won't survive on a north facing wall. She explained the proposed mural design process and the timeline for community meetings and installation of the mural. She added that staff is recommending a committee be formed consisting of one member from the Golden Valley Community Foundation, one Planning Commissioner, two residents of the South Tyrol/Kennedy Addition, one St. Louis Park resident, property owners Ryan Companies and Excelsior group, and City Planning staff from Golden Valley and St. Louis Park. Goellner discussed the parking requirements and noted that 1,173 spaces are required and 1,214 spaces are being provided. 118 bicycle spaces are required and 126 spaces are being provided. Waldhauser asked if the change in setbacks from the origina! appro�al are due to the tilting of the parking ramp. Goellner said yes. Baker asked if tilting'the parking ramp increased the amount of office space. Goellner said no, but it will increase the amount of green space. Kluchka asked if the City was involved in the decision to change the vegetated wall to a painted mural. Goellner stated that the first choice was a veg,etated wall, the second choice was a mural, and the third choice was metal panels across the facade. She added that staff has had conversations with th� applicant and that the City wants this to be a dynamic space and have a sense of place for the,community. Blum noted that in the original PUD proposal the parking ramp was entirely in Golden Valley and now a portion of it will be in St. Louis Park. He asked if that will affect any agreements or negotiations between the two cities. Goellner stated that there are shared service agreements in place and explained that Golden Valley will permit the parking ramp and St. Louis Park will c�llect a portion of the revenue collected based on the square footage and vice versa for the office building. Johnson referred to the make-up of the membership on the proposed mural committee and stated that it doesn't represent the entire community, rather just one neighborhood. He ask�d about in�olving additional people and the City Manager or elected officials. Goellner stated that they are hoping the community will be represented by a Planning Cornmissioner and by a member of the Golden Valley Community Foundation, and also during the community engagement day. She added that the City Manager will likely be involved in the process and that the Planning Commission could recommend that the City Council also have a member on the committee. Blum asked if there are bike and pedestrian pathways planned for the Wayzata Blvd. Highway 100 overpass. Goellner stated that a feasibility study is just wrapping up for Wayzata Blvd. that has several alternatives for Wayzata Blvd. in it. When the feasibility study is complete there will likely be a recommendation from all of the parties involved including Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, and Hennepin County. The funding of the improvements will most likely come from the City's Capital Improvement Program, Hennepin County, and the Metropolitan Council. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 25, 2016 Page 3 Baker noted that the application made reference to a bike connection between the proposed office building and the Cedar Lake Trail and asked about the nature of that connection. Goellner stated that the connection would not necessarily be owned and operated by the applicant of this property, but she believes there have been discussions regarding a connection in St. Louis Park. Johnson noted that traffic was a big issue during the review of the original PUD approval process. He referred to the staff report that states if there is reason to do another traffic study one would be done, but he wonders if they can be more proactive abQut requiring additional traffic studies. Goellner stated that the City is requiring that traffic counts be re- done after the office is occupied to make sure that traffic is moving the way it is supposed to. Baker asked if the additional studies are the City's ar the developer's responsibility. Goellner stated that the property owners would pay for the additional studies. Waldhauser asked if the office tenants will be required to have staggered start and end times to help with traffic issues. Goellner said she thinks that would 'likely be a component of their Travel Demand Management Plan. Tony Barranco, Vice President of Development, Ryan Companies, stated that much of the foundation for this phase of the proposal was put in place during the original PUD approval process. He stated that the second phase will occur within two to five years after the first phase. He noted that Excelsior Group has purchased the site and that Ryan Companies will be partners with them by supporting the eonstruction and leading the entitlement process. They are both mutually develc�ping the property and will be owners of the property. He reiterated that they will get the permit for the parking ramp from the City of Golden Valley and the permit for the office building will be issued by St. Louis Park. He discussed the design of the office building and stated that they are trying to create an office environment for the modern work force. He said they that they don't want to build a glass tower that'feels unfriendly, they want to build a warm space that is more hospitable and welcoming to patrons, guests and workers. He stated that 95% of the building materials will be Class =1 materials, the brick will have a metallic sheen, there will be full height glass on many levels; and wood under the soffit with signature arched windows to give it a warehouse feel. The building will be LEED certified and will focus on the connection to Central Park West. It will also focus on bike connections and outdoor space with each floor having some outdoor space. He referred to the subtle shift/tilt of the parking ramp and stated that changing the ramp gave the park an additional 7,000 square feet of space, it gave the apartment owners to the north, and offices to the east some relief fram the view of the hard edge of the ramp and it removes the direct view of the rarnp and headlights. It also provided some important safety areas by allowing a pedestrian connection from Quentin Avenue to go through and into the park without crossing through the active driveway area. He referred to the north side of the parking ramp and said staff has made it clear that planning something for that facade is very important. He said it is important to them as well because it is a critical signature gateway to their overall project. He said they were concerned about the longevity of a vegetative system especially on the north side of a building so they are proposing ground plantings and a mural concept as an alternative. He discussed the history of previous projects and past community engagement processes they've done with the artist that will be working on the mural. