Loading...
07-23-01 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, July 23, 2001 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of Minutes -- July 9, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public H~aring - Property Subdivision (SU08-05) Applicant: Paul and Anne Shaw Address: Lots 194,195 & 196, Glenwood located at 501 Meadow Lane North, Golden Valley, M Purpose: The applicant is requesting a subdivision of the main parcel of land in order to create two new lots from the three existing lots that total about 16,000 square feet. III. Continued Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Zoning Voting Requirements Applicant: City of Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The Ordinance revision would change (reduce) the voting requirement for certain rezoning related matters from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority of all members of the City Council -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings V. Other Business VI. Adjournment ~ . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2001 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 9, 2001. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MOVED by Eck, seconded by McAleese the June 25, 2001 minutes with the ab Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Grog and Rasmussen. Also present were Director of Planning and Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson and Recording Secretary Li Shaffer was absent. an, McAleese t Mark ommissioner I. Approval of Minutes - June 25, 2001 Planning Eck stated that the first page, last paragraph, fir than east. hould read "west" rather rried unanimously to approve II. Informal Public Hearing - t to the ZOF:1ing Voting Requirements e Applicant: Purpose: e revision would change (reduce) the voting or certain rezoning related matters from a two-thirds simple majority of all members of the City Council o dated July 2,2001 and stated that this request from Staff (Zoning) of the City Code to change the voting requirement lated matters from a two-thirds majority vote to a simple majority f the City Council. He stated that effective May 30, 2001 the ture amended the statutory voting requirement for rezoning matters be reduci m a two-thirds majority to a simple majority of all members of the council. He stated that the City Attorney has recommended that there should be changes made in Golden Valley's ordinance that would bring us in line with the majority vote for rezoning matters, amendments to the Zoning Code, PUD's and Conditional Use Permits, which are passed by ordinances. He stated the City Attorney has been in contact with the League of Minnesota Cities and it is their opinion that the change from a two-thirds vote to a simple majority vote is something they are suggesting cities should do. e , Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 2 e Grimes stated that the legislation does say that any zoning amendment that would change the zoning from a residential district to a commercial or industrial district would still require a two-thirds vote of the City Council. He also stated that this legislation change does not include changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map and that any changes to that plan would still require a two-thirds majority vote by Council. Rasmussen asked if this recommended change would also affe Commissioners votes. Grimes stated that it would not becau recommendations to the Council and that Planning Commi majority of the established quorum. r es to make this d that it is the City t gislation says, "may" shall. He stated that as far as ard that it's been getting difficult ith the super majority vote. He types of developments even though Hoffman asked what the motive is for Golden Valley an change and stated thatit seems to be optional. G Attorney's position that even though the langu~g~I::f it is his opinion that that really is in effect me J't to m the motivation behind cities making this chan he' to approve certain affordable housing d stated that certain cities weren't appr the majority of the council was in f Groger asked about the nature Cities and with other cities ordinances or other rezon' they were handling the ch s discussions with the League of Minnesota the discussions were specifically regarding PUD rimes stated he specifically asked them how ased on the new state statute. e Pentel asked Gri what other cities to staff at th alked to any adjoining cities. He stated he doesn't know but that the City Attorney has researched this and has talked 'innesota Cities and other city attorneys. erned about this change in voting requirements taking away the e ity Council members. McAleese a d if this change would have to be approved by the old (two-thirds) vote. Grimes stated that this would require a majority vote of the Council because it's not a zoning district change and stated that the City requires four votes when it is a change to the zoning district, a CUP or a PUD. McAleese stated that doesn't make sense to him and that a fundamental change is being made to the way the zoning code operates and it seems to him the existing rules should be followed. Grimes read from the zoning code where it states that Golden Valley only requires a two-thirds vote when it affects a boundary change. e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 3 Eck asked if the City Attorney is saying that in all likelihood, if Golden Valley retains the two-thirds majority voting requirement, a court test of that would not be upheld. Grimes stated that the City Attorney, the League of Minnesota Cites and other city attorneys are all saying it wouldn't withstand a court challenge by a developer. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing, e Hugh Maynard, 1420 Spring Valley Road, referred to his letter 0 the City Council and Planning Commission dated July 5,2001 (rece' ng Commission members and Staff members on July 9) and re provisions of state law that say city councils shall adopt ordinances b' jority vote unless otherwise specifically provided. He stated the change s but if the other parts of the statute are read all together it is a "shall" situfi.i "it; stated he disagreed with Grimes and stated that any change in the zoni 'naFequires a two-thirds vote. He stated Golden Valley's PUD's ordinance s the City is issuing PUD permits and nowhere in the PUD ordinance does it st zoning ordinance is being amended and in fact, it states adopting t change the underlying zoning. He stated a permit is issued under a ' ance and in itself, is not an amendment to the zoning ordinanc e ore, it's not necessary to change the PUD rules. He stated that it is up to the same thing should apply doesn't think it's wise pu majority regarding co amount to throwing 0 to geta PUD per PUD develop are no rule$ f.k%: he feels GolC!J thirds te. ether they should have a rule that says the io se permits and PUD permits. He stated he y to change the voting requirements to a simple permits and PUD permits because PUD permits e zoning code. He stated he thinks it should be harder se there are no standards or rules to follow. He discussed en Valley and stated anything goes with PUD's and there requests considered in PUD's. He stated that for that reason y needs the heightened procedural safeguard that is the two- Eck asked nard if he disagreed with the City Attorney's memo in regards to it standing up in court against a developer. Maynard stated that he does disagree with the City Attorney and stated that there can be different standards of voting for conditional use permits and PUD permits compared to the standard of voting for amending the zoning ordinance. e Groger asked Maynard if he is aware of what other cities are doing in regards to their PUD ordinances. Maynard stated he didn't poll any other cities regarding the proposed voting change. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 4 . Linda Loomis, 6677 Olson Memorial Highway, stated she doesn't think it is good public policy to make this voting change. She stated it is her understand that this legislation was bullied through the legislature by developers under the banner of protecting affordable housing and what it's done is given the developers another tool to use against citizens. She stated it is the law and rule of deep pockets a .n because of the potential threat of a lawsuit by a developer. She stated that indi . . ens don't have time to pay attention to what is going on in their city until" t rs are next door. She recommended against changing the voting requi*'m he City is forced to by an actual lawsuit. Pentel stated she is both this legislation and stated affect other than just Council members to h best interest of t pushed torw to happen. pushing thi nonpa . an g I m his firm told him e housing easier. He pr s and that the person that ing and didn't know what he f the types of developments. ice when in the absence of a ossibility of a lawsuit as a reason to JU titication. Hugh Maynard, 1420 Spring Valley Road, stated that a that this legislation had other issues in it that made:: stated that the law is not limited to affordable ho $:i authored the bill was focused entirely on affor ble was doing or the ripple affect it would cause i He stated that the City Attorney does th genuine threat by a real developer he pass an ordinance that doesn't hav e oposal and she doesn't read "may" as shall in ving to a simple majority vote would have a ripple housing. She stated it squelches the ability of sition to developments that they believe are not in the he stated she is troubled by this change and by being owing there is a development that is waiting for this change e is interested in knowing how quickly adjoining cities are ~.forward and stated she would like some information from some s"on what Golden Valley should be doing. Rasmusse ted that most PUD's in Golden Valley are infill developments and those are things that neighbors feel strongly about and to decrease the number of votes that