07-25-05 PC Agenda
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, July 25, 2005
7 pm
I. Approval of Minutes
May 10, 2005 Planning Commission and City Council Joint Meeting
May 23, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting
II. Informal Public Hearing - PUD No. 89 Amendment #1 - Golden Meadows
Applicant: SVK Development
Address: 2205 Winnetka Avenue North
Purpose: The amendment would allow for the existing duplex to be converted
to a triplex.
-Short Recess-
V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
VI. Other Business
A. Discuss memo from Mayor Loomis regarding revisions to City Code and
Council Guidelines Related to Boards and Commissions.
B. Envision Charge to Commissions
VII. Adjournment
.
Joint Meeting
City Council and Planning Commission
1-394 Corridor Speaker Training
May 10, 2005
A joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission was held at the
Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley,
Minnesota, on Tuesday, May 10, 2005. Mayor Loomis called the meeting to order at
6:05 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Ras
Schmidgall and Waldhauser, Mayor Loomis and Council Members Fr
Pentel and Shaffer. Also present were City Manager, Tom Burt, D' ct
and Development, Mark Grimes, Assistant City Manager, Jean ndre.
Hackett was absent.
share with interested
d with the latest
es and local organizations
e made by a two-member
uncil or Planning
e basis.
I. 1-394 Corridor Study Speaker Training
Staff presented a PowerPoint presentation on the
parties. Over the course of the study the presen
study information. Neighborhood groups, busin
will be invited to schedule a presentation. R
team. Each team will include a staff me
Commission Member. Scheduling will
.
II.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourne
.
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
May23,2005
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
May 23, 2005. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Commissioners Cera, Eck, Hackett, Keysser,Rasmussen,
Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present were Director of Planning and Development,
Mark Grimes, and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman.
.
I. Approval of Minutes
April 25, 2005 Joint Planning Commission and City Cou
Eck referred to the third paragraph on page one and asked
"intensification". Grimes explained that it means a dev oper
density or possible levels of usage ina particular buil
y the word
ys. to increase
MOVED by Rasmussen, seconded by Cera and
the minutes from the April 25 Joint Planning Co
submitted.
d imouslyto approve
City Council meeting as
II.
Informal Public Hearing - Fin
Rudy Luther Toyota
Applicant:
Address:
Purpose:
nt would allow for the redevelopmentofthe Luther
ding the demolition of the five existing buildings and
a new 70,000 square foot Toyota/Scion building and a
square foot Jaguar/Land Rover building.
mission that they reviewed the preliminary plans for this PUD
. He stated that Luther has since submitted updated plans and staff
submittal and ready to go forward. He stated thatthe. Council had a
e lighting on the site and that Luther has submitted a ne\iV lighting plan
Iy significant reduction in the amount of lighting. He added that a
n the process of reviewing the new lighting plan.
Keysser asked if the lighting concerns are about the spillover of light into the
neighborhood to the south. Grimes said the concerns were about the overall amount and
intensity of the lighting.
.
Cera asked how the lighting compares with the Audi dealership next door. Grimes said
Luther's new lighting plan is about a 40% less than the Audi plan.
Minutes .0ftheGolden Valley Planning Commission
May.23, 2005
Page 2
.
Jon Baker, Architectfor the project, stated that the only changes that have been made
since the previous presentation to the Planning Commission isthe addition ofa
pedestrian crosswalk near the proposed Jaguar/Land Rover building and the reduction in
the.level.of lighting.
Keysser asked ifthelight levels will be sufficient to the applicant. Baker stated that their
original lighting plan was in the high range and the new plan would be in the lower range
but it is stillacceptabJe.
1.
reh and with
o support the
the way the applicant
Cera asked whatwould be done with materials from the demolition. B
the demolition contractors will salvage and recycle what they can.
Keysser opened the public. Hearing and seeing no one wishin
closed the public hearing.
Schmidgall. stat~d that he supported the proposal when they
the changes they've made to the final plans he is eve
proposal. Rasmussen agreed. Cera stated he wa .
addressed the Planning Commission's and City
.
MOVED by Hackett, seconded by Cera a
approval ofthe final PUD Plan for RLT
following conditions:
animously to recommend
, Amendment #1 with the
2.
3.
.L. Toyota and Golden Valley Jaguar-Land
d April 22, 2005 shall become a part of
s.
m City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes
e a p of this approval.
emo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark
II become a part of this approval.
eOrdinance giving approval to the Final PUD Plan for
mendment No.1, Luther shall complete construction within 36
4.
5.
eview, as part of the building permit process, must approve the
6.
7.
c ular tower on the site may remain.
eaker system shall be used on the site.
Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plan Review - PUD No. 101 - Maywood
Applicant: Kingman Building Company
.
Address:
5609 Olson Memorial Highway and 435 Turners Crossroad North
Purpose:
The Planned Unit Development would allow for the construction of 8
single family detached homes.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 3
Grimes referred to a location map and noted thatthe property is located at the southwest
corner of Highways 100 and 55. He explained that there are four lots involved in this
project which total approximately 1.72 acres total in size. He said thatthreeofthe lots
used to be the old tree service property and one lot is the property located at 435 Turners
Crossroad. Grimes stated that the property is designated low density (less than 5 units
per acre) on the General Land Use Plan Map and thatthe applicant's proposal is less
than that at 4.6 units per acre.
Grimes noted the odd shape of the property and explained that the develo ers original
plans were to develop justthe long, narrow tree service property that e a
private a cul-de-sac. The plans changed and the property at 435 Tur d was
included in the proposal which allows for a road to loop around a r ccess
to the proposed eight homes.
Grimes stated that staff does have some concern about the
middle (5605 Olson Memorial Highway) and how it will be bu
and how it will relate to the rest of the development 0
it. He said there will be landscaping and fencing i
eft in the
development
are built around
Grimes referred to the proposed site plan and st
foot wide street, with parking allowed on 0
street be a private street because there'
for a public street. He stated that this d
staff doesn't anticipate any traffic,
applicant is proposing a 24-
at staff has suggested the
for the right-of-way required
d create about 80 trips per day so
problems.
Grimes stated that another is
would be to the adjoining
PUD Ordinance states t
single family residential d
the homes, accordi th
24 feet from the pro
or gazebos co
ed a how close these proposed homes
e west and to the south. He explained that the
meat least their height away from any other
nt. H said it has been determined that the height of
, building code, is 24 feet so the homes will be set back
means that no accessory structures such as decks
, se homes once theywere built.
caping plans and stated that the developer has been working
ners about the best way to provide fencing or landscaping
to the proposed homes and stated thatthey will be three to four bedroom
car garages and will be approximately $400,000 to $500,000. He stated
that there be a homeowner's association and one maintenance company in order to
provide more consistency in the maintenance of the property. He stated that the Public
Safety Department does have some concern about access to the homes and that there
have been discussions with the developer about having sprinkler systems installed in the
homes.
Grimes stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposal with the
recommendations listed in his staff report dated May 17, 2005.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 4
Rasmussen referred to the building code requiring that homes be set back the same
distanceastheir height and asked if that setback is figured from the home to the lot line
or from the home to a neighboring home. Grimes stated that it is measured to the lot line
andthatinthiscasethere will probably be approximately 50 feet between the proposed
houses ~nd the homes on Valleywood Circle.
Rasmussen referred to the existing home that will be staying and asked how far away it
would be to the new road. Grimes said it would be approximately 30 feet away from the
proposed new road;
W~ldhauser asked if the 4.6 units per acre density figure included th
Grimes said yes. Waldhauser asked if the densities were. set anti 'ti
buildable lot are~on a public street normally. Grimes said he a, d t
small, butthedilemma is that this property is only 100 feet .
it's difficult to be responsible stewards of the land and use it
zoning code stri,ctly, only two homes could be built on t ispr
size.
road.
as the
re
esaid
owing the
2 acres in
Hackett asked Grimestoexplain the basic requi
district. Grimes said that normal, typical lots in t
80 feet wide and 10,000 square feet in ar
public street is 35 feet .and that the set
both of which.are met in this proposal.
e e family zoning
district are supposed to be
ack requirement from a
a private street is15 feet,
Eck noted that this proposal ha
similar lots in Golden Valley th
that have shared drivewa
landlocked and asked if there are other
a . Grimes said there are a few properties
'vate access driveways but that this is an old plat.
ered i determining the appropriate density in a PUD
mprehensive Plan is used to determine the density. He
propose townhouses or double homes which may be
"e market is for single family homes. He added that the
ails for different types of life-cycle housing opportunities and
en Valley for these types of homes with the master bedroom
omeowner's association to take care of the maintenance and the
erstands the developer's interest in getting as many homes as they can
on this to maximize their return on investment he just questions how the City
decides the appropriate density.
Waldhauser said she thinks it is appropriate to think about the housing stock for the future
of Golden Valley but her concern is the size and expense of the homes. She said she
really questions the demand for this type of housing and that long-term, she thinks the
need is for single level, smaller homes that are conveniently located, not four bedroom,
three garage stall homes with no lots which are not suitable for a family, but more for
middle aged couples. She said she thinks there is a limited market for these homes.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 5
Cera asked about the procedure if someone would want to expand their home .into the
setback area. Grimes said the whole PUD would have to be amended and thathe would
require the developer to come up with a building envelope plan that would sp~cify the size
of house to be built on the lots.