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 25, 2016 Page 4 Kluchka asked about the proposed spandrel material. Karl Drecktrah, Director of Architecture, Ryan Companies, stated that spandrel is an architectural precast, concrete product that will be located between the top of the window heads and the bottom of the window sills from floor to floor. Kluchka asked if a major tenant has been identified because the look of this proposed building is similar to the look of the new US Bank Stadium. Barranco said no, they have had discussions with a significant, major tenant, and they need a major tenant before they start construction, but they have nothing to announce at this point. Kluchka asked if the proposed second office building would be a twin of this building. Barranco s�aid it will be an exact twin of the first building with two exceptions: the second buiJding will have a slightly different orientation the first floor will have through access and an open and dramatic connection to the park. Blum referred to the crisscrossing paths in the park and asked how pedestrians will interact at those intersections. Barranco said they would like to have a direct connection on the south end of the ramp to the walk system and they know where they will have the bike entrance, but they haven't spent a lot of time yet on modal separation. Blum asked if the retail/cafe space would be open to the public. Barranco said yes and added that the retail space will flow out to the park space. Waldhauser referred to the landscaping and asked Barranco if they are responsible for the trees for one year, or if their r�sponsibifity is longer. Kevin Pfeiffer, Landscape Architect, stated that most of the trees wili be lacated in areas with significant open space and added that they require their'`contractor to warranty the trees for 1 to 2 years. Kluchka said he wants to talk about the building versus the parking ramp. He said he sees a lot of things happening, but he doesn't know what this building wants to be. He questioned how the mural could help bring the two together as a connected unit and added that he would recornmend and encourage mixed media for the mural, not just paint. Barranco said they share the concern that the mural look like an architectural project and not an art project, and that it fits in with its surroundings because they don't want to invest in something that doesn't look great. Kluchka questioned if they have to use the word rnural or if`fhey can leave it open to other solutions. Barranco said they wouJd be open to considering other ideas or a combination of a mural and other materials. Drecktrah added that the design team will stay actively engaged to make sure it all works together. Johnson referred to the parking for the hotel and said he remembered talking about using the residential building as a pass through or short cut. He asked if that is still under consideration and if there is a snow removal plan in place. Barranco stated that the residential building is under different ownership but there will be a door connection in the north side of the ramp for hotel guests. He referred to the question about snow removal and stated that there is an agreement in place that covers maintenance and service of the green areas and the sidewalks including snow removal. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 25, 2016 Page 5 Baker opened the public hearing. Gary Cohen, 4530 Douglas Avenue, said he knows the importance of public meetings and that he has attended many of them regarding this proposal. He stated that this current proposal is a vast improvement over past proposals and he is impressed with the quality of the project. He said he is not concerned about plantings or murals but the elephant in the room and his primary concern is traffic. He said traffic can be unbearable and the Wayzata frontage road can back up to Olive Garden. He said he knows that possible changes haven't been finalized yet, but traffic engineers continue to say there is no problem. He noted that at prior meetings he's called for continued studies and suggested that continued studies be made a conditional of approval. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the publ�c hearing. Waldhauser said she believes there is a provision in place to repeat traffic studies as more development occurs. Baker agreed and added that staggered start and end times might be another consideration. Goellner stated there will be future anaiysis to determine if trip distribution is occurring as anticipated. Kluchka said he loves the design of the building. 