are necessary for a PUD in a neighborhood development would be a disservice tor those people and does not sound like good public policy for Golden Valley. Pentel stated she doesn't think that Golden Valley necessarily has the same issues with affordable housing that other cities have. McAleese stated that in changing the voting requirement there are two separate issues. One is the zoning code generally and the other is the PUD, which is a massive _ conditional use permit. ,., e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 5 McAleese stated that if he understood Mr. Maynard's comments, the City doesn't have much choice when it comes to the zoning code generally because the "may" actually does mean shall because of some of the other things in the state statute. He stated it would help when the City Attorney says something has to be done, if he would explain why it has to be done. He stated Mr. Maynard's comments regardi the PUD and Conditional Use permit made sense to him and he would like the rney to review Mr. Maynard's comments before going forward with a recomme he Council. es and the City ars ago to a two- majority voting r point of view that seems ey's response before cess of changing the entire Grimes stated that Golden Valley has been treating PUD' Attorney's opinion is that if the City changed the ordina thirds voting requirement, it should be consistent and c requirement now. McAleese stated that now there<1 to make a lot of sense and he would like to get going forward, particularly because the City i PUD ordinance. te and if it has to be approved right t eral cities have already changed their the City's best interest to change the uation where we may end up in a lawsuit. Hidden Lakes project pending and it's difficult oting requirements without thinking of the cific proposal. He stated he has concerns about en easier. He stated that his preference would be to ..~ information presented. Grimes stated the Planning item and stated he would ask the City Attorney for more Groger asked if there is a time frame' now. Grimes stated that it can be d ordinances and the City Attorne~ voting requirements before we' Groger stated the timing is to discuss the proposed impacts of the change on making the approval table the item until the Commission cou information. Groger ask ity Council needs a vote from the Planning Commission in order to proce or if ncil can just go ahead with this proposed voting change without delayin s stated the Council would like a recommendation from the Planning Commissio d that they are going to have to decide on this issue one way or another and it doesn't matter what issues are before them. He stated that Hidden Lakes or any other housing development could just delay their projects until the Council makes their decision. Groger asked staff to find out what adjoining cities plans are for changing their voting requirements, specifically for PUD's. MOVED by Hoffman, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to table the request for an amendment to the zoning voting requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 6 e III. Informal Public Hearing - KQRS Rezoning Applicant: KORS, Inc.lABC Inc. Address: Lot 1, Block 1, KORS 2nd Addition (917 Nort Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting to rezon property from Radio and Televisio Professional Offices zoning district ortion of the t to Business and Grimes referred to his staff report and stated th 2001 the Planning Commission reviewed the PUD for the KORS 0 split the property into two lots. He stated that the west half will be for radio t the east half will be an office building. He stated that the east half of w needs to be rezoned to Business and Professional Office bec rrently zoned Radio and Television. He showed the Zoning Map and th ana Use Map and stated that staff feels it would be more appropriately zo ss and Professional Offices rather than _ Industrial because it's adjacent ntlal properties. . Carol Evans, 5527 Li see the property sta stated that she agreed with Grimes and would like to ional office building and not an industrial area. Chair Pentel opened the' MOVED by request to district to B nded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the tern portion of the property from Radio and Television zoning nd Professional Offices zoning district. -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings There were no reports from other meetings discussed. Commissioner Hoffman left the meeting. e . . e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 7 v. Other Business A. Strategic Planning Session on Telecommunications Ordinance - Bill Thibault, Thibault Associates, Members of City's Open Space and Recreation Commission, and Garrett Lysiak from Owl Engineering. The Planning Commission moved to the Council Conference Ro following members of the City's Open Space and Recreation C Johnson, Linda Loomis, Roger McConico, Lance Ness, Jer Also present were Director of Parks and Recreation Rick, Planning