Keysser asked if four single-family homes could be built if there was a shared driveway.
Grimes said it would still have to be a PUD and that he could talk to the City Attorney
about how to do shared driveways but that there have been problems with them in the
past.
Rasmussen asked.how big the single family lots are in the Hidden L
Grimes said they are probably in the 8,000 to 9,000 square foot r e
on the lake side are very large.
Keysser asked if there are any environmental issues on this
business. Grimes said. no.
Dave Kingman, Kingman Building Company and
Group, applicants introduced themselves. King
stated that this site came to them from someon
from the tree service company in order to
said when he took over the property he
density needed to stay at less than 5
or overload the property and he is
thought a long cul-de-sac woul
proposed would flow a lot be
sandwiched in amongst th
build nice single family h
with Waldhauser that the
homes require a lot
he cut the density d
this type of ho d
and that h wo
of the ho
porche
mark Development
rie ory of the site and
d originally bought the site
nhomes on the site. He
ting with staff that the
he was not going to try and push it
he guidelines. He said that he
that the two access points being
e I s townhomes would. have looked
amily homes in the area and that his intent is to
hance the neighborhood. He said he agrees
et de nd is for one level homes, however one level
with in-fill projects like this, it can't be done. He said if
, f the homes would go up. He said there is a market for
re a lot of people who don't want a big yard to care for
'ng them if there weren't.a market for it. He showed a drawing
osing and stated that they will have a cottage feel with front
on the exterior.
are trying to keep the garages back and not pushed forward toward
often done on small lots. He said detached town homes are often built on
lots tha eetwide. He stated that there is a market for young families who also
want this ty e of home.
Waldhauser asked about the square footage of the homes. Kingman said the homes
would be approximately 2,400 square feet. Grimes asked the applicants ifthey are
proposing two or three car garages. Kingman said that they are showing two car garages
with an attached breezeway that would be setback from the front of the home but that
they would also offer the option of three car garages without the breezeway.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Pagep
Cera asked the applicantto update the Commission on their discussions with the
homeowner at 5605 Olson Memorial Highway. Kingman said he spoke with the Heilman's
yesterday and that generally they are not in favor of the proposed street wrapping around
their property.. He. said he talked to them about putting in fencing and buffering and that
they've said they are going to feel like they are an island but that the tree service that was
there before was a lot of old beat up trucks, wood chippers and burning piles.
Keysser asked about the tree preservation plans. Kingman said that most of the trees in
the interior oUhe lot would have to go. Grimes said that the applicants will have to meet
the City's tree preservation ordinance.
Keysser said this is a very dense proposal and asked what other
explored. Kingman said a town home development would be m
proposal is within the 5 units per acre guideline. He said the
narrower, one-way street, but the City didn't want that. Grim
street would be better for access and would allow for s me 0
Keysser asked the applicant if they've spoken to
Crossroad about acquiring their property. King
told they wouldn't be able to pay them what the
Hackett stated that according to the 10
able to get 7 homes on this site, not th
Valley is. going to be increasingly
is concerned abouttheexisting
established. He said if the Cit i
the city beyond the develo,
density increases. the ta
that and whytheapplica
t 425 Turners
roach them and were
ot requirement they would be
meso He said he knows Golden
ore and more density. He said he
the patterns that are already
mo I he rules there needs to be a benefit to
re money. He said he understands greater
ity but he is looking for something more than
ould allow this development.
Kingman said this. pr provement over what was there and that the tree
service was re se that was inappropriate for a residential area. Reed
asked Hackett c rules he feels they should address. Hackett said the 10,000
square fo e 80 foot frontage requirement, the 35 foot front setback, etc.
Kingm Irements aren't the requirements in a PUD. Hackett said the
pa terns t the neighborhood now generally conform to the general single family
re " emen .at this development would start to change that pattern. He said he is
lookl or a son to be convinced that this is the right thing to do. Reed said generally
speaki evelopment will be an improvement to the community as a whole and
when peopstartto see that their property value can be significantly increased by this
development they will be motivated and inspired to improve their. properties.
Kingman statedthafhe thinks the PUD ordinance was created to help in these kinds of
situations where the property is really oddly shaped and that if the normal zoning code
requirements were applied nothing could be done with two of the lots because they have
no street frontage.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 7
Hackett said there are benefits to a development like this because the houses closerto
the street. Grimes added thatthe applicants are proposing front porches, which promotes
a sense of community and with only 80 cars per day on that street walking there will be
relatively safe on the private street.
Keysser asked the applicants if they are proposing to install street lights. Kingman said he
would talk to the Engineering Department about that but he could probably address the
lighting with the lights on the homes.
Keysser asked if the houses are being built on spec. Kingman said tha
build a couple of model spec homes but that each home will be a cus
added that the utilities and the street would go in at one time.
Reed stated that there are projects similar to this in the east
the western suburbs. and he does have people that are inter
development. Kingman added that people are starting 0 do t
building million dollar homes amongst the existing ho
and he doesn't want to build that type of product
by building eight homes the lot price would be
of
mes and re-
350,000 range
e. said he thinks that
Keysser said he always thinks of design i
case the design of the project is going
and screening issues involved. Reed r
he realizes it is going to be compli
individual neighbors to discuss
ject and that in this particular
rtant because of the density
xtensivelandscaping plan and said
re planning to meet with the
r screening and landscaping.
Keysser opened the publi
ial Hi way, stated that hewas excited about the
loper and saw the first plans. When the second plan
re he liked the road going around his property. He
is home, which seemed like a good deal, but he
house in Golden Valley for that price. He said that he has
ut fencing on his property but he is not sure if that is what he
es Mr. Kingman, but it is not his job to make him happy at his
eilman if he thought a road on one side of his property would be ok.
s.
Waldhauser asked Heilman if it would be ok with himifthe applicant were to put
landscaping or screening on his property. He said he is not sure if that would be ok and
that he is just not sure he wants a road all the way around him.
Joan Peters, 5605 Woodstock Ave., stated that this plan is as good as anything that could
go in this location. She said that when the homes on Valleywood went in the
neighborhood gathered together and said they wanted single family houses with kids and
dogs and that is what they would be getting with this proposal.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 8
She said she is concerned about water run-off because of the hard surfaces and the
small lots. Grirnesexplained that this proposal is below the threshold requirements for a
pond buttheyare proposing to install an environmental manhole which will improve the
water quality before itgets into the creek and sewer system. He stated thatthe City does
have best management. practices that the developer will have to follow in order to reduce
and improve runoff from the site.
James Murphy, 561.0 Woodstock Ave., said he is concerned about losing some of the big
trees that are on the property and stated that the developer needs to be careful around
the tress.thatare .along the power lines. He said he also is Concerned re the
water will go but that he would much rather see single family homes " roperty
than town homes.
Grimes referred to the site plans and discussed the draining
where the. environmental manhole is proposed to be.
errific idea. He
the empty/ot is better
ette n an empty lot. He
'ct and the City and that the
od Circle. He stated that
't seem to make sense but
adn't thought about the issue of
nd assume that it is not going to be
neighborhood and had been very
g w hey need to be doing as far as
e said he supports the proposal even though
dealt with.
Jim Heidelberg, 489 Valleywood Circle, said he thinks
said there is no question that it will benefit the co
than what was there before but this proposal is
said there. will be 8 taxpaying units added to th
proposed homes will be comparable to th
placing only two or three $900,000 ho
what is being proposed does make se
water ru n-off but he is going to Ie
a problem. He said Mr. Kingma
helpful and forthcoming and th
communicating with the n .
there area few issues t
Heilman referred t
used to run right into
rainage. He said water from the tree service property
nd that he hopes that will change with this new plan.
at is thoughts are regarding the design for his screening and
mbination of fencing and trees would be the best option.
425 Turners Crossroad North, said she thinks this would be a good
borhood even though it would change it some because of the higher
she is concerned about having some landscaping orfencing installed
se wouldn't be very far from the backyards of the new houses. She
stated that e also did not want to sell her property because the amount they were
offered wouldn't be enough to replace what they have. She said she is also concerned
about keeping as many of the mature trees as possible.
. Keysser seeing no one else wishing to comment closed the public hearing.
Kingman referred to the issue of drainage and explained that there is a swale along the
west side of the property and that the water flows from the south to the north to the
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 9
proposed environmental manhole except some of the water on the eastendofthe
property would flow out to Turners Crossroad.
Reed discussed sorre other projects they've done in different communities.