'He referred to condition #10 in the staff report and said he would like to change the word "rn�ral" to"public art" instead because there is an opportunity for mixed media rather than just paint. Waldhauser said she has seen both paint and mixed media projects done really well. Baker agreed that just a mural might not be what the City wants. Johnson reiterated that he would like to open up the design process to allow more people to participate and to possibly have the City Manager and/or City Council M�mbers be a part of that group. Baker suggested that decision be left up to the Council. He`said he imagines that the City Manager will designate staff to attend the group's meetings and that information will funnel back to the City Council. Johnson said he just wants more than the closest neighborhood involved. Goellner noted that cvndition #11 also uses the word "muraP' and said that she would change the wording to "publi� art." Baker asked Comrnissioner Waldhauser if her questions about the proposed trees have been addressed. Waldhauser noted that the trees are probably more in St. Louis Park's purview, but it'sounds like the longevity of the trees and landscaping has been thought about. Kluchka;asked if additional traffic studies should be added as a condition of approval. Baker said he would like there to be ongoing traffic studies. Kluchka questioned how St. Louis Park is reviewing the traffic issues. Goellner said she believes it is addressed in their conditions of approval, or they may have a separate agreement. She suggested language be added to condition #6 regarding the monitoring of ongoing traffic concerns. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of Central Park West PUD No. 121, Amendment #2, subject to the following findings and conditions: Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 25, 2016 Page 6 Findinqs: 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site, such as the proximity to high retaining walls and highway traffic to the north and east and high- density development to the south and west. With flexibility under a PUD in uses allowed, setbacks, height, parking requirements, number of buildings on a lot, and similar requirements, the quality of site planning and design is of higher quality than if each parcel was designed individually under conventional provisions. The PUD encourages creativity and flexibility in land development. 2. The site is currently vacant and is mostly impervious. The proposed plan adds approximately 72 new trees and 256 shrubs to the site. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use of the land. The PUD plan provides an appropriate area of the city for an 11-story office building and 7-level parking ramp. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment pfar�s and goals. High- density office, commercial, and residential uses surround the site to the south and west. Low-density residential uses are separated from this proposed' PUD site by significant highway development. The PUD plan increases the Class A office space available to the I-394 corridor, which is a desirable location with many major employers. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with presetving and improvirrg the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City: The PUD plan promotes pedestrian and bicycle activity and provides high-quality"landscaping additions to the site. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose`provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. The PUD pro�is>ion permits flexibility from other provisions in Chapter 11 of the City Code. This flexibility is permitted in order to promote the intent and purpose of the PUD section of the City Code. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by Ryan;Companies submitted on June 28, 2016, shall become a part of this appravaL 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, July 11, 2016, shall become a part of this approvaL 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, July 1, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 4. The City of St. Louis Park approves that portion of the Planned Unit Development within its,j:urisdiction. 5. The east-west driveway located along the south side of the proposed office and ramp property (Lot 2) must be modified to include only one-way access in the westward direction. The driveway must be 20 feet in width and include the appropriate curb tapers, signage, and pavement markings. 6. The property owners of any parcel in the Central Park West PUD shall adhere to the Travel Demand Management Plan approved for the West End Redevelopment, which will serve to reduce traffic congestion. The applicant shall provide an update to the Travel Demand Management Plan and must receive staff approval prior to the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 25, 2016 Page 7 issuance of a building permit. Based on the monitoring of traffic conditions, the owner will be required to update the plan or submit a new plan to the Golden Valley and St. Louis Park I-394 Joint Task Force in the future as needed. 7. If there are complaints from hotel users or the hotel owner, located on Lot 3 of PUD 121, that overFlow parking in the parking ramp is not convenient or available, the City reserves the right to require that up to 110 parking spaces be signed and/or striped to designate hotel parking. 8. The applicant shall dedicate easements for public use of certain sidewalks and trails located within the City of Golden Valley, both inside and outside the Linear Park, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. 9. Because the attached PUD Plan includes final design plans for only Phase 1 of the Office and Parking Ramp, the applicant or future property owner must submit an application for a Major PUD Amendment, and receive appraval therefor, when final design plans for Phase 2 of the Office and Parking Ramp are prepared, priar to issuance of any building permits for Phase 2 of the Office and P�rking Ramp. 10.The applicant shall submit a letter of credit or cash deposit to the City of Golden Valley for the cost of the proposed public art installation on the parking ramp fa�ade. 11.The applicant shall engage community memb�rs in the design process for the public art proposed for the parking ramp fa�ade, in a process that is acceptable to the City Manager or his/her designee. 12.The applicant shall pay all required fees and costs incurred by the City related to the review and processing of the application, including'legal and professional consulting costs. 