Loading...
09-14-10 CM Agenda PacketAGENDA Council/Manager Meeting Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room September 14, 2010 6:30 pm 1. Hennepin County Interim Dispatch Services 2. Board of Zoning Appeals Variance Appeal Process 3. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Update 4. 2011-2012 Proposed Budget -Other Funds Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed for the Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and provide general directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The public is invited to attend Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council. This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please cai( 7~3-593-800b {TTV: 7b3-593-39b8) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. Cite qt o en a e Public Safety Police Department 763-593-8079 / 763-593-8098 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting September 14, 2010 Agenda Item 1. Hennepin County Interim Dispatch Services Prepared By Stacy A. Altonen, Chief of Police Summary At its August 17, 2010 meeting, City Council authorized the Mayor and City Manager to sign a letter requesting temporary dispatch services from Hennepin County Sheriffs Office for a period of 1 to 8 weeks beginning January 1, 2011, should it become necessary. As part of this request Hennepin County is requiring a resolution giving approval to move ahead with the request for these services. The resolution should also acknowledge that Hennepin County will need to complete technology changes that will allow dispatch service with a CAD configuration, so that officers will be able to receive calls both over the radio and on the squad computer. Because of the extensive work needed to complete the configuration, the Sheriffs Office needs several months notice from the City. Additionally, there may be costs attached to the configuration, approximated to be as high as $27,000. The resolution would reflect a reiteration of a formal request for the dispatch services, as well as an understanding that the City may be charged for the work involved by County staff. It is still hoped that the technology will be in place by January 1, 2011, allowing Edina to begin dispatching for Golden Valley. However it is critical we commit to this extra piece of "insurance" via the County to ensure uninterrupted 911 service to our residents. Attachments Resolution Requesting the Hennepin County Board Provide Interim Public Safety Dispatching Services to the City of Golden Valley (1 page) Resolution 10- September 21, 2010 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD PROVIDE INTERIM PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHING SERVICES TO THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley on August 17, 2010 formally requested the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office and County Administrator to provide temporary public safety dispatching services for the City of Golden Valley beginning January 1, 2011; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County currently dispatches for 23 law enforcement agencies and 19 fire departments at no cost to those agencies; and WHEREAS, Golden Valley is the only City in Hennepin County without its own Public Safety Answering Point that is not dispatched by the Hennepin County Sheriff; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley has entered into a three year contract with the City of Edina to provide permanent dispatch services beginning on or about January 1, 2011; and WHEREAS, technology components are necessary to allow the City of Edina to have interoperability capacity to dispatch for the City of Golden Valley, which may not be in place by January 1, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley will need to ensure continued 911 service to residents and the community, and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Sheriff s Office has indicated County staff could complete work to allow configuration for 911 and CAD dispatch services for the City of Golden Valley to be operable by January 1, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley understands Hennepin County may charge for the cost of staff time necessary to configure for 911 and CAD dispatch services; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Golden Valley formally requests that Hennepin County provide temporary public safety dispatching for the City of Golden Valley, starting on January 1, 2011, if necessary, and authorizes payment reflective of Hennepin County staff time to configure 911 radio and CAD dispatch technology. Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk. Golden Valley ~~~,a~rl Planning 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting September 14, 2010 Agenda Item 2. Board of Zoning Appeals Variance Appeal Process Prepared By Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Summary City Code currently provides a provision for a variance applicant to appeal a negative ruling of the Board of Zoning Appeals. City Code states: "Within thirty (30) days of the final written Order of the Board any petitioner feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Board may file a written appeal with the designated staff liaison, thereby appealing the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to the Council." Golden Valley does not permit anyone other than the variance petitioner, including neighboring property owners, to appeal a variance ruling. The City of Minnetonka, however, allows any person to appeal a variance ruling. A copy of the section of Minnetonka City Code regulating variances is attached. The portion that addresses the appeals process is highlighted. Staff seeks direction from Council in considering whether or not to include a provision in the Code that would allow any person to appeal a variance decision. Attachment Memo from City Planner Joe Hogeboom, dated August 31, 2010 (1 page) Minnetonka City Code Section 300.07. Variances (4 pages) Golden Valley Planning 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: August 31, 2010 To: Tom Burt, City Manager Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Minnetonka Variance Appeal Process Background The City Council has requested information regarding the process that allows Minnetonka property owners to appeal a variance ruling. In the City of Minnetonka, any "aggrieved" property owner may appeal a variance ruling that is granted by the Minnetonka City Council. This right is granted to property owners in Minnetonka's City Code. Appeal Process In Minnetonka, variances are granted by the Planning Commission. If a variance is granted and another property owner in the City wishes to appeal the ruling, the following steps must occur: 1. The aggrieved person must submit an appeal, in writing, to the City Council within ten days of the variance ruling. 2. The City Council must review the appeal within 90 days of its submittal. 3. Two thirds of the City Council must vote to rescind or amend the variance ruling. Additional Information Similar to Golden Valley's procedure, once a Minnetonka property owner is granted a variance, he or she may immediately apply for a building permit for the project, if needed, or begin construction. However, the property owner is advised that there is a ten day period in which appeals may be filed by other property owners in the City. If there is neighbor opposition surrounding a particular project, then the property owner who is granted the variance is advised to wait to begin the project until the ten-day appeal period has passed. Further Actions Please contact me if you would like additional information, or if you would like to consider including a neighbor variance appeal process in the City of Golden Valley. C: Lisa Wittman Board of Zoning Appeals Planning Commission City of Minetonka SECTION 300.07. VARIANCES. 