Hackett said he is in favor of the project with some conditions placed on it. He said based
on the elevations the applicant has shown, the garages are set back further than the front
of the homes and that is key to him. He said Golden Valley should no longer support
garage forward design and that homes closer to the street are good becau e it creates
more opportunities to meet and greet neighbors casually which is imp uilding
community. He added that it is important to address the aspects of la hthe
5605 Olson Memorial Highway lot in particular.
Eck stated that he was surprised and pleased by the suppo
is concerned about the density but given the unusual shape
no other feasible scenario. He stated that the applicant has d
communicating with the neighbors and that he suppo
said he
ere really is
of
Cera stated that he is concerned about Mr. Heil
it would set a precedent and might affect his pro
ingan island. He said
is alarmed that the City
ouse. She.saidthat there is
e ina single-farnilyresidential
the backs of the Heilmans.She stated
r s. S aid she realizes this is a difficult
but the applicants have the right to build two
osal is a travesty and that..it sends the message
he sa that this proposal would be fine if it included
property but that this proposal is not ok and she can
Rasmussen said that she is not in favo[
would allow someone to build a road a
some expectation of privacy whe
area. She said this sends the w
that the City doesn't have to
property to develop which'
homes on the property.
to developers that anythi
the 5605 Olson Me . I
not vote in favor of it.
akes a good point. He said he is willing to vote forthis
ould like to see concessions made to the Heilman family.
at he supports the proposal. He said they keep calling the street
>house a road but to him it is more of a drive or a lane and suggested
erent type of material be used such as cobblestone to make it gentler or
softer. at if this project is done sensitively, the Heilmans could benefit from
some of th amenities such as the landscaping on their property and that this proposal is
certainly better than the tree service.
Waldhauser stated that she supports the project as well and thinks the proposed homes
are in scale with the neighborhood and won't be out of character.
She said her main concern is isolating the Heilman house but that it could be done
attractively with landscaping or fencing.
..
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 10
She said.shecan't help but think that that this proposal. will significantly increase the
existing homes value and financially this is a win-win for everyone in the neighborhood.
Hackettst?ted that he thought it would be useful to visit some of the other locations that
the applicant has developed.
Waldhauser stated that this. property does front on two busy streets and if the City is
going to pick some transition areas for higher density this would be asuitable area to do
that.
Keysserasked Hackettifhe wanted to add as a condition of approva
need to be setback from the front of the homes. Hackett said yes d
to reference the two renderings that the applicant presented.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Hackett and motion carried 5
request with the following conditions. Commissioners ck, H
and Schmidgall'voted in favor of the proposal. Commi
voted against the proposal.
ePUD
, Waldhauser
asmussen
1. The 6 plan sheets prepared by John Oliver a
shall become a part of this approval. T
drainage and erosion control plan,
landscaping plan.
2. As partqf the Final PUD Plan,
association. These docume
3. The final plat of Maywood .
Code. The fee will be
4. The developer shall
suitable landscape pi
landscape plan b
5. The recommend
Grimes dat 1
6. The re omm
Grime
7. Th
shown
s for Maywood and dated 4/27/05
de the preliminary plat, grading,
ee preservation plan and
raft the documents for the homeowner's
ed by the City Attorney.
dedication fee as outlined in the Subdivision
the City Council at the time the final plat is approved.
ith the surrounding property owners to develop a
ide a quate screening and buffering. This revised
. ted as part of the Final PUD Plan.
the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark
acome a part of this approval.
ound the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark
all become a part of this approval.
o be built forward of the homes and should be similar to what was
derings during the applicant's presentation.
IV.
Public Hearing - Preliminary Plan Review - PUD No.1 00 - North
usiness Center
Applicant: KRJ North Wirth LLC
Address:
Lot 1, Block 2, North Wirth Parkway - Located on Dahlberg Drive
Purpose:
The Planned Unit Development would allow for the construction of an
office condominium project totaling 31,500 square feet comprised of
six. buildings, phased over time.
.
.
Minutes o.f the Golden Valley Planning Co.mmissio.n
May 23, 2005
Page 11
Grimes reminded the Planning Co.mmissio.n that this same propo.sal carne beforethern
abo.ut a year ago. He explained that the HRA has entered into. an agreement with the
applicant to. develo.p the 4.2 acre property into. six o.ffice co.ndo.minium buildings. He stated
that the City Engineer has so.me co.ncern abo.ut the Io.catio.n o.f a few o.f the parking
spacessho.wn an the plans. He referred to. the pro.po.sed front yard setback. alo.ng
Dahlberg Drive stated that there has been an issue in the past with the setback
requirement fo.r parking Io.ts alo.ng Dahlberg Drive and that tho.se parking Io.ts were
allo.wed to. be Io.cated 15 .feet from the front pro.perty line. He referred to. the. site plans and
discussed the o.dd shaped piece o.f property Io.cated across the railro.ad tra ks, co.nnected
with a land bridge. He stated that at this time that piece o.f pro.perty will ervatio.n
easement.
Keysser asked if the applicant has to. buy the who.le piece o.f pr
and explained that there are also. some po.llutio.n issues o.n t .
develo.per has been wo.rking with the Po.llutio.n Co.ntro.l Agen
environmental management plan. He added that this will be t
No.rth Wirth Redevelopment Area that invo.lves land 0.
yes
Rasmussen asked if retail uses wo.uld be allo.we
wo.uld just be. fo.r o.ffice use.
nt. Grimes said no. it
Keysser asked fo.r clarificatio.n o.n the r .
"land bridge" co.ncept means that KRJ
than the railro.ad o.wning the land.
ability to. put in a private railroa
Grimes said he tho.ught there
. Grimes explained that the
nd o.n which the tracks cro.Ss rather
ho.ever o.wns the property the
r asked if there is much train traffic.
y.
Rick Martens, Applicant,
co.mprised o.f 31,500 squ
buildings will all be to.
po.llutio.n. He stated
o.ne millio.n do.l .
regarding so.m
spaces.
'te plans and stated that the pro.posal is
f o.ffic space in six buildings. He stated that the
ings with no. basements because there is.too..much
plan appro.ved by the PCA and they wiUbe spending
wo.rk. He stated that it is his intentio.n to. meet with staff
ding the City Engineer's co.ncerns abo.ut a few o.fthe parking
esign Partnership, Architect fo.r the project, sho.wed elevation
"o.sed buildings and discussed the building materials being pro.po.sed.
hat types o.f tenants they were expecting. Martens stated that they are
e uses and that this is o.ffice/co.ndo. space no.t wareho.use o.rsto.rage
Eck asked if there is go.ing to. be an asso.ciatio.n. Martens said that this pro.po.sal is
co.nceptually identical to. a residential co.ndo.minium situation. Keysser added that this type
. o.f product has been very successful.
Hackett stated that he do.esn't understand and is a little bo.thered by the residential nature
o.f this propo.sal if this is a co.mmercial building and all the buildings around it are
Minutes .of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 12
.
cornmercial buildings. He said there are certain cues that tell people this is a commercial
property and. he. is confused why it is not more commercial in character.
Martens explained that the market for office condos is a more residential feel and he
doesn't think that there are any flat roof condo units in the Twin Cities. He said that the
ownership thing relates back to people owning their own home. He added that it is
eclectic and will fit in well with what is there. He said that they would still have commercial
type signage and landscaping. He stated that the owners of these types of units are small
attorneys, architects, dentists, etc, that are looking for something that is not so corporate
looking.
Keysser opened the publ
closed the public h .
artens
Hackett asked Martens if the idea is to have the buildings be mor
said yes and thatitis not a corporate headquarters type of 100
Hackett said he is surprised that there aren't more windows
buildings are fai,rIYdeepand it is going to be dark in the interi
this proposalwill also have to go to the Building Boar
Hackett said it seems to be kind of a nebulous, r
thinks they can d.obetter.
. Martens stated that there is a sense of '
acceptable to this market. Keysser ad
types of businesses.
ing tract and he
of building that this it is
going to be small, 2 to 3 person
Grimes asked Martens if ther
discussed some oUhe var"
o cus ize the units. Martens said yes, and
at the owners would have.
Idea and a great use of the property. He said the
market and knows what will sell. it is a great use of the
to condition number five in Grimes' memo regarding the sodding and
'd she thinks the intention was to include the north east end of the
referred to the site plan and showed which areas he was referring to in
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the requested Planned Unit Development that would allow for the
construction of an office condominium project totaling 31,500 square feet comprised of six
buildings, phased over time with the following conditions:
.
,.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 23,2005
Page 13
1. The following plans shall become a part of this approval: Site Plan dated 11111/04 prepared
by the Design Partnership; Landscape Plan dated 11/11/04 and prepared by the Design
Partnership; Building Elevation Sheet dated 11/11/04 and prepared by the Design
Partnership; Grading Plan dated' 11/11/04 and prepared by Paramount Engineering; and
Utility Plan dated 11/11/04 and prepared by Paramount Engineering.
2. The recommendations found in the memo from City Engineer JeffOliver,PE, to Mark
Grimes dated May 16, 2005 shall become a part of these recommendations.
3. The recommendations found in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal E Anderson to Mark
Grimes dated November 24, 2004 shall become a part of these rec tions.
4. The plantings and sod indicated on the Landscape Plan shall
building after construction of the building. Prior to construe.
shall be seeded with a seed mix acceptable to the City E
shall be maintained in a manner as to not allow the gro
und each
II areas
t is seeded
hesin height.
5. The .areas along Dahlberg Dr. (between.the parkin
southernmost building pad) shall have sod lai
around the first building.
e and east of the
as the landscaping is done
.
6. The area north of the railroad tracks s
City of Golden Valley. Development
amendment to the PUD and amen
onservation eaSement with the
e tracks may only occur with an
ervation easement.
V.
Reports on Meeti
Council, Board 0
sing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Is and other Meetings
Waldhauser stated
specifically regardin
ould like clarification on the new fence ordinance,
ures.