and Development Mark Grimes, Director of Pu and City Planner Dan Olson Bill Thibault, Thibault Associates stated that th conduct a study of telecommunication towers for a new ordinance. He asked the group to telecommunication facilities in Golden V 'tYiJg n Valley asked him to anfennas to serve as the foundation 'nstonJ about what they like about the \e!Mt~11Iowing list is a result of that effort. obvious locations like the Industrial . Don't have to go through the C Zoning District . Reliable access to the phon . Provides a source of rev . There is more than on . The safety and emerg . The unobtrusive I . . There is only a fe . Enhances co . Good use . Provid . Antenna . G~~"""" rec . Heig"M:.' . . People phone . Improves individual efficiency and productivity . Provides a spread of new technology . More than one use for towers . Not allowed in residential areas . Short towers that are screened from residential areas and like them in industrial areas . Enhances public safety, every phone can be located in cars . Use MnDOT property for towers ble communications City o e tower (co-location) rvice they provide t they are in now that's good 'ons systems, broadens communications options nd owners disguised and integrated with buildings cell phones as their only phone, as an alternative to a conventional Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 8 . Thibault then asked the group to rank the above list. Safety, reliable towers and unobtrusive locations were the top three. Thibault then had the group brainstorm about their dislikes regarding telecommunications towers. The following list is a result of that effort: . Towers are ugly anda blight on the landscape . Interference with reception . The water tower is not being used . Causes conflict in dealing with neighbors . Big Brother aspect of no privacy . Quantity - growing number of towers - too many to . Not educated enough about the towers, not en . Not convinced they are totally safe - safety . Lack of standardization of technology . Annoyance in restaurants - interrupt soci . Lack of coordination among carriers . Some companies are difficult to w . Lack of clear city standards for P ission . At the mercy of providers - c rmation from providers _ . No CUP requirements for 0 cations . . Inadequate coverage in ey . Height - proportionali . Cost to the City . The variety of the . Vehicle distraction . . -J?: . Distance bet "' owers is too close . Environm s/impacts . The ad tions get when surrounded by residential ex: Historical Society . No atte"nd in to existing environment . Pu 'g po n wetlands . Not e obvious areas ex: clinics, apartments . Too ma olors . Lack of security around them . Lack of understanding for the need for other features such as creating a new road for service and maintenance needs . Location in natural areas . Can't be buried, must be above ground . Adjacent properties don't receive any income . Planning for post-technology removal of towers e . . e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9,2001 Page 9 Thibault then asked the group to rank the list above and to brainstorm about the goals of the new ordinance. The following list is a result of that effort: . The City should provide effective service with the least amount of adverse impact . Control of location and design . Start with a clear purpose . Control/limit towers per certain areas . Include remedies for problems, or mechanisms to deal with . Require co-location and limit proliferation . Specified maintenance scheduling . Determine long term needs the City has for digital t . Keep it simple enough for public and provider to und . Prohibit advertising . Protect residents health . Better and more complete information pro . . Costs paid by providers . The application should be reviewed . Define permitted tower uses wher . Provision for abandonment of to . Look at providing coverage f . Regulate the size and locati . Deal with the security iss . Provide for locating on . Prohibit in parks . Setback requirem . Regulate in the ev . Current need tech nolo . Regula · Make p'.,ove that they need it . So kin elmit procedure or agreement with a bond . Req st ardized information . Landsc 9 requirements . Require that providers show that existing towers can not be used and define a procedure if they can't build it, but need it d party, a technical expert permitted ity, no holes in coverage tellite dishes and antennas ings or structures ss towers, transfer them to other owners for other uses ture needs - Are we investing too much now and the lete Thibault stated he would take the ideas from the group and write a purpose clause and provide a full tabulation within two weeks and based on this information he will take direction from the City regarding the drafting of the ordinance. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. .