13.This approval is subject to all Qther state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 3. Informal Public Hearing —Zani,ng Code Text Amendment— Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings -ZO00-106 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To cansider language regarding Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings. Goellner explained that a bill was recently passed by the Minnesota Legislature creating a process forJandowners to place temporary health care dwellings on their property. She explained that a temporary health care dwelling is defined as transitional housing for those requ,iring assistance. She said they are typically a modular/manufactured home or recreational vehicle under 300 square feet in size with no permanent foundation. She stated that staff is recommending that the City prohibit temporary health care dwellings in all zoning districts because of the potential negative impacts including: health and safety issues, the lack of adequate space, and noise and visual nuisance. She added that communities must opt-out by September 1 or begin allowing these structures. Baker asked if any communities are not opting-out. Goellner said the only City she knows of that is considering allowing these types of dwellings is New Hope, but they will Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 25, 2016 Page 8 likely opt-out as well. Baker noted that it seems that the League of MN Cities is strongly recommending opting out. Goellner agreed. Waldhauser stated that some variation might be acceptable. Goellner stated that there are other solutions available such as Permanent Accessory Dwelling Units. Baker asked Goellner if she knows the history of this legislation. Goellner said a representative from a more rural area proposed this to meet the need for transitional housing. Johnson asked how long one of this type of dwelling units could stay an someone's property. Waldhauser said one year. Goellner said cities could extend that and rnake their own rules. Johnson asked what the setbacks would be. Goellner said they would be the same as an accessory structure. Waldhauser asked if a temporary dwelling/recreati4nal vehicle could be on a driveway. Zimmerman stated that a recreational vehicle cauld be located on a driveway or in the side or rear yard. Waldhauser said she thinks al`lowing a small recreational vehicle on a driveway might not be terrible. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Blum stated that based on the materials in the agenda packet this won't provide a quality, long term solution. He added that they will change the neighborhood character in a negative way and would not be consistent with the City's plans for residential areas. Johnson said he is in favor of allowing temporary dwellings. He stated that if the State said cities should allow this, and if people meet the requirements, the City should give them the opportunity to take advantage of this legislation. Baker stated that the City cc�uld opt-out of this now and work on an ordinance that would allow this sort of use in th;e future. Johnson reiterated that people should be able to take advantage of the State law. Waldhauser said she doesn't think there would be very many of the�e structures,`but the speed with which these permits would have to be granted would not give staff enough time for review. She said she would like more time to work on a different ordinance in the future. MOVED by Blum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried 4 to 1 to recommend approval of amending Section 11.04 of the Zoning Code prohibiting Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings. Commissioner Johnson voted no. --Short Recess-- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 25, 2016 Page 9 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Baker gave an update on the last LRT meeting he attended. He said they are continuing to discuss the implications of the Legislature, the lack of work force, the park and ride at Golden Valley Road, access to the park bike trail and the proposed welcome center in Wirth Park. 5. Other Business • Comprehensive Plan Land Use Discussion Zimmerman stated that he included a General Land Use Map in the agenda packet because he would like the Commissioners to indicate on the'map areas they would like to change, or areas they think will change as a part of the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update. He said staff will use this information for the Comprehensiue Plan open house to be held on September 19. He discussed the;City's Comprehensive Plan page on the web site and the online branding survey. Baker asked about the make-up of the new Bike and Pedestrian Task Force. Goellner stated that staff received 18 applications and 1 Q members were appointed by the City CounciL • Council Liaison Report Council Member Schmidgall gave an update on the last City Council meeting where they approved the Conditional Use Permit for Big DeaPs Liquidation. He also discussed the City's upcoming citizen survey` Waldhauser asked about the new gazebo at Brookview. Schmidgall said the gazebo is a relatively modest investment that he thinks will be well used. He stated that due to threatening weather the ribbon cutting for the new gazebo has been re-scheduled. Kluchka;asked if the City,Council has considered the rezoning proposal for 9050 Golden Valley Road. Zimmerman stated that City Council denied that proposal. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm. John Kluchka, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant �-�� 1� �� _:�� ,� 'j;, �� ; ��, � ��. .�� ,, �� .`��. � � � �� Planning Departrnent 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax} Date: August 22, 2016 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Chloe McGuire Brigl, Planning Intern Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Minor Subdivision of 26 Paisley Lane —GreenWood Design Build, LLC, Applicant , .. '>: ........ , ,i,�, ,,;; z.�<.......:�. ........ .. ,,,,�t,,:u,.. . „ �0. ,,,.,,ri< . ,,.:;�fo;�.sw�,x::%„�a.r-,......��.: , r,.,„ ,. .._...., . .�,,�.... .. ..... .... ��u...