VI.
y Code and Council Guidelines Related to Boards and
ed that a copy of the Planning Commission by-laws and a copy of the
ance be distributed.
B. Board/Commission Recognition Dinner - Wednesday, June 29 at 6:30 pm
Grimes told the Commissioners that their recognition dinner will be held on June 29 and
. that invitations will be mailed out soon.
VII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm.
VVl. '-.I' '-VV.I 1..llllll
l\eVll' lVlllpO.III<;~ Illl
I~ U. ~ n 't r . I
SVK Development, Inc.
.
3335 Pennsylvania Avenue N. · Crysral, MN 55427 · (763) 545-3557 . Fax: (763) 545-5235
July 25,2005
Lisa Wittman
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, Mn. 55427
Subject: Golden MeadowsPUD Amendment # 1
Dear Ms. Wittman,
Please withdraw our application for the Amendment to Golden Meadows PUD #1
.~A'~
SVK DEVELOP1vfENT INC.
Ross Larson
763-545-3557 office
612-382-8797 mobile
.
.
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
June 23, 2005
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Frorn:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Continuation of Consideration of Preliminary Plan of Development for
Golden Meadows Addition, PUD No. 89, Amendment No. 1-SVK Development,
Applicant
.
At the April 11, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held an informal public
hearing on Golden Meadows Addition, PUD No. 89, Amendment No.1. After the hearing was
held and the Commission discussed the amendment, the Commission tabled action on this
amendment. The vote was 4-3 to table. The Commission tabled this item in order for the
applicant to provide a revised plan for parking and a turnaround area.
SVK has prepared a revised plan (attached) to provide for an additional turnaround area off
Winnetka Ave. No additional parking spaces have been provided. With the garage parking,
each unit (ifthe building is made a three-unit building as proposed by SVK) would have two
parking spaces-oneinside and one outside. The existing and proposed turnaround areas are
only effective if there is only one car parked in front of the garage.
I am attaching a copy of the April 11 , 2005 Planning Commission minutes along with the
information that was sent to the Planning Commission for the April 11, 2005 meeting.
.
Attachments:
Location Map ( 1 page)
Applicant's proposed new turnaround plan (1 page)
Minutes from the April 11 ,2005 Planning Commission meeting (6 pages)
Memo to the Planning Commission from Mark Grimes dated April 7, 2005 (3 pages)
PUD Permit dated October 2,2001 (3 pages)
Existing entrance and driveway plan (1 page)
Proposed lower level improvements (1 page)
Suggested turnaround and added parking space (1 page)
Photos (12 pages)
Plat Map (1 oversized page)
Site Plan dated March 27, 2001 (1 oversized page)
(
N
N
o
CJ1
..-.~"'"
I If ·
~~t>
F(emove
Existing
Tree
Summa rv
Winnetka Ave.
N~
N
N
o
<0
Cf)
Total Lot Area = 16,713 sq. ft.
Existing Impervious Area = 4,780 sq. ft. (28%)
Proposed Impervious Area = 4,960 sq. ft. (29.7%)
~\JtV p((};.. ~v~ 2-r
I
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 11, 2005
A regular meeting of the Planning ommission was held at the Golden Va y City Hall,
Counci.1 Chambers, 7800 Golden V IIey Road, Golden Valley, Minnes ,on Monday,
April.11,.2005. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Thos resent were Commissioners Cera, Eck, Hackett, Key' er, Rasmussen,
Schmid Il and Waldhauser. Also pr sent were Director lanning and Development,
Mark Grim and Administrative As istant, Lisa Wittm
MOV by Eck, seconded by Cera an motion carried unanimously to approve the
min esJrom the.March 29,2005 Plan ing Commission meeting with the above noted
erection.
I.
errors and that he would go over them with
.
present and Cera was not listed in
II. Informal public Hearing - PUD No. 89 Amendment #1 -Golden Meadows
Applicant: SVK Development
Address: 2205 Winnetka Avenue North
Purpose: The amendment would allow for the existing duplex to be converted
to a triplex.
Grimes stated that in 2001, after several proposals, the Golden Meadows PUD was
approved by the City Council. He referred to a location map and explained that there are
six single-family home lots and the duplex being discussed included in this PUD.
.
Grimes explained that the proposal is to convert the two-family home located on Lots 4
and 5 to three units. He stated that currently the lot line goes right through the middle of
the upper unit and that that would have to be amended in order for this proposal to be
approved.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 11, 2005
Page 2
He explained that the applicant is planning to keep the north unitthe same as it is now
with space on the upper and lower levels and then the south wouldhaveohe<unit on the
upper level and the lower level would be made into the third unit and would be
approximately 1 ,100 square feet.
Grimes stated that there is a. slight increase in density but that his biggest concern is the
amount of parking available for these units. He explained that there is one garage space
for each unit and that one car would probably be able to park in the driveway behind each
garage stall. He noted the existing turnaround on the property and said that part of It is
located on Hennepin County right-of-way and that if the county ever decides to widen the
sidewalk in that location the turnaround would need to be moved. He said he is
suggesting that if this proposal is approved there should be more parking. spaces added
and possibly another turnaround onthe north side oOhe driveway, which unfortunately
would mean the loss of a fairly significant tree, but cars should not be backing out on
Winnetka Avenue. He said that he has looked at the property several time.s over the last
few weeks and there always seems to be a car parked in the turnaround area and he
thinks that there should be some kind of restriction placed on this property if this proposal
goes forward that there should be no parking allowed in the turnaround area. He said he
has talked to the applicant and that they have said that they could put something in the
rental agreement regarding the number of cars allowed for each unit. The problem then
becomes enforcing the parking. He added that he doesn't think that the added traffic
would be an issue because there would only be about nine additional trips per day.
Eck referred to the garage and asked if it opens up to be one large garage area which all
the tenants would then have access to. Grimes referred to the original building plans and
showed each individual garage door opening up to one large garage space that all the
tenants use.
Keysser asked if all the units are rentals at this point. Grimes said it is his understanding
that they are all rentals at this time.
Keysser asked if when the PUD was first approved there was discussion about the
turnaround area being used for parking as well. Grimes said when it was firstdiscussed it
was already a two-family dwelling and there were no changes beingpropos~d so there
were really no changes that could be made.
Keysser asked if the County is actively talking about taking more land to widen the
sidewalk. Grimes explained that the seven feet of area for the sidewalk was dedicated on
the plat when the PUD was originally approved.
Eck asked if changing the lot line is an issue they need to be concerned about as part of
this discussion or if it is a separate issue having the lot line running through the middle of
one of the units. Grimes said he thinks the lot line should be removed and suggested that
a condition of approval could be to require the applicant to replat the property to eliminate
that lot line.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 11, 2005
Page 3
Rasmussen asked how much it would cost to have the property replatted. Grimes said he
is not sure how much it would cost but stated that having that property line exist could
complicate things ifand when the owners decide to turn the units into condominiums.
Waldhauserasked if the building was constructed with the idea that there would be
different residents on each level. Grimes said it looks like that was what was originally
intended, but that is not what was approved.
Waldhauser asked .ifthree units would be permissible under the current zoning district.
Grimes said this isa planned unit development but that originally it was rezoned to R-2
because that was the best fit and the most consistent at the time.
Waldhauserasked how many parking spaces are provided and if the turnaround and
parking are interchangeable or if it is just one big slab of asphalt. Grimes said right now it
is just asphalt. Waldhauser asked if there is some way to eliminate some of the pavement
with landscaping or something.
Keysser said that part of the problem with parking front to back is that cars always have to
be shuffled around. Grimes said that when it was built, it was a duplex and it hasn't been
a problem, but that because it is a fairly large building and the lower area isn't really being
used applicants have said it makes sense for them to create another unit.
Rasmussen asked if a provision could be put in the PUD permit that says that one car
COUld be parked in the driveway and nothing could be parked in the turnaround. Grimes
said that something could be put in their permit, but the question is enforcing it.
Rasmussen asked if the permit could say something about not allowing trailers. Grimes
said the PUD permit can say virtually anything as long as it's reasonable. Keysser stated
that if a boat or RV is parked in the driveway that would make the situation even worse.
Grimes stated that there really are no other alternatives.
Keysseraskedabout the vacant lot to the north. Grimes said that lot has been for sale off
and on over the years but that the soil conditions there are very poor.
Cera asked if two turnarounds would be necessary if the existing turnaround had the no
parking provision. Grimes said he thinks there needs to be one dedicated turnaround that
all units can access.
Waldhauser asked if the turnaround and parking area could be used for parking and then
the driveway could be used for tuming around. Keysser said the parking spaces are very
narrow. Grimes agreed that it would be tight.
Hackett asked about the driveway between Lots 5 and 6. Grimes stated that is a
pedestrian walkway to get to the sidewalk on Winnetka Avenue from Valders Court.
Hackett suggested some parking area may be installed on that side of the property.
Grimes said the County would not allow another curb cut on Winnetka.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 11, 2005
Page 4
.
Waldhauser noted that the grade goes down from the street levelto the lower levelofthe
building and asked if there have been any issues with water in the lower level. Grimes
said he wasn't aware of any water issues.
Scott Kevitt, SVK Development, Applicant, stated that since they have owned the building
they have thought the lower level would be a good living space for a separate living unit.