~ . . Hey Me ora Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Planning Commission From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Minor Subdivision (Consolidation) of Lots 194, 195 and 196, Glenwood (501 Meadow Lane) into Two Lots, Paul and Anne Shaw, Applicants Date: July 18, 2001 Description of Request e Paul and Anne Shaw have requested a minor subdivision in order to consolidate the three lots that they own at the northwest corner of Meadow Lane and Woodstock Ave. into two lots. As indicated on the attached property sketch, the house and one-car garage is located Lot 196. The Shaw family lives in the house. The other two lots are vacant and act as yard space for the Shaw house. The Glenwood subdivision was platted in the early part of the 20th century. The lots in this subdivision are all 40 ft. by 133 ft. or 5348 sq. ft. in area. The corner lots are the same size as the interior lots. The Shaw home was probably built in the 1930's. At that time there were little or no requirements for lot size or setbacks. As indicated on the attached map, there are many homes in the area that are built on 40 ft. wide lots. Even today, a house can be built on a 40 ft. wide lot as long as it meets the setback requirements for the Residential zoning district. The sideyard setback requirement is 10% of the lot width on the north or west side and 20% of the width on the south or east side. The front yard setback is 35 ft. Accessory buildings must be built at least 5 feet from a rear or side property line and behind the main dwelling. The Shaw home is fairly small. It is about 22 ft. wide and 42 ft. long. There is a one-car garage on the lot that is 14 ft. by 30 ft. If the home is considered entirely on Lot 196, the home appears to meet the setback requirements on the north, west and east side. . However, the home is setback less than 3ft. from Woodstock Ave. The garage is setback about 4-5 ft. from Woodstock. (The home and garage appear to be about 15 ft. from the curb of Woodstock.) The setback requirements for structures from a street are 35 ft. Therefore, both the house and garage are considered nonconforming structures. e The Shaw family would like to divide the property into two lots of equal size. The south lot would be the lot for their existing home and the north lot would be sold. Each of the lots would be 60 ft. by 133.7 ft. or 8022 sq. ft. in area. The alternative would be to sell one or ~ both of the lots north of Lot 196. Mr. Shaw indicated to me that he would like to sell one property. He knows that he could sell Lot 194 as it exists today but he feels that this lot is too small and a slightly larger lot would be better for construction of a new home. e Mr. Shaw asked the staff how the property could be divided into two equal lots. This can only be done through a variance to the subdivision code. Section 12.50, Subd. 3 of the Subdivision Code states that lots in a minor subdivision must meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. In this circumstance, the Residential zoning district requires that all lots must be 10,000 sq. ft. in area and have at least 80 ft. of width at the front setback line. Also, corner lots must also be at least 20 ft. wider than an interior lot. In the Shaw case, both lots in the proposed minor subdivision would not meet the requirements of the Residential- zoning district. The Planning Commission must also make a recommendation on the variance to the Subdivision Code. Qualification as a Minor Subdivision The two-lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the property is part of an existing, recorded plat, creates fewer than four lots and does not create the need for any additional public improvements. Mr. Shaw has submitted the required information to the City that allows for the subdivision to be evaluated as a minor subdivision. Conditions for Approval or Denial There are several conditions that the City must consider when evaluating the proposed minor subdivision. Those that are pertinent to this subdivision are listed below with staff comments: e 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the appropriate zoninQ district. In this case, each of the two proposed lots do not meet the requirements for lots in the Residential-zoning district. Therefore, a variance from these conditions will have to be approved by the City Council in order for the subdivision to be approved. As stated above, the two proposed lots do not meet the minimum 10,000 sq. ft. size requirement and the lots do not meet the minimum width requirement. Both lots are proposed to be 60 ft. by 133.7 ft. or 8022 sq. ft. in area. Lots are required to be 80 ft. wide and corner lots are required to be 100 ft. wide. (The requirement for additional width for corner lots was added to the Code in the mid-1980's.) 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City EnQineer determines that the lots are not buildable. In this case, there is already a house on one of the existing lots and many other homes on similar lots in the immediate area. The property is flat. 