�,�� Summary of Request GreenWood Design Build, LLC, represented by Scott Loehrer, is proposing to subdivide the property located at 26 Paisley Lane into two lots. There is one existing single family home on this lot which would be demolished and replaced with two new single family homes. Changes to the minimum lot area requirement of the Subdivision Code made in 2015 require a calculation of the average lot size of all residential lots within 250 feet of the subject property in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. If the average is greater than 18,000 square feet, the new required minimum lot size would be 15,000 square feet. If the average is less than 18,000 square feet, the required minimum lot size would remain at 10,000 square feet. For 26 Paisley Lane, the average size of the lots within 250 feet is approximately 20,010 square feet. Therefore, the minimum lot size of each new lot is 15,000 square feet. The existing lot is 31,991 square feet. The proposed Lot A, the northern lot, would be 15,337 square feet and the proposed Lot B, the southern lot, would be 16,369 square feet. City Code also requires that each lot have a minimum of 80 feet of width at the front setback line and maintain 80 feet of width for 70 feet of depth. Both lots would have approximately 90 feet of width at the 35-foot setback point and maintain at least 80 feet of width 70 feet back from the lot line. The dimensions of both of the newly created lots provide a sufficient building envelope for development. It is noted that the applicant sent a mailing to the neighborhood regarding the proposed subdivision. Staff did not receive any comments. Qualification as a Minor Subdivision The proposed two-lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the property located at 26 Paisley Lane is an existing platted lot of record, the proposed subdivision will produce fewer than four 1 lots, and it will not create need for public improvements. 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 to 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. Both lots would have access off Paisley Lane. The Engineering Division has reviewed the application and provided a list of conditions that must be met before final plat approval. These requirements are 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 of the 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. New utility easements must be dedicated and shown on the Final Plat. 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 $3,900 (2% of the estimated land value with 50%credit for one unit) is required for this subdivision. 2 8. The conditions spelled out shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision. Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions. All conditions have been met. Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. Proposed public easements consistent with the subdivision ordinance must be dedicated and shown on the Final Plat. 2. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 3. A park dedication fee of$3,900 shall be paid before release of the Final Plat. 4. A deferred special assessment of$4,900 shall be paid before release of the Final Plat. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Memo from the Fire Department, dated August 3, 2016 (1 page) Tree Inventory and Survey, dated August 17, 2016 (2 pages) Site Plan (1 page) 3 , 205 211 203 146 2� 117 125 124 130 i 25 115 110 , 124 119 112 � 120 Subject Property 75 -``~-_ �o ai o ._ i�o 2s �. Zs 55 ' � �, � i 6�30 6324 �5 ..........,..:...:. . 6320 �6140. 6100�� 30 �1 �1 105 6237 100 g�q5 6101 105 120 £ ° 120 125 120 125 140 ➢ 110� ,. 115 � � 140 145 14q '� 145 160 120 725 J 180 2� 205 200 205 130 135 200 ; 220 225 220 225 � �' .. �. ' ��, � �� i � 5� 4 � � � _� ,��W �%%� ��. � �� w� ��,� � � �„a µ� � � , �;. ,� _ Flr£ ��c��"� �11� r��-��-�� v/��-��-so�s {��} Date: August 3, 2016 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Emily Goellner, Associate Planner Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant From: Rick Hammerschmidt, Deputy Fire Chief Subject: Minor Subdivision —26 Paisley Lane The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the information provided for the Minor Subdivision at 26 Paisley Lane. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the information provided, the Golden Valley Fire Department finds the proposed plan for this property acceptable. If you have any questions, please contact me at the following, 763-593-8080 or rhammerschmidt@�oldenvallevmn.�ov Page 1 of 1 '. Date:August 17, 2016 ' Project: 26 Paisley Lane, Golden Valley ' City of Golden Valley Definition of Significant Tree:A healthy Hardwood Deciduous Tree 6"+ ', diameter including Ironwood,Catalpa, Oak, Maple (hard), Walnut, Hickory, Birch, Black Cherry, ' Hackberry, Locust,and Basswood.A healthy Softwood Deciduous Tree 12"+in diameter '' including Cottonwood, Poplar/Aspen, Boxelder,Ash, Willow,Silver Maple, and Elm.All Conifers ' 4"+in diameter. Only Significant and legacy Trees are inventoried. ' City of Golden Valley Definition of Legacy Tree: Hardwood Trees measuring 30"+in diameter, or '! '' Conifers measuring 24"+in diameter. '' Tag: Round, metal, numbered tag located on West side of trees. ' Tree Dia (Diameter): in inches, measured at 54" above ground. ' Tree Cond (Condition): health of tree based on a scale from 0-9.Zero being a dead tree and 9 ' being a perfect tree. Conditions 4 and above are considered healthy trees.All trees on this inventory are healthy. ', X and Y Coordinates: longitude and latitude of the tree's location. T�E arrn � ' Our locations are Resource Grade, not Survey Grade. *� HORTICULTURAL = ' SPECIALISTS�INC.€ , a DAVEY�company ; TAG SPECIES DIA CONDI NOTES X Y 3301 Oak, Red 10 6 on S. property line. -93.35892818400 44.97848435080 3302 Ash, Green 20 5 on S. prop. line. 3 stems -93.35869384500 44.97847422560 3303 Ash, Green 27 4 -93.35852433830 44.97865821480 3304 Birch, River 18 5 3 stem tree -93.35873583830 44.97886213310 3305 Maple, Silver 40 4 Legacy Tree -93.35877301670 44.97879878890 3306 Ash, Green 25 6 -93.35885353670 44.97871457640 3307 Ash, Green 25 4 -93.35883669000 44.97860792890 3308 Birch, Paper 23 4 3 stem tree -93.35895638330 44.97859537060 3309 Ash, Green 26 5 -93.35916867830 44.97859454390 3310 Spruce, White 16 5 -93.35927837250 44.97854675230 3311 Maple, Silver 30 4 Legacy Tree -93.35905290750 44.97867510730 3312 Ash, Green 24 4 -93.35906276000 44.97880808310 3313 Spruce, White 18 4 -93.35897649250 44.97888019480 .