He discussed the floor plan of the proposed third unit. He said he would be agreeable to
taking out the tree and creating a new turnaround on the north side.
.
Keysser asked if the lower unit is part of the upper tenants space. Kevitt said it is.
Grimes asked if it would be a problem for SVK to restrict the number of vehicles that their
tenants own. Kevitt said he wouldn't have a problem with that. Keysser said it would also
help to mark the turnaround space as no parking. Kevitt agreed with that as well. Keysser
said another issue is that if cars don't pull all the way up close to the garages iUs still
difficult to use the turnaround space. Kevitt agreed that it is not the most idyllic situation
but said that he has fixed up the building a lot and when he took it over it was an eyesore. .
Eck said that the impetus for trying to provide some kind of solution for the parking. and
the turnaround has come from Mr. Grimes and he didn't see the applicant come forward
with anything with regard to alleviating the parking and turnaround problems and that
concerns him. Kevitt said he assumed they would have to do something regarding
parking on the site. Eck asked why he would assume that and then not bring anything
forward.
Keysser stated there are two families there now and asked how many total vehicles are
on the property. Kevitt said he's not sure. Keysser said another issue would be parking
spaces for guests. Kevitt said that would be the same for a lot of the homes on Winnetka
and that guests park on the side streets.
Keysser opened the public hearing.
John Blythe, 2140 Valders Avenue North, stated that right now, the tenants park their van
and pick up on Valders Court. He said he is also concerned about parking and asked if
the property needs to be rezoned. Grimes explained that because this is a PUD it doesn't
need to be rezoned, but amending a PUD still requires Council approval.
Blythe asked if this proposal will affect any of the other homes being built on Valders Ct.
Keysser said that as those houses sell, parking along the court will become an issue.
Blythe said people will then start parking in front of his house. Blythe said he heard a
rumor that a garage was going to be built behind this property on Valders Court. Grimes
said he hasn't heard anything like that from the applicant and explained that there is a
dedicated trail and steep slope so it wouldn't work.
.
Keysser closed the public hearing.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April .11 , 2005
Page 5
Waldhauser said she is still concerned about parking. She said there could be a potential
of seven adults living there and parking is going to be tight with seven or more vehicles.
Grimes said if there isn't an objection regarding the land use he would suggest tabling the
applicants request and asking the applicant to come back with a parking plan.
Keysser said there are only a couple of options available.
Eckisaid there may only be a couple of options, but he is disappointed that the applicant
didn't have any suggestions to solve the problem. Keysser said his inclination is to not
approve the proposal because it is just too crowded.
Hackett said he agreed and didn't think he could support the proposal either. He said he
didn't think they wanted to encourage paving all the front yards on Winnetka and
particularly on this property because there is a lot there already. He said the three units.is
n()t the issue, it is em aesthetic issue of adding more pavement.
Waldhausersaid maybe there is a solution for the parking issues thaUhey haven't
thought about. She said that she would be ok with tabling the request to see if the
applicant can come up with a specific proposal that shows how the parking and garage
space would be laid out and the limitations being imposed.
Hackett said tabling this proposal isn't the solution, the application should be rejected and
if the applicant wants to come back with a new proposal then he can come back.
Rasmussen said she is in favor of the land use. There are already three cars in the
driveway and they are already pulling out on to Winnetka. She said she realizes there will
be more people living there but in terms of the situation it is not really going to be that
much worse. She said she thinks it would be a mistake to remove any of the existing
landscaping and that if there is some kind of enforceable solution they could come up for
the parking she would vote for it. She said that she doesn't see that adding one more
person would be very much more difficult than it is now. She said she doesn't see that
there are a ..Iot of other options and she doesn't want to see the trees taken out. and. more
pavement added. She said people do back out on to Winnetka all of the time or they walk
a block or so to visit someone. She said it would be nice to come up with a way to use
this under utilized building. She added that she is concerned about not being able to
enforce any kind of parking agreement.
Grimes said language regarding the parking could be put into the PUD Permit and staff
could tell Mr. Kevitt that there has to be language in their leases that tenants must pull all
the way up to the garages and that the turnaround has to be left open but the issue still is
who is going to enforce this.
Keysser disagreed that the building is under utilized; it was planned as duplex and built as
a duplex. Rasmussen said it is nice to have this type of house with these smaller units in
. Golden Valley because they are affordable and don't increase density as much.
Keysser said people are already parking on Valders Court and with a third family moving
in the pressure will be greater for people to park there and it adds to the issue.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 11, 2005
Page 6
Kevitt said that is possible butthat it is not illegal for people to park on the street. Keysser
agreed and said that people aren't going to want cars parked in frontof their houses.
Rasmussen suggested tabling the request so he could come back with another plan.
Keysser said they could also reject this plan and he could come back. Cera said if this
plan is rejected if they could give the applicant some guidelines as to what th~yrnight like
to see.
Keysser said he feels like they've boxed applicant in because they've said add more
parking, but don't take any trees out. He added that he feels it is a two-unit building and it
just doesn't have the capacity for. a third unit.
Grimes said he thinks it makes more sense to table the request because it still has to go
to the City Council even it the Planning Commission rejects it. He said the Commission is
looking at a plan they would like to see revised and if they want to see it revised they
should table it, otherwise vote against it.
Hackett said a PUD was applied for and approved a number of years ago. He asked why
the City didn't go through the process to create more units then. He said it has already
been discussed once before, it was approved asa nine unit development and now they
are trying to squeeze another unit out of it and he doesn't know why they are even talking
about it now and it is a waste of their time to be revisiting old information. Grimes said the
applicant had talked about this same proposal when the PUD was approved and he had
the same concerns about parking as he does now. He said hetold Mr. Kevitt that
converting the duplex at that time would complicate the PUD process and recommended
he come back in the future with this proposal. Keysser said maybe if it had been
addressed back then there could have been a way to put a driveway in with the
construction of the other homes on Valders Court. Grimes said he didn't think it would
have worked to put a driveway in on Valders Court.
MOVED by Rasmussen to table the request in order to come back tothe Planning
Commission with a revised plan for the parking and turnaround areas. Seconded by Eck
and motion carried 4 to 3 to table the request. Cera, Eck, Rasmussen and Waldhauser
voted in favor of tabling the request. Hackett, Keysser and Schmidgall voted against
tabling the request.
V.
s of the Hou ing and Rede opment Authority, City
eetings
Y ity Council and Planning Commission
.
.
.
.
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
April 7 , 2005
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing-Preliminary Plan of Development for
Golden Meadows Addition, PUD No. 89, Amendment No.. 1-SVK
Development, Applicant
BACKGROUND
Atthe October 2,2001 City Council meeting, the Council approved the General Plan of
DevelopmentJor Golden Meadows Addition, PUD No. 89. The PUD allows for the
construction of six single-family homes. An existing single-family home and an existing
duplex were also made a part of the PUD. The PUD divided the 2.73 acre parcel of
property into 9 lots. Six of the lots are for new single-family home construction (Lots 1,
2,3, 6,8, and 9, Block 1). These lots all front on new Valders Ct. Two new single-family
homes have been constructed on Lot 2 and Lot 6. The remaining lots on the cul-de-sac
are vacant and continue to be marketed. Lot 7, Block 1 is the location of a single-family
home that was moved to that location prior to the approval of PUD No. 89. It has access
from Winnetka Ave. The existing duplex that was constructed in 1981 is located on Lots
4 and 5 and has access only from Winnetka Ave. The duplex is owned and maintained
by SVK. The duplex is the subject of this PUD amendment.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
SVK has now applied for an amendment to PUD No. 89 that would allow the existing
duplex located on Lots 4 and 5 to be used as a three-unit structure. This would be
accomplished. by converting the lower level of the 2205 Winnetka Ave. side into a two-
bedroom apartment which would be about 1,120 sq. ft. in area. Access to this unit would
be from the existing ground level entry next to the southernmost garage. There would
also be access to the garage from the interior of the lower unit. Access to the unit above
would be from the existing second level entrance along Winnetka Ave. and from inside
the garage area. The unit above would be about 1,950 sq. ft. in area with a loft. There
are three bedrooms in this unit. The third unit (north unit) is addressed as 2209
Winnetka Ave. The size of this unit would not change. It is about 1,740 sq. ft. on two
levels with two bedrooms.
1
.
.
.
The entire building has garage space of about 1,000 sq. ft. in area. There are three
garage doors on the Winnetka Ave. side. The garages run the full 30 ft. of width of the
structure. It may be possible to get two small cars in each garage stall front to back or
one larger car. If there is only one car in each garage unit, there is a large space for
storage. Each of the units is dedicated one of the garage stalls.
PUD QUALIFICATION
In 2001, the City Council approved the Golden Meadows, PUD No.. 89. The. PUDmay
be amended if it meets the standards and guidelines for a PUD as outlined in the PUD
chapter. Staff has reviewed the standards and guidelines and determined that if meets
the standards and guidelines and, therefore, can go forward for amendment. (This
amendment came close to qualifying as a minor amendment underthe newPUD
chapter. The request met all the requirements for a minor amendment except that the
number of units in the PUD increased by more than 5%. .'n this case the number of units
in the development would increase by 11 %. The minor amendment process requires
only approval by the City Council by a simple majority vote.)