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if it is determined by the City EnQineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utility systems by the addition of new lots. In this case, sewer and water lines are available to provide service for a new home on Meadow Lane. The existing street system is more than adequate to provide access to a new home. 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the QrantinQ of certain easements to the City. The final plat would show all necessary easements as required by the City Engineer. e 2 . e e 5. If public aQencies other than the City have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the minor subdivision, the aQencies will be Qiven the opportunity to comment. In this case, no other agencies have any jurisdiction. 6. The City may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney due to dedication of certain easement. 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. The policy of the City has been that there will be no_park dedication required if the new subdivision does not create any new lots for development. In this case, there will be fewer lots after the consolidation, therefore, no park dedication will be recommended. Variance Criteria As stated above, the approval of this minor subdivision will require a variance to the Subdivision Code. The Subdivision Code states that the Council may grant variances as long as there is a finding that the following conditions are met: 1. There are special circumstances for conditions affecting said property so that the strict application of the provisions of the Subdivision Code would create an unusual hardship and deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Economic difficulty or inconvenience shall not constitute a hardship situation for the purpose of this Code. 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood in which said property is situated. The Code states that the City shall consider the nature of the proposed use of the land, the existing use of land in the vicinity, and the number of people who will reside in the subdivision, and how traffic conditions will be affected by the additional development in the subdivision. The City may prescribe conditions to the variance. The Planning Commission is expected to make a recommendation on the variance request. Recommended Action The staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision and the variances needed to permit the two non-standard lots. Without the minor subdivision, the Shaws will most likely go ahead and sell the north lot (that is only 40 ft. wide) for the construction of a new home. Although a home may be built on a 40 ft. wide lot, the options for constructing on such a narrow lot are few. It would seem to be in the best interest of the City to allow this minor subdivision to create two slightly larger lots that can accommodate a somewhat larger new home that is more in line with today's needs. The Shaw home on the new, south lot would remain in a nonconforming situation as to front yard setback from Woodstock. Any additions to that home would require a variance to create a legally nonconforming status on that lot. Attachments: Area Map , Section Map of area showing size of lots and location of houses on 40' lots Letter from Applicant 3 z <( ...J S o o <( w ~ OLSON MEMORIAL HWY ------,----.------ . Revised' Jan., 2001 .. t'IO.ll ~S." i - - - t'r.,..- --j -NO. 55 ..~....~~~. \, Ir - - - u,"]4- - - i r- - - 1'04- ~ I \ I ,. 1 . ~ :;l::,g .~.~~ I' '""'" -I .- !::l I I I I J- -~,... _t~~'JZ_,... - -,! . ~ _ _ -1f~?L _ --..J. Z~:,.78 SM'~I'J8'c ,-- ~ ---~ r-- ---I I' I,~ ~ I II I ~. ~ -I ~ --.,.1 .1 ~~.I -,: ,_ ,..... I, j I "3.~/ " ~ /6..("Z ,. .sN"z.I&"'rl I ',.l"".Z"'.."" ',... I'" l I I s"O{' zt.'", .~ I <.. '~lIoo ~ I ~ I'. "I .... .. ~ .~S' I ! I~I.'" i . -II'" \i ~q: I ~ .... I. t ..... ~ ~I:, i .'~~ '~ t. I ......;.; Il l I~OU H,WIR.;H I&~ I ... Subject Property: 501 Meadow Lane Paul & Anne Shaw, Applicants AVt.. -& ... '" .... ~ ~ ... / ~ "i B ...; N~' ::: Q ~.o . t :R t'8.~ 14.14 ~ ~~ ~t (\J . ,......,... ... ..l.... ~ ..or. ....... '-&I \..1) '-Ii c-; ~ ." '" ""'"' i 2 ... ...-, '-.' (".J I-~~-~~~I 1~:~e~M r- KUlvl IQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQIQI::JI::JIQI::J e 501 Meadow Lane No. Golden Valley, MN 55422 July 3, 2001 Mr. Mark Grimes city of Golden Valley - Planning FPoX: TEL: PAGES: (763) 593.8109 (763) 593 -8097 2 Dear Mr. Grimes: Regarding the property situated at 501 Meadow Lane North in Golden valley, which consists of three 40.feet-wide lots: 194, 195 and 196 Glenwood on which a one-and-a-half BtOry Cape Cod-~tyle hCiuse built in 1934 sits, we would like to request permission to create a minor split, dividing the total width of 120 feet into two 60-feet-wide lots (see diagram attached) . e It is our understanding that this adjustment will reconcile pre-existing codes, which allowed for the construction of s~rr()unding small homes, with the current City. Planning standard. This also ensures that any future renovations or new construction on the two sites will improve the neighborhood, upgrading without upsetting its overall aesthetic integrity. Thank you for your consideration. sincerely, ,~ ~.."'