� � � � t N_Sr .,� (�� ` �,,i�4�4 ��" � �� y� � � �4�� ' •:i. � C � � at y-Y . �� ` � � _��, ��' �� n��. ..., � � � � U � ,..., .a = � � � � �Y <�, ��P� �,�4 .�. � � lj') y r �c„.�� . ' � ' � � CO N ��s ,�,, �k ,'� ,.�� _ �� " � � a � � 4 . . . , ,. ,. . . z � �b, , °� � ` ;� , � . ''" � .� , , .�. .. '"'74 ^. ¢ r ..; -. . " �� ''� ¢ ��. � ��' � � ��y] � aaw4 �z g:�`. � '�� +" � F'; { M,' � � ^ � < �� ' �� '"' a � � �i� x:�,� �� o W � ., � ,;.� r� ,� �? � , '' F�.�i v� `° . � ,. �: _ , ,�� ,u . � � � F ° �% � ` • ,�,, � =h ...,�: � �.. � ,<.� �r`• :��° .��,. � : �' �`n �, •. , , : ' A � . � . h� � r ..� 3 � � . � ? , � ' k �T� i� �. ` s � £ �:,.s ,��a°_ s• k 5� , � � � � ` � , �, b . ,�. , . i ¢ � � � � , � �' �y�x £ � r. .� � ,,.; }�.},�:'„t', �4 �� N .� O� �;�;:� � �� * �,$� Z • � � � � a �� ,�z, .� • � a� �� ti �� ;. , o ,e 4� .. � �] �� '�� ,�„ �y„i� � L � � �.� :..� az � � � � � � � � � �,��. � � � � ;,•� � Vs U �; 0 c.o � '�* o � � .., � � ,«�� o � E c � � } � � oa�i � ��m O � � � x,� $� N N �(n ,.k. O � Y..� .. , L w�� { 1� � � o�S +,: fi�, e— (f� x� � � T W s.�' �4 . � � � � � �r�,.� �"� "� ��, Q N N +. � � N 0. a � � � N � �`' �rv� �� f� � oa` a „S E '�� .� } # .. , � s:}�. 5 z o � r � F F W Q M A A M A O `.,/ � _ �w Q U �"' '�" OW WQ '�'iOW WQ � � O > � L1 � � w W F � � F. � E., V � F., � � z u� � � � z O � z O � d a F"' W F" � F., F W F"' � F., g w w � cD W � � � � � Q v� v� � U z co � w � ° � Q o ° W W � � � � F � � � � O H � °° � � � °}° } � Zo ^ = � �" > w �^ z � 0 H �' z z Z � v� E-� � p Zz � F � A o � LL gz � p °" v w a z O � Z w a � W � VWwv, �..� D �., W W �n .. w � p w z ,A a w O � x W � O Wv� Q OU W � � � o Q w � Q � � w A U A � W � U > F-" A UW ] Gr, W `� � Z � W WW `n a Q � QZ � Q � cWi� � ,z vwi � ai � r.� � � � � � � � � NiY. O Z ,�" � NCf; p � Q �- � � U ` w a G1 O p O O c7 m U a o a a _ u� � l Z z a' > O � a � r'' A c4 v� cn v� U f�, W � � �p �" W w '�" � � G� w � w p �� O a W � >C a >C a�'� W > Fw-� H [-W- W � Q Z � ofs' G � � Co �" A � ¢ Q = � H � � � w a v� 3 w a w a Z 0 ,.a � U O „a � � � �O A v�i � Z Z Q [•�, � w Fzj W W oMo W W W o`�'o � LL Q tn � w w w w w w w w w w W w w w W �+ � 0 � zWU �" ,� WW V >" w o O gw [- [- F F H F H H H H H H Q A Q E-� V W "" fx F � ZL� ZFx-� � � a N oz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o rx z �"^� G7 � aw �'ac7 � aw � z � _ - � w w w w w w w w w w w w W W Z w A W F� F w E" F <n O � ~ � � A A A A A �1 G1 A A A A A �"Q "s'� � QpWqoGlz W `� OWCoL Z W � � _ � p�., F`'"„ F z � � dz � > � „"',� dU „3'� � w � W � � ' ~�' �, � � vi� W `/� F" .v�- W F" W � F" � W F" a � � � �0 � � � g g � ,. Z � O AppFFp DAOF" HO � � � a z r� oC7 `�' 0 z Q `� W pa � � zzA �= a � � zA �� o o N O W o3w � � �" W o3wa � �" � > � �z � �, ax � � o � �, o � � � o m � � OF � � F ,.aFOW Q F• „aF-� � W W � c=i� w � 0 � °" U � � WAW A" Up � W � w w o z a W WF �.Z. � fw wWFZ � f�W„ _ � � � ►-j a� F � y, � r., •aF, � y, � r„ w Fa"' � Q � z °; F, pQ � W •��• z N � � r.�� i "a0 "' awr�i� "a0 � VWOd � W VWOd � W � !� OxP: � F-� z Oxa „�� Fz � � aWHwa � FWHwQ z \ �J �000 � � � �000 � � � ° � � w � � Wzca a 5° F � � � F ,.., � Q Oz �" Fz � d, O � >+ F � dQ � �n in '� ~ �a � zHz p N N � -_ i* , a i � -�' � dFZWW ~ � � FZW W � Z r � d 0 � �, � a �' � ° �' 3w a �' Q ° �' 3w � ° � ~� $�i � � w � oA � d ° W � oA � � a Q , 8� S'S, �" _ aws zW awx w �. � } W r �8 �9L E"' zF" ri � O ?', F � F" � zOf� m Z w � � �J x � Or"aOWx x � OwOW = W � � W � �"��e '�8� H � z3wv� F H � z3av� H cn � cn � � � �ay� ��Q�C'S � � � �; �f� ' ' ',,� ��, � � _ � \ �ti,�� 1 n � NS �z�8 � � � ; � w ,� W � �m I . �J � � � � ��, � �.� w � - �� W �_ _ _ . _ _ _. � �. _ - _ .. y � � Q �. � M ,,�- =� = � a.'� -- - _ I � � �' M b L) ,. � � . __ � , � M _r;.r � �n w 3 �-' a� w0 M _� - i I >> � �'�. } a'' a S' �., � / � �� --- �� "` w II `^ _� C� � ^ � � �~r I�� Z`� M-� � '2. , Z � �n �u' WU1 � Jt � W � m [-� `� � - �I�j �� W 3 __ __ � w � < � � � A � , z _ - � � �� w .� , �, � � �� -� , �: _ x ti � _ ____� � z _ _ , __ � ' . . z x " 1 .-'. -' __ . ..._ � . Q W `�' ¢I � � ` � ,r�.."`*S OI _ - W � �r s.. :.� k.� L �.. , �� CO W �..7 �y �" 1 . .� `. ,, „ � :, > _�a t. " � ..�..w,.�"`,> � . . �:srw.": .� �. ;� = . . �, � � � G� � � b � � I ' = �`� 1 � �-� , � � �w . o � r � ,�� 3' � �`� _ s,,,_ � � _z; en _ �'� ..`' _- , ''C� ti,. .^` ` �p ��.�� ,.`�., � , , �O; ��. �.�� . � ,' ( 11� _ N �L� � . � .� .. �1,,� p � ^`'`, . . v i�� Z " �� ,� � . �� `W Q O � , ` � • -.�. � y� , r f.., .� �. ^ N � � � . = .�� . � `. � ,� � - _ ,_...�. _ � � �O _ _ , � .. , .,� �., , _. � .. � , � � � — Z�2 '� ti CD . �< , ` �` ,t ,��+ �� \ t �� z � �Q� �, , , ,; � , . , � � 4�v�� ` r O c t � J� \ �� , � �� L1J Q�4 � � "'�' - M �W�J � �. � . � ��•._ 'L . � ��" � �,� � �` O�J \. � ..,:., �� . . �� `14 . ,. .... .... . I W ��/� �� " y:,: .�...... � Z Y J �� : . f� t r' _ _ �,r O . � �-..__. •.� m � � �... � ''�... JI�[ `...,% � � I ..... \ � � W N�Z ^ ``• i _..� , :.� � ( �. . N Z rLl .... \ Y' .� g�,�1S 3"L .` ,,.....�. ""�: . !\ %�. ,. .�/j� J; .. .. I � j \ �. �� . �,.. \ � I�1 p p. �� -.�^ \.. � c� 'y \ .:.Q .a.�J. � �� M N 4�7 �� • \ �C(� - J � 'C� �� W * 6'a, W �2 a�0 O�i 1-� � i. �S Z �' �� N� � \ °�s� � c�m �� / � � � •� N N ••� ��'yi yJ�b� _ = O � � c°LL � �. , �n � m a � �N�J � � �� Q� Q Q N � ,� �� .� �,__,��9`��, �� \�� °9Z� pp � s p� �S/6, ��6. � � =o �� A d �'� ¢� � � A `� � �Z � N � � �� c m � � li N �O rn C D 1�_ �// �Z L� � a d E 0 $w.�� °'�� c�.\ `.,.r:.,,,. �� " ��,��9. ��pF'�'`��. .� . �� l', !�� ' � � I�'1�.