The information submitted by SVK is complete and allows for reviewto go forward.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Since there will be no outside changes to the structure at 2205-09 Winnetka Ave.. as a
result of the PUD amendment, the concerns related to this change from atwo..family to
a three-family building are limited to a couple of issues. They are as. follows:
1. Consistency with General Land Use Plan and ZoninQ- The propertyis designated
on the General Land Use Plan for Low Density Residential uses (less than 5 units
per acre). With the addition of one residential unit, PUD No. 89 would increase its
density from about 3.25 units per acre to about 3.66 units per acre (9 units to 10
units on 2.73 acres). The zoning of the property is R..2 (two-family) residential. This
zoning is the one most consistent with the density found in the Golden Meadows
development.
2. Traffic-All traffic to the 2205-09 Winnetka Ave. structure must enter from the
driveway off Winnetka Ave. There is no vehicle accessfromValders Ct. Total
number of trips to this building should be in the range of 30 trips per day. This is not
an ideal location for getting in and out of the garages. In orderto improve access the
Planning Commission may want to consider a second turnaround to alloW cars to
pull forward into Winnetka Ave.
3. Parkinq-If the third unit is approved, there would be two parking spaces per unit-
one inside the garage and one in the driveway. This is the issue that concerns the
staff the most. Staff recommends that the City require that an additional. parking stall
and turnaround be constructed adjacent to the north side of the driveway and one
additional parking space be constructed south of the driveway. This would mean that
there would be a turnaround space on both the north and south side of the driveway
and two additional parking spaces. SVK should also limit the number of cars and
vehicles stored on site to six-two for each unit. This can be done through the rental
agreement.
2
.
.
.
4. ChanQe to Plat of PUD No. 89- The plat of PUD No. 89 indicates that there are two
lots for the existing duplex (Lots 4 and 5). The existing lot line runs through the
middle of the duplex but it is not along a common wall. (The south unit on the upper
leveLis 65 ft. long and extends over the lot line between Lots 4 and 5.) This lot line
should be removed if SVK intends to rent all three oftheunits in the building. IfSVK
wants to sell each of the units, this would have to be done by a condominium plat.
Condominium plats are not controlled by the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Theproposed amendment to PUD No. 89 is relatively minor. It does not require the
expansion of the structure, only interior changes. However, it does bring one additional
family into the structure that will cause the need for more parking and increase the
number of trips using the driveway onto Winnetka Ave., a minor arterial street. Each unit
would have two spaces-one inside and one outside. Staff does not believe that is
enough due to its location on Winnetka Ave. Parking is never allowed on Winnetka Ave.
and parking win be Hmited on Valders Ct. once all the homes are constructed. Staff
recommends that two more parking spaces be created as shown on the attached plans
and that the rental agreement between the renters and SVK state that there can be no
more than two cars per unit. Also, there must be a turnaround on both the north and
south side of the driveway that is not used for parking. (Photos indicate that the current
turnaround is used for parking.) The building is certainly large enough for the three units
and will provide another relatively affordable two-bedroom unit in Golden Valley.
If the additional parking and turnarounds can be constructed and a limitation placed on
the. number of cars per unit (no more than two), staff believes that the additional two
bedroom unit should have relatively minor effect on the area and approval is
recommended.
Attachments
LocationMap (1 page)
PUD Permit dated October.2, 2001 (3 pages)
Existing entrance and driveway plan (1 page)
Proposed Lower Level. Improvements (1 page)
Suggested tumaroundand added parking space (1 page)
Photos (12 pages)
Plat Map (1 oversized page)
Site plan dated March 27, 2001 (1 oversized page)
3
.... .J..
.
.
.
Golden Meadows P.U.D. No. 89
City Council Approval: October 2. 2001
City of Golden Valley, Minnesota
Use Permit for
Planned Unit Development
Project Name: . Golden Meadows P.U.D. No. 89
Location: South of23rd Avenue North, between ValdersAvenue and
Winnetka Avenue. North
Legal Description: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Marimac Addition and Outlot 1,
Anderson's Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Applicant: SVK Development, Inc.
Address: 3335 Pennsylvania Avenue North, Crystal, MN55427
Owner: SVK Development, Inc.
Address: 3335 Pennsylvania Avenue North, Crystal, MN 55427
Zoning District:
Residential
Permitted Uses:
Development shall be limited to not more than 6 new single
family homes, one existing single family home,and one existing
duplex.
Components:
A. Land Use Component:
1. Allowed uses of lots within the development shall be those permitted uses listed for
the Residential zoning district per City Code. Conditional uses shall not be allowed
except by amendment of the PUD permit.
2. For the City's general enforcement purposes, except as otherwise specified in the
terms of the PUD permit each single family housing unit and lot shall be regulated in
accordance with all City Code provisions applicable to single-family homes.
B. Construction
1. Proof of recording, for both the plat and the separate easement document, must be
provided to the City before any construction permits are issued.
. "
.
.
.
2. An as-built survey shall be completed for each structure as soon as the foundation
is substantially in place. If there is an incomplete match between lot lines and unit
walls, the developer shall. either relocate the foundation or request City approval of
aPUDamendment to replat the affected lots. No certificates of occupancy will. be
issued for a unitthat fails to align with an underlying lot boundary.
3. Except as otherwise specified in the conditions of General Plan approval, all phases
of site development shall be subject to the standards, approvals, fees, and other
requirements that would arise in connection with a similar project outside of a PUD.
4. Development of the site shall be limited to not more than six (6) new single family
housing units, one (1 ) existing duplex, and one (1 ) existing single family home per
the approved site plan dated 3/27/01 prepared by All-Metro Development
Consultants and attached to the.PUD permit by reference.
5. The landscaping plan prepared by All-Metro Developl1lentConsultants and dated
3/27/01 shall be made a part of the approved PUD permit, subject to final review
and approval by the City's Building Board of Review. If the Building Board of
Review requires additional changes to the landscaping plan beyond those indicated
here, such changes shall also be made part of the approved permit in narrative form
or via an amended plan sheet signed and dated by the City's. Chief Building Official.
The developer shall provide a landscaping perf2!InanGe.ban~nt.and for
the periodoftime established by the Buildiff~fBoard of Review.
C. Utilities and Gradina
1. Before any grading or utility permits are issued, the developer shall provide the City
with acceptable plans, information, and other submittals as identified in all points of
the "Utilities" and "Grading and Erosion Control" sections of the Engineering
Department's General Plan of Development review memo dated April 12, 2001 and
attached to the PUD permit by reference.
2. During and after construction, the developer shall comply with all instructions
outlined in the "Utilities" and "Grading and Erosion Control" sections of the
Engineering Department's General Plan of Development review memo dated April
12,2001.
D. Circulation Component:
1. Individual units shall be addressed, per a system established by the City Inspections
Department; addresses of all units shall be plainly visible from the street.
2. Aseparate document shall be prepared and recorded with the plat by the
developer, granting a permanent easement for a biking or walking path between lots
5 and 6 running from the cul-de-sac to Winnetka Avenue North.
.
· A
.
..
.
It is hereby understood and agreed that this Use Permit is a part of the City Council
approval granted on October 2,2001. Any changes to the P.U.D. PermitforGolden
Meadows P.U.D. No. 89 shall require an amendment.
/?
//~
./ r~
~
" ./.
Witness:
Date:
Title:
By:
SVK DEVELOPMENT, INC.
\ ' .
>L.. .' i '::'_~ '. . _
" ). ' .f\.;,- \(,~,
/-~--->" "------"', ,~- \~-",:,-:.......~/ -
\ \
\, , i. .'v--.
-., ,'-"" - -~~-."'
s~
I"
/ C / (J -2..-...
!
L.J. I (' (i'1i--
1(' \ \
" ',.. to", \ \.
Wltness:(~ "J.' \ ~( ) By:
'-=
- /'; \ {,. I
--;--: \ \ :' 'I
/ 1('/ \: \\' ),f.---'
Witnes~'~- j c.,l' \ I' \; tJ
'.-"
Date:
By:
Date:
- -/'1," ;"1
) /' if l / , ,-
f / I V
J '. i //
" I '1,',lj, ",','
I 1Jd'" .1
l/L/>/bv'/~~'},,_
WiII~am7': fo~nes, City Man.ager
""'/ ;1 , ,
, 1/ It {)~./
l - I
Warning: This permit does not exempt you from all otber City Code provisions,
regulations and ordinances.
.
pp
.-,
~-';';"":""----"
~~>_.
.
\
,
----...~
-""",--'- -"'-'
-~-~--
~>-----";""/
..
- -~ ~-~
~.--
,+
t~
I~
.N
i
-. -,...;.-' -'-"
-. i',.
"".JJV
2209
~:. :C'T
, .r.:.: y\T;:)-r-:--...._.. ,.
. l%t . ."
W.W l,-\.,..P j . ." ;.,;)
2205
'"' l:"~
-~
~..<~<
~ ~~~o;~
.;;..
......
.-
........,.
. ~
;~..~
EXiST.
0..../
"" \- 1. ...
~
" \.,Ii .....:>
-~\
:f I
I
, j'
i r
!
i
i
1
i
!
,.
. "",
t 1 J
r
,
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Q)
>
<(
0
; I -Y
I -~
(J)
\ i .....-
'"
::...-
C
~
....--
:.~ :J
W()
)
.