.'..' . . .. . Paul Shaw ~K..~ Anne K. Shaw Enclosure e , " . 11A)~ file'No. t??-:5t'>Q .3if PROPERTY SKETCH (This is not a survey) . '. . 1.1.' : 81 I'QV9J7 30 SCALE 7Yor5J. Lo t- ?- e "Rorosc.ol. l:ot( ,i 1 o 04; 0>--- N - il ,.. l~ 1 CAR 14 133,7" Lot I'll.{- ('S"3lf- v.if- ~1'ft.) - - - - - -i:.s{- ~-s- - - - -- ( s~..~ . tr sz,.ft) o .... 22':1: .. .. WOODSTOCK AVE. PrOpertyAddress 501 MEADO\J LANE N. ~ ~ Exhibit ~ I t;)t~.( seyva.\le. foc)t~: li~o it":>. 2. 1{L ?torClS"~ ]), 'VI'~ ,.;"'" 2- lDtS: ~ 02- 2.. .fo s~/-l t...Lt.:. . z w Z .-< g-l . ~~ o o -< UJ :?; GOLDEN VALLEY "The IDeation of the Improvements shown on this drawing are approximate and are based on a visual inspection of the premises. The lot dimensions are taken from the recorded plat or county records. This drawing is for informational purposes and should not be used as a survey. h dON not constitute a liability of the company and is Intended for mortgage purposes only." !oli . e e Bey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) To: Planning Commission From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Continuation of Consideration of Zoning Code Amendments to Change 2/3 Vote to Majority Vote for Planned Unit Developments and Conditional Use Permits Date: July 18,2001 At the July 9,2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission tabled consideration of a proposed amendment to the Zoning Code that would change the vote on certain zoning amendments from a 2/3 majority vote of all members of the City Council to a simple majority vote of all members of the City Council. It appeared to be the consensus of the Planning Commission that the new state law requires that the City Council change the Zoning Code for the vote on most zoning map amendments. However, there was discussion about changing the 2/3 voting requirement to the majority-voting requirement for approval of conditional use permits (CUP) and planned unit developments (PUD) since the new state law refers to zoning amendments. In Golden Valley, approval of a CUP and PUD are made by ordinance but they do not change the underlying zoning district. At the July 9th Planning Commission meeting, a one-page memo from the City Attorney was attached to my memo explaining the need to change the voting requirement to a majority of city council members for zoning map amendments and approvals of PUDs and CUPs. It is his advice to the City that such changes be made as soon as possible. At that meeting, Hugh Maynard, a resident and attorney, presented the Planning Commission with a "legal research memorandum" explaining his position on the maintaining the 2/3 vote requirement for PUD approval. After some discussion, the Planning Commission tabled consideration of the matter in order to have the City Attorney attend the July 23, 2001 Planning Commission meeting to expand further on his opinion that the City should change the voting requirement for PUDs and CUPs. The Planning Commission also asked that I survey surrounding communities regarding how they are approaching the new state law. After discussions with a couple of fellow planners, I realized that unless I completely understood their ordinances and practices, it would be impossible to compare how each city handles approvals of planned unit developments. In other words, it would be comparing apples and oranges. What I did find out was that two of our neighboring cities were not even aware of the change in state law. ~ I am again enclosing my memo and City Attorney Allen Barnard's memo from the July 9th Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Barnard will be at the July 23rd meeting to present the need to change the 2/3-vote requirement as it relates to PUDs and CUPs. In his tenure as e City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney, Mr. Barnard helped to write the PUD ordinance and make changes to it at the direction of the City Council. Attachments: Grimes memo dated July 2, 2001 Barnard memo dated June 7, 2001 e e 4 . e e Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Planning Commission From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Amendments to Chapter 11 (Zoning) of the City Code to Change (Reduce) the Voting Requirement for Certain Rezoning Related Matters from a Two-thirds Majority to a Simple Majority of All Members of the City Council-City of Golden Valley, Applicant Date: July 2, 2001 Prior to the end of the 2001 Legislative Session, the City staff became aware of a bill that was approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor relating to the number of votes needed by the City Council to approve certain rezoning related matters. The new law states that the adoption and amendment of a zoning ordinance may be by a majority vote of the City Council except in cases where the proposed amendment would change an existing zoning classification from residential