�s��al D�velrapme�.t Depa�r�krne�.t 7"�i3-593-�i��5/7�i3-593-s1C}9{f�xj Date: August 22, 2016 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Chloe McGuire Brigl, Planning Intern Subject: Discussion of Zoning Code Text Amendments—Outdoor Storage Summary Staff is seeking feedback from the Planning Commission regarding the direction and content of outdoor storage regulations within the Zoning Code. Staff would like to make outdoor storage regulations more clear to handle everyday outdoor storage complaints. This is a preliminary discussion. Background Staff would like to discuss the need to update outdoor storage regulations in the Zoning Code with the Planning Commission, Staff believes that input from the Planning Commission on this topic will be valuable insight into possible modifications for the Zoning Code. This discussion was generated by the interest from staff and residents. Staff receive resident complaints surrounding outdoor storage often and clear regulations will ensure that resident's worries and concerns are effectively addressed. The lack of zoning regulations regarding outdoor storage in Commercial, Business and Professional Office, I-394 Mixed Use, and Institutional Districts has led to numerous cases of outdoor storage complaints that are unable to be addressed through code enforcement. In reflecting on outdoor storage regulations, staff has identified three key challenges: 1. Unclear screening requirements for boats, trailers, recreational vehicles, etc. in side and rear yards of R-1 and R-2 Residential Districts 2. Lack of outdoor storage regulations or screening requirements in Commercial, Business and Professional Office, I-394 Mixed Use, and Institutional Districts 3. Storage of excess inventory from automobile dealerships Staff would like feedback related to these three challenges, including feedback on: 1. Specific screening requirements for residential properties 2. Items that should be screened in Commercial, Business and Professional Office, I-394 Mixed Use, and Institutional Zoning Districts 3. Preferred (or unideal) locations for dealership inventory automobiles Staff investigated the regulations of outdoor storage in other comparable communities and was able to generalize the findings in a way that may offer suggestions as to how Golden Valley could rewrite their Zoning Code if they so choose. Many cities have regulations regarding outdoor storage. Most specify where items may be stored and from whom stored items need to be screened, including the public view or public right-of-way. Almost all zoning codes regulate the storage of boats, cars, and other recreational vehicles. Some zoning codes specify that automobiles must be operable and licensed, and if stored in the front yard of a property, that it must be on a hard surface or improved parking area. Unimproved parking areas including dirt, sand, landscaping materials, etc. Some zoning codes state that items being used for the construction or repair of the structure may be stored outside during construction. Most include details about outdoor storage in industrial or commercial areas, which typically state that storage needs to be screened from adjacent properties. Some cities allow properties abutting railroad tracks to allow the side of the property adjacent to the track to leave items unscreened. Existing Outdoor Storage Regulations All Districts • All mechanical equipment must be screened from view from the street right-of-way • Fence may be up to 6 feet in front yard of properties directly adjoining an A or B minor Arterial Street Districts: R1, R2 • Storage of motor vehicles, RVs, trailers, etc. only allowed in front yard if on a driveway • Boats must be on a trailer • Limited to 1 trailer or RV in front yard at any time • Special permit needed to store other kinds of items in the front yard for more than 30 days • Items stored in side yards must be 3 feet from property line; 5 feet in rear yards • Must screen an RV, boat, trailer, or fish house using a fence or vegetation when in the side yard (but fences are limited to 6 feet in height) • Temporary storage units (e.g. pods) are limited to 7 days and must be on a hard surface (but dumpsters may remain if associated with a permitted building project) • Fences in the front yard are limited to 4 feet in height; side and rear yards limited to 6 feet • Outdoor storage in side or rear yards must be screened by a wall or fence less than 6 feet with 50% opacity, or by vegetation measured 6 feet in height and 50% opacity • Fences limited to 4 feet in front yard and 6 feet in side and rear yards Districts: R3, R4 • Outdoor storage in side or rear yards must be screened by a wall or fence less than 6 feet with 50% opacity, or by vegetation measured 6 feet in height and 50% opacity • Fences limited to 4 feet in front yard and 6 feet in side and rear yards Districts: Institutional, Business and Professional Offices, and I-394 Mixed Use • Outdoor storage must be screened by a wall, fence, or vegetation at least 6 feet in height and 90% opacity • Fences limited to 8 feet in height District: Commercial • � Outdoor storage of materials as a principle use is prohibited • Outdoor storage must be screened by a wall, fence, or vegetation at least 6 feet in height and 90% opacity • Fences limited to 8 feet in height • Fences 12 feet in height permitted only if solely used for screening exterior storage District: Light Industrial • Building material yard with outdoor storage is a conditional use in this District • Outdoor storage must be screened by a wall, fence, or vegetation at least 6 feet in height and 90% opacity (from Fence Section of Code) • Outdoor storage must be screened by a wall, fence, or vegetation at least 6 feet in height and 100%opacity (from Light Industrial Section of Code) • Whether outdoor storage exists or not, a fence or wall at least 6 feet in height or vegetation at least 6 feet in height and 90%opacity is required when property adjacent to Residential Zoning District • Fences are limited to 8 feet in height • Fences 12 feet in height permitted only if solely used for screening exterior storage • Barbed wire is allowed on fences over 7 feet in height District: Industrial • Lumber yards and building material yards with outdoor storage are permitted uses • Outdoor storage must be screened by a wall, fence, or vegetation at least 6 feet in height and 90% opacity • Whether outdoor storage exists or not, a fence or wall at least 6 feet in height or vegetation at least 6 feet in height and 90% opacity is required when property adjacent to Residential or Institutional Zoning Districts • Fences are limited to 8 feet in height • Fences 12 feet in height permitted only if solely used for screening exterior storage • Barbed wire is allowed on fences over 7 feet in height Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the following questions: 1. Are existing outdoor storage regulations in the Residential Zoning District sufficient?Are more screening requirements or more precise definitions needed? 