0-.: t~:~_;.,A~':'!!= .-; ..... : ~4 ,. _ -' - ~._-
ft,~,,\~J::ftJ '. ,; ::jd~..!!l:f"- .. ..""..........
~~~,...t....-.:<!'....~. ~.. ...:~.;.....,..:';:.::.; It..... 't.
...., 'r..._.,~.t..~t..... . !....f ....,:' ..,.h"t;;1%ti :."
. . "J.' .......oy .'V .~ '1.ti. . ..,.,.<J.. -..". V', .. . ,.-
',.",;. -;',.., .':"Ii" ., ..,.,........-.,.....~....~.~ !l::'" . :....
~;l;~r ~;.:.-r'? .'.. .;. '.',,' t. .; t l'r.;~I,(ill.~.~~;"~J!r;... .:;....
'i,,; 'It ,,';'.. . .....: C.I': " ...:" -r'.... d"i{ '.[$0.,: "7~.;..f1
;!:t::~_;': . ; .; ~';::~ .~i"
.~?:. 4~ :.. I. '".,.... .,....~..:.1.:;~~..." _ .
., ...... .... _ !;.f'
.:~.. . 'i. '.... (..'\ s' ""
:; .:;:....:... ~ t' l'f . ',t; . ,:.
t:iy;..~~.~.F; toC; ~;., #...:........::..~..:~~..iI:,.........;:J;. :..
't~ 0- !.,.. .., .Itt~.~.... .t.., # - - -.... '. ..
..;..... .:~ ;.f ..."- . ....,
.. _ ......... . 1"' ~.. ,-. 0-
.~ .... E-'
)~~;~~:'f"-- ::-.-1"~.,~7
.:.!. ~~t"~~r;t:
..l..-~! ....':;-"~
IF ;j~I:';' :;'
4: .I . :-; ...;. .
4. . ~ . I
;" J !~.. .... . .,i.:~
;t!;' :~ :_~'..;'
i;' .'r~A,~:t~
.. ". . .'.. ".
.... of-
:
.o-~~-(:.:
:. .,
'.
.i"!
.
.
(5
Z
r.t
L p'
~.!.k}
" i'~-:}
--::;'"1
fi: ~;~i
0.-(
',' '"" "'...
, .\
u.J
>
UJ
o
~
>
(f)
.. r"~
..... ..
. i,l....:
/1;<':, i!;I!I";'
a",";",.",._~...~,,".......
;,....
.;>-.........
.j.,:....,~,.,."'.".:"..""..,
-"'-:", .
i
" 11'" 'f
'if"'"
#l.t-
r
it:
P;\
~.
~t
~; .
'.:
~.
~;
~;~'
~).'
tf
t;"
;;"
~
r;
~:
,~;~" ~l~'l: ~~;
i)"
~.
'fil
:t.
i(
...,..
Vi
I ( .... \ . . '--'c ,. - ~ .'-"~ ~-
, r-- I. t-' ':_) ~ ~.-\
'-"';".' \i , , I I I
.........- -' i '- I I 1 1.-.' i '-
. .
.'
~.
. ,
..-/
~:.
~~.- ~~.:,
1:1:; ~f;,~~;
m:. _~- t~.; ~: -t.i'~A
..,...<:~.:.;.,.-.
"':.~;.
~_;~..."".~~.,;~~~'~"""',JIilI
",~)'.
~....,
.,,!> ~.
.,$i' ~li'".
".
'^
~ ~
-;1~ :$
....;:.. \. "-
~ ~ ;,
-:-,J~+-
Le'we?'" fever
entrcmce: t"
live stOfY
i
i
i
~'
2209
Ef1'::.ronc:e: ic
1')\J';,'e~~ fe.vei
i'esidencE"
i
!
i
!
i
V:
'\'
-'-'~''''
~-!
. .
~r
.....,
..:.."f~:r-'
"-,-
ell/ '-
^JI ~.
,.~j~: ~
.{:."'~':;:.
~ 'S tn;:~
'C;; <:~ I.....
2205
I
I
; I
L___J
. :-rrrrmll' !,p:.
l;HI!!
.ff -->Wllll
t.n;~rC:::;f;
......~.
te.-----<'*
l:prJer (-:;'.1(';;
re.s;d~:-,c(;
S:-jJ:F'$;o)5e-cl~!;;- tZJ~u
I?~ let a.< t1A1W11 ./ twI/'''' 4 ~~,{J:
Q)
>
<t
o
y
..,..j-1
Q)
C
<..
""",t.,
5
:...!:
.
.
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
J '\
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
I ,
LlJ
",. "
~.../
.-
<-l..
Ct~
U~
I I
LLJ
1---
.
-7
L-_
( r
V)
-7
L_
(2)
(' ')
'-...-.
, r
U)
<S:
.
..,
..
/
/'
~~
"
"
r-
,-
<?
50
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L=31 .58
-----?R=20.29
/ 11=89' 1 0'52"
I
I
"'~
Ld
:)
"
<,
LoJ
<(
o
o
c:i
,.....
iLl
o
o
'0
o
b
o
z
S89'10'52"E 116.01
~ VALDE'RS
N89.10'52"W 136.00
Vi
",.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
~
----... -',-
iL
Ld
[)
<(
50 -
T
,
'<
"
^
n
H
~
i:
r'
"
4
n
^,
, V
, ,
r1
, .
,.'
T
,
'"
U
,...
C
A;'
<'
'-"
c
^,
IV ::--
'-'
74.28
...
...
"
'"
l.LI
b
o
'0
o
b
o
z
o
o
c:i
10
...
l.LI
.
o
o
'0
o
b
o
z
"
,.1
,
('
"
--
,
('
-,
y,
S89'11'17"E 304.14
6'.52
89.84
/
f' .,.
/ ,
/'
/
11\
I I
c
/
/
~. /
,^ 'I ~ r-. DRAINAGE ANO-:""'/
II ~ I UTILITY EASEMENT
I I
~I, I N8"07'43"E~2.z__--T'"
.;~ J_-------- I
" ~I I CQ
~I' I ~
~I , 4 I'"
I '
I I
: l' 1
I ,
I I
: 589"10'52.E II
90.97
/
DRAINAGE AND -J /
/' r- UTILITY EASEMENT
/
/'
/
c
^ ~
I
I
1
I
I
/
I
0/
"il
~L-l1
20 I I
I r '
20 ~ I
. IL____________~
N8frl2.132-E 10 ~
92.11 -
5
N8!r10'20"W 122.00
"
1..1
C,
1\
~
'"
\
L-______
-_J
I
---.---
N
<to
.;
"
~
~
~~
~g
I')
~iLl
~g
~~
~(/)
~
J
I
I
I
I
I
6$
I
o
o
iL:
NO,
.
GOLDEN MEADOWS
PUD NO. 89
->
<::'.>
~ I
LL.J
>
....-
I I
U.J
, /
l
<
~
0 I --;7
L_
() c)
_.-
<CJ I 1--
_...-
.-
~~ C"-J L-:J
0:::
H ro C2J
LoJI .- <r
.-
'~I ~A -
I I I
7 0
<, I"'") LU
I I
U LU
3= w Ct~
(f)
lL. >--
0 I 1--
w
Z
..J
I-
(f)
<C
w
6a I
r
-7
L-
o
C)
--
I--
LJ ((--..
[--.., .>J
Ld-l ""-I)
<( I
I
uJ
( '\
--/
<{
l}/
02 (\ C.:J
LL ==:;
N- /',
i ) U_
I I
U-1
1---
.
~ 0 ~ ~
~ ,I I
SCALE IN FEET
o DENOTES 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRON PIPE SET
WITH CAP STAMPED RLS NO. 12254
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
ARE SHOWN THUS:
~
-l
I
I
____..J
~
I
~__:l_
...
"*'
~I N9
..... UU" O"OO'OO"E 7348 /'
20 ~ i----u~u_4
of5 I 1-
~Q I I'~
",'ii/ B'&l
OW I ,-
~~ I I~
~= I 10
05 I 1 l~
'" I '8
&1 I /z
" I I
;;'" I I
1Jl;!: I I
/20 : __7'r~:~'~. :
,! ......'1. 1 1'._75.00 I
"o' --/- I'
t~....... I
'_ I
'_ I
I I 48,06 '.,.J
COURT +-- 1 ~
I / --- O6J9
/ I ~.>s
: / (,; ,', .0,
I -,
....'t' - _ S'>4'24'
I --_ 4J"f:
I -__:"8.18 ~ . I
L 0 'Ct. '''ff3'!.~'"-0~!~5~-r~''
I ~ J ~
I '.. I I_
I I.. I .Il"
I 18 I I~
I IZ I /..
I 2 / / 3 I~
I I I l'f
I I I I
I I I I
I ' I / 1
I 1'1 I I /
I v S~ I I I
/ ., \.<; [(ill! I I I
I ~~~ II" I I I
/ 9~l;. -'^'" I I -')
l s~. I \ / I /'
....,............t^, .....-1-'>..; '--_..... ///
299----:::"""'if:.X I "~l.......... /_
- ':5 I \ I 4..;;'<>'" ~ ~
. ~?9 .()'li
,_ \ So\ ~<J5.t"''b ~
I " \ U'l: \ 'l! ...