to either commercial or industrial designations. The state law previously stated that the city may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a 2/3 majority of all members. City Attorney Allen Barnard wrote the attached memo to the Mayor, City Council and City Manager. This memo, dated June 7,2001, outlines the City Attorney's opinion regarding changing the Zoning Code to require only a majority vote of all City Council rather than a 2/3 majority vote. In his memo, he also explains why this rule should apply to the vote on PUDs. (The proposal will be to keep the 2/3-majority vote for the change of zoning classification from residential to commercial or industrial.) I am attaching a copy of the three sections that are proposed to be amended. The language would have to include that any zoning amendment that would change the zoning from a residential district to a commercial or industrial district would require a 2/3 vote of the entire City Council. The staff would like to emphasize that this change does not include changes to the Comprehensive . Plan Map. Any change to that map requires a 2/3-majority vote of all City Council members. This gives added emphasis to the overall importance of the Comprehensive Plan and the need to give careful study to any such land use map changes. Recommended Action The staff recommends 13Pproval of changes to the Zoning Code that requires that the City Council approve certain Zon.ing Code changes by a simple majority of the City Council members rather than a 2/3 majority of the City Council members. (Any proposed change of a Residential-zoning district to a Commercial or Industrial zoning district would remain a 2/3-majority vote of the City Council.) The amendments would affect Section 11.55, Subd. 8, Section 11.80, Subd. 2(0), and Section 11.90, Subd. 3. .. MEMORANDUM .. TO: MAYOR MARY ANDERSON, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER WILLIAM S. JOYNES e FROM: ALLEN D. BARNARD, CITY ATTORNEY DATE: .tune 7,2001 RE: Amendment to Zoning Voting Requirements Effective May 30, 2001 the Minnesota Legislature amended the statutory voting requirement for rezoning matters by reducing it from a 2/3rds majority to a simple majority of all members of the council. The original authority for the super majority or "four vote" requirement was contained in Minn. Stat. ~ 462.357, subd. 2, which provided, in part, as follows: . . . [T]he governing body may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a 2/3rds vote of all its members. The new language provided by the legislative amendment is as follows: [T]he governing body may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a majority vote of all its members. The adoption or amendment of any portion of the zoning ordinance which changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial requires a 2/3rds majority vote of all members of the governing body. e As a result of this new legislation, the law in Minnesota is to permit rezonings to occur with only a simple majority vote of all members of the council. However, since the approval of a planned unit development in Golden Valley has many attributes of a rezoning, the City adopted a conservative posture a number of years ago and required four votes for PUD approvals. Language was added to ~ 11.55, subd. 8 of the City Code as follows: The affirmative vote of2/3rds of the council members shall be required for final approval of any Preliminary Design or General Plan of Development. The question has been asked what impact the new legislation has on Golden Valley's PUD ordinance. It is my opinion that since the new legislation does not specifically apply to Golden Valley's PUD ordinance, the four vote requirement for PUDs is still the law in Golden Valley. However, since the four vote requirement in the PUD ordinance was based on the pre-existing state law which has been amended to a lesser requirement, I recommend that the City immediately amend its PUD ordinance to require a majority vote for approval. I doubt it would withstand a court challenge by a developer. . 153579_1 e d . e e "'~ f.i gu.r~o d~'E_ or Hey City Administration/Council 763-593-8006/763-593-8109 (fax) Date: July 18, 2001 To: City Council Planning Commission From: Y1~(JJ Mary E. Anderson, Mayor Subject: Clarification of Process to Change the P.U.D. Ordinance The City Council and Planning Commission have had two meetings at which we discussed potential changes in the P.U.D. Ordinance. After the last meeting on May 21,2001 the staff was asked to list all the changes that were suggested by the participants. They were directed to list the pros and cons of each suggested change. This information is to be brought to a third meeting of the Planning Commission and the Council for an in-depth discussion. We would try to come to some consensus regarding changes to the P.U.D. Ordinance. We would then give direction to staff to prepare a draft. This would be reviewed by the Planning Commission for recommendation to the Council.