2. What limits should be considered for the location of dealership automobiles, if any? Does storage in parking garages differ from abutting lots or surface lots? 3. What screening requirements should be considered? From whom should outdoor storage be screened?At what distance? 4. What limits should be placed on outdoor storage in Commercial, Business and Professional Office, I-394 Mixed Use, and Institutional Zoning Districts? �� ! ��' ,,,y � �� % ��. �� c yr, �� . ,'�� „� „ . � �'hysical I�e�e�o�►rn+�nt �e�a��t�rn�e�t ?�53-593-8tJ95I7�i3-5�93-81#�'�(fax) Date: August 22, 2016 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Discussion As part of last Comprehensive Plan update, Planning Commissioners were asked to revisit the General Land Use Plan Map that is currently in effect and indicate areas of the city that are likely or well- positioned to experience change over the next 20 to 30 years. The areas that Planning Commissioners have identified will be discussed at this meeting. This information will then be used to prompt discussion and resident reaction at the Comp Plan Kick-off on September 19. Areas identified include places that are: • Likely to change due to market conditions • Better suited for alternative land uses • Inappropriate land uses • Concerns related to a specific area or parcel Planning Commissioners participated in this exercise in 2007 for the last update to the Comprehensive Plan. The following locations were identified by individual members: • Douglas Drive from Medicine Lake Road to Highway 55 • Duluth Street from Douglas Drive to Highway 100 • North Frontage Road of Highway 55 from Douglas Drive to Zane Avenue • Southeast corner of Highway 55 and Winnetka Avenue • Various parcels along Golden Valley Road between Mendelssohn Ave and Decatur Avenue • Northwest quadrant of I-394 and Highway 100 (location of proposed 3.9.4 Apartments) • Southwest quadrant of I-394 and Highway 100 (location of proposed Central Park West) • Various parcels near Nevada Avenue and Medicine Lake Road • Various parcels along Noble Avenue north of Culver Avenue Based on the discussion of those locations, five general areas were prioritized for the final list (see attached). Also included was the I-394 Mixed Use District, which was under study by a consultant in 2007. Attachments • 2030 Comprehensive Plan General Land Use Plan Map (1 page) • Areas of Predicted Change, created 2007, for 2030 Comprehensive Plan (1 page) � � � � �� ,� Areas CJf Pred i cted � h a n � � �,..�,....., .._. � _.__ ._______ �:� ; �-_ � _ � ��:_ N �..� �e� '„ _. i �� .� . � ,..m ,� A ' �`. ," �'.° ; � .. ' � � � ;, . ,..t�.'.y M .� _ -_ �...�� , . � � ,�:.. . .� -� �� b , a ,. � .. � .. � i•, . ; � t � � ' � 's� ,��. � � � ' � "_ � t ` Yi�` �,. ! i � � { 1� . : -,. ' � � �. . .�' ■ ,`"�ux"a�; t�,• ,i'`'�,� �' S � i '`"' 'I � �` � J . ... � _ �i." ! � i'/� �,�,... , �r� � � �` _ �-; f i� 1 . � , i `. e. ,..:� ! � ..�� .� � i �. ; �i . . ,S '�' " � ,a��„ 1�.�'�' * ; _ ,. i j t ` � ..,1 t ^ `«:, f ' + � _ � .�.v6' i . r . t � ..E... r . _.� . � _.,.._. � � Q .,,._ � -- f ' F � ' �;`f� � � � _ - .� � �, � [�C�f�iy}j . �/ i- et .... .. ...... 5+5 �y1.11[`. . � i _.. ' t � ' 1 a R i t t __..) - '^ t.. t {.} " ' _ .. � i . _.._ ` �}- � �k�'... 1 s : � � � �: � . : . " ' r , '"�. .»-a....s_.. _. . . . ..��y„� ._ .. _ . t . �, � � , . r , J �y .��_�--'— tlr . ; _ -- ,c _ , t :- ��: � � � � ' ` ,,,� �� 5 . ..--� � . _ . . �. 4 �� — ,, � . � t _ . � �- ° �, � . ► � . ,� �, _ � � � . a �_c� �` ��.� ; �, �� / � t �^ & '�`___ � u" ��1� � d ( t ' . ,. � �� 6 �� / � K . ... 4{ � ' � r1 „n� , ._w�� S �. 4 � �� i l. � l� �� 1, „ ,. *� ; ti { __ ,�n �' . � , .. _ . � ... �"i� :�,. � : � � �'�p � j � '1� � �l.`; t ��_� . i. _ ,- .. _ , c� - , - ' � - � ' �, .. — � � �� . � . "_ b �. ,:� �p r . �. � _ - i �" ` � � 1 �a � ' �: � �� - �� 3 � _. _ � s ; � � �. � � ,��' e �. � : � � � � � . _ _ ,., , ._ � �,�. . { � . . � -� ._� , � � _.. � � _ � ,«�.�;._..__ w. - ----_--_.----__------ - � ., - : �,,,, ��,n.,,.�<� ,_,. ( � ._� �:�-"�,� � � —_ � ; ResidentNl Industrial � i� ...... - .. ln,nnensiy��,,,.,.�.rP,�..� lightlndusfnnl(.m�wa.6�� opmwae,� ..�� MediumDansiy�r�.u..+v,�a.,.� �� fndustria/�r..m.seyx.� Wetlondelw�u.,wi..u.,�-„u�w,..iwi M�R��Hiyh Densiyt,.�.......r�i �Mi�ed Uae w RaAroad commercja� �- o�ns�re�..,,,,.....,�., =R°°°R�n'�fw y Areas Of Predicted Chanee DIF� r2S'�.Schaols&ReNgiousFaciKfiea Priwt¢SmxM fMFYYe'YiMM1�mRIIRul1li�N ,.. - ,��-ne�o;ys.Nrce,.,,�...,A.., Pu6ficFaciNnas�.�ea..,.� ��Municipalline � , p�sibleredevelopmentdistrict �semi-PublioFaailineea.�,..n � natr:��p�o,Zoo� Sourax:Hennepio County Surve�vrx Offi�z for Property lines(soo7),DNR for 2�s Change to medium and high density Wetlenda,City of Golden Valky for all other la7ers � }l01]S1Rg 3 , Change to mixed use To view draft chapters of Golden Valley'S 2008-2018 4 change to light industrial{more of&ces) Comprehensive Plan, visit the City Web site at www. ci.golden-valley.mn.us/zoning/compplan.htm. S211CI 5 Changetoindustrialand commercial comments to the City Planning Department at planningC ci.gotden-valley.mn.us or 7800 Golden Vatley Rd, Golden 6 Changetooffice,reta�development will occur west in St Louis Park Valley, MN. Deadline for comments is August 31, 2008. . . . , . - ��• � :