1. Limitations. a) A variance may be granted from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and when it is demonstrated that such actions would be consistent with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. Undue hardship means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by this ordinance, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic consideration alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. b) No variance shall be granted to declare a substandard lot buildable unless, in addition to meeting the criteria enumerated in paragraph (a) of this subdivision, the applicant has exhausted all reasonable possibility of combining the lot with an adjacent vacant lot. Notwithstanding the above, no variance shall be needed to declare buildable any lot which was a lot of record zoned for single family residential use on February 12, 1966 and which meets all of the following minimum standards: 1) 15,000 square feet; 2) 90 feet in width at building setback line; and 3) 110 feet in depth. c) No variance shall be granted to permit a use which is not allowed as a permitted use, accessory use or conditional use under this ordinance for property in the district in which the land is located. d) No variance shall be granted in the wetlands, floodplain or shoreland districts which allows for a lesser degree of flood protection than is required by sections 300.23, 300.24 or 300.25 of this ordinance. e) A variance from the standards applicable to another land use approval, such as a site plan, conditional use permit, and subdivision, does not require a separate application, but the applicant for the underlying land use approval must provide a written narrative explaining the justification for any requested variance. The planning commission and city council may act separately on such a variance at their discretion, but if no separate action is taken, the variance will be considered approved or denied as part of the underlying application. 2. Application. Application for a variance shall be made to the zoning administrator. The application shall be on forms provided by the city and shall be accompanied by the following: a) a plat or map of the property which shows, at a minimum, all lot lines, existing and proposed structures, driveways and parking areas, significant topographical features and mature trees; b) a list of the names and addresses of the owners of all properties located wholly or partially within 400 feet of the property as such appear on the certified records of the Hennepin county auditor; c) evidence of ownership or an interest in the property; d) the fee required by section 710 of the code of city ordinances; and e) such other information as may be required by the city. 3. Public Hearing. Upon receipt of a completed application, a date shall be set for a public hearing before the planning commission. The public hearing shall be held only after notice has been sent by mail to the owners of all properties situated wholly or partially within 400 feet, as reflected in the certified records of the Hennepin. county auditor. 4. Decisions. Following the public hearing or any continuance that is not appealed by the applicant, the planning commission must decide the matter before it. Appeals from orders, requirements, decisions or determinations of an administrative officer will be decided by the planning commission by vote of a simple majority of those present. The planning commission may grant a variance only upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of its full membership. The planning commission may impose conditions in granting variances to effect the intent of this ordinance and to protect adjacent properties. The planning commission must accompany its decision to deny a variance with a statement of its findings and must serve a copy of its decision upon the applicant by mail. The planning commission action will be final action subject to the right of appeal, except: a) if the application is for a variance from the provisions of section 300.29, Subd. 3(g) with respect to the time limit for amortizing non-conforming uses; or b) if the variance is an integral part of another land use application that requires city council action. In those circumstances, the planning commission action will be a recommendation to the city council, and action by the planning commission will require only approval of a majority of its full membership. Approval of the variance by the city council will require an affirmative vote of two-thirds of its full membership. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources must be notified of variance applications and decisions in the shoreland district as provided for in section 300.25. 5. Term of Variance. Any variance granted by the city shall run with the land and shall be perpetual unless prior to December 31 of the year following the year of approval and no building permit has been issued or substantial work performed on the project, in which case the variance shall be null and void. The planning commission may extend the period for construction upon finding that the interest of the owners of neighboring properties will not be adversely affected by such extension. If the variance is part of an approved site and building plan, extension of the time period for construction shall be contingent upon a similar extension of the time period for the site and building plan by the planning commission as required by section 300.27 of this ordinance. Once the project is completed as approved, the variance becomes perpetual. 6. Specific Project. A variance shall be valid only for the project for which it was granted. Construction of any project shall be in substantial compliance with the building plans and specifications reviewed and approved by the planning commission or city council. 7. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission regarding a variance or an order, requirement, decision or determination first made by an administrative officer may have such decision reviewed by the city council if a request for review is submitted to the zoning administrator within 10 days of the date of the decision. The appeal shall be in writing and shall include a statement of the alleged errors or omissions of the planning commission. The city council may reverse a decision of the planning commission by an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of its full membership. The city council shall make a decision within 120 days of submission of a completed application or such longer period not objected to by the applicant. If the city council fails to make a timely decision, the appeal shall be deemed to have been approved. 8. Recording. A certified copy of the variance shall be filed by the applicant with the Hennepin county recorder if the variance applies to abstract property. The variance shall contain a legal description of the property affected. 9. Violations. A person who violates, fails to comply with or assists, directs or permits the violation of the terms or conditions of a variance is guilty of a misdemeanor. A violation is a violation of the variance and renders the variance null and void. A violation also constitutes a public nuisance that may be abated in accordance with the provisions of section 845. (Amended by Ord. 2008-10, adopted March 24, 2008; amended by Ord. 2007-17, adopted May 7, 2007; Ord. #2003-25, adopted October 27, 2003) `Golden Valley ~~~~~~ City Administration/Council 763-593-8003 / 763-593-8909 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting September 14, 2010 Agenda Item 3. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Update Prepared By Thomas Burt, City Manager Summary Mayor Loomis asked that this item be placed on the agenda. Golden galley e r u Finance 763-593-8013 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting September 14, 2010 Agenda Item 4. 2011-2012 Proposed Budget -Other Funds Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary At the Council/Manager meeting, the Council will be reviewing the following funds: Storm Sewer, Human Services Foundation, Conservation/Recycling and Motor Vehicle Licensing. Appropriate staff will be in attendance to discuss the proposed budgets for these divisions and answer questions from the Council. Please bring your 2011-2012 Proposed Budget -Other Funds book. Attachment 2011-2012 Proposed Budget -Other Funds (3 ring notebook, previously distributed)