4... ,} ~ \ ~ IS ,._-----------------:,:.'
( 'I Jf r. \ ~ 0>. /' ...L.';',
1\1\ .' \'%~ /' ~,
II) \ \ ~ ( I
III '\ \ \ \ I
, \. t'-, \. \ I
~-lO""'~~ . .............. \ gPI I
.-'~ ~ .....,..... ..), qj~ I I
~.; I '4(~.g............ ---./. ~tol 6 I
~ I ~~;<.?r..t ............... I ---;.0;"'" -J~I I
~ I ~og.7 'f-.. -- $11501)0 "', I
I .t., 5 I ),- f) . I. I
I \..-~~..tt,.\..j..-\ / "Q / I 1 I ~
I ,,,iIt _0.00 /< "./ I I oJ
I ~ R"~ Qfl"'-,- '" '- ..
I I."So,," ) I " : -
I b.-'\~ I / '^, " I
I II //1" " I
: / " ~, I
I 9 I , q'J';:-,. I
I I '.... S&~, I
I I~ ~ "":9', I
I I:!/ ',:~, I
I /.. - -', ',- -I-III
I LtI' I ',', :
I ;....... I 8 ~ " " I
I ~ I. ..... "-
I & I .- ----------------..:. '--I
11./, I 95.96 19.03
I I / I N90'OO'OO"E 114.99
: / I I r---------------------l
I I I I", I ,,\ I
I I / I,,: I 0 \~ I
20 I I I 'Ill I \ I
L II 01 I
43.9ii--.J L--------.---13B.U------------V ~II " I
- I
N89'10'52"W 182.16 D lI'l b' <. 7 I ~
~ ~ ~ I ~
.0 81 I
.r 131 I
I.lJ zl I
. I I
o I I
~ L.________________~__~~J."''\ 17
b 115.00 :1,
o
z
;;
I
~I LtJ
:)
<,
Ld
>
<(
1,-
(~)
l()
BEING, 6 FEET IN WIDTH. UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED, AND ADJOINING
LOT UNES. AND BEING 1 0 FE~ IN
WIDTH. AND ADJOINING RIGHT-
OF-WAY UNES. AS. SHOWN ON THE PLAT.
.
A
ALL-METRO
DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS. P.A.
SURVEYING' ENGINEERING ,srrE PLANNING
CULLT ~ nL ~ CULLT0
.
.
.
Memorandum
Mayor & City Council
763-593-8001/763-593-8109 (fax)
alley
Date: May 1, 2005
To: City Council, Boards, Commissions, Foundation
From: Linda Looms, Mayor
Subject: Revisions to City Code and Council Guidelines Related to Boards and
Commissions
The City Council is in the process of making revisions to City Code and Council Guidelines
Related to Boards and Commissions. Attached you will find the proposed revisions, which the
Council will be adopting in June of this year. The Council has been discussing these revisions
for a few months. As a courtesy the Council is forwarding the final draft to its Boards and
Commissions for review prior to formal Council consideration in June. The changes are
marked with underlining and strikrthorugh notation. Our main goal has been to provide clarity
and consistency. We wish to reinforce a more formal process for communicating with Boards
and Commissions which has been in place, but has not been uniformly followed.
On behalf of the Council I ask that each Board and Commission review this information and
have its Chair contact me if there are questions or concerns. The Council would also like the
by-laws for each Board and Commission to be in conformance with the revised Code and
Guidelines. Please fit this into your agenda as time permits over the summer. The Council
would like to have all of the revised by-laws for its approval by September 1.
Thank you once again for your willingness to serve the community and assist the Council in
creating good public policy. I hope the process of reviewing the mission and by-laws of each
Board and Commission will improve communications with all who serve and thereby make
our service to the community more satisfying.
.
.
.
UNDERSCORED OVERSTRIKED VERSION - 4-19-05 draft (Revised2)
SECTION 2.50. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS GENERALLY. Except as
otherwise provided in a specific Section, all Boards and Commissions created by the
City Code shall be for the limited purpose of advising the Council with respect to a City
function or activity or to investigate research and evaluate issues identified by the
Council. any subject of interest to the City. As such, Boards and Commissions shall
function in an advisory capacity only.
Subdivision 1. Appointments. The terms of all Board and Commission members
shall be fixed and determined at the time of appointment. The Council shall appoint the
members of all Boards and Commissions and may fill vacancies for unexpired terms.
Members of Boards and Commissions shall serve until their successors are appointed
and qualify. Appointments shall be made by the Council at its last meetinq in April.
effective May 1. except for appointments to the Absentee Ballot Countinq Board, which
will be appointed as needed from the roster of election iudqes approved by the City
Council.
Subdivision 2. Staff Support. The City Manager shall appoint an administrative
person staff liaison to attend all meetings of Boards and Commissions and record the
meetinqs.
Subdivision 3. Attendance and Rules. Each Board and Commission shall
establish by-laws. which must be reviewed and approved by the Council every three
years. The Council has final authority reqardinq all by-laws. Boards and Commissions
shall follow Roberts Rules of Order unless alternative procedures are established in the
approved by-laws or in the City Code. A quorum shall be a simple majority of the
membership and all recommendations shall require a quorum. No member shall serve
as chair more than two years in a three-year period. If a member is unable to attend a
meetinq, that member should contact the staff liaison, who will inform the chair if a
quorum cannot be attained and the meetinq will be cancelled. The Council may
establish an attendance policy for members to remain in qood standinq.
Subdivision 4. Annual Report. Each Board and Commission shall provide a
written annual report outlininq its activities over the past year and proposed activities for
the upcominq vear.
SECTION 2.51. PLANNING COMMISSION.
Subdivision 1. Establishment and Composition. A Planning
Commission is hereby established, composed of seven (7) members, who shall serve
three-year staggered terms. I\ppointments shall be made by the Council at its last
meeting in February, effective March 1.
Subdivision 2. Duties and Responsibilities. It is the duty of the
Planning Commission to advise and make recommendations to the Council in all
matters relating to planning and growth of the City. , including, but not limited to:
Specifically it shall:
.
.
C. Develop and make recommendations for policies on other
matters relating to the social, economic and physical environment; and,
D. Advise and recommend such other functions or procedures as
may be assigned to them by the City Code or the Council.
.
.
.
Adopted by the City Council ~ August 6, 2001
Proposed changes circulated to boards and commissions, May 2005
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
Guidelines. for Advisory Commis.sions., Committ~es,
Boards and Councils.
INTRODUCTION:
The City Council wishes to express its appreciation to the many citizens who take time
away from their personal and professional lives to serve the community through their
membership on the Council's advisory groups. Golden Valley has had a history of
extensive citizen involvement. At present approximately 60 advisory commission,
board, and committee members participate in. providing specialized expertise so that
Council decisions can be made with more complete background and knowledge than
would otherwise be possible. The Council and the entire community benefit from this
invaluable service.
Golden Valley is a statutory city. The legislature established it as a city in the early
1970's. The State Statues provide: "In any such city, there shall be.. .no administrative
board or commission...the Council shall itself perform the duties and exercise the
powers and shall govern and administer the functions for which no independent boards
are authorized by statute. The Council, may, however, create boards or commissions to
advise the Council with respect to any municipal function or activity or to investigate any
subject of interest in the City." This Council, and others before it, recognizes the many
advantages to be gained from this approach.
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to the Council's advisory
commiSSions. The Council is directly responsible for the actions of its advisory
commissions. It is hoped that through these guidelines the expectations of the Council,
with respect to its advisory commissions will be clearly understood and followed. The
Mayor and Council Members welcome any request for discussion or clarification of
information that is contained or thought appropriate to be contained in these guidelines.
The goals of the Council are better communication with its advisory commissions and
better service to the citizens of Golden Valley
CURRENT GOLDEN VALLEY STANDING COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS:
The Golden Valley City Council currently has four standing advisory commissions.
They are:
Environmental Commission
Human Rights Commission
Open Space and Recreation Commission
Planning Commission
There is one advisory foundation: Golden Valley Human Services Foundation
1
.
.
The Building Board of Review advises and assists administrative officers of the City on
building codes and the issuance of building permits.
Short term advisory committees are appointed as needed
The 3tt3ched These Guidelines for Advisory Commissions, Boards and Committees
apply to each of these groups as appropriate and as permitted by the laws and
ordinances which establish them.
I. LEGAL BASIS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
As stated above the State Statutes govern the creation of Council advisory groups.
These groups are authorized to exercise all duties which the Council has legally
assigned to them. They are frequently authorized to conduct research in'lestig3tions
and make recommendations. It should be remembered, however, that advisory
commissions may not make decisions on behalf of the Council. In many cities, it is
routine practice for the Council to accept an advisory commission recommendation if
the commission has done a thorough and competent job. It must be emphasized,
however, that it is the Council's final decision on the matter and not simply the
commission recommendation which is effective to bind the municipality. No
recommendation of any advisory commission takes effect unless it has been adopted by
formal action of the Council. These advisory commissions may be organized in any
manner deemed appropriate by the Council. The City Council may create and dissolve
them, appoint persons to serve on them, and exercise powers of general supervision
over them. A Planning Commission, however, must be established by ordinance and,
once established may be dissolved only by an ordinance, which passes, by 2/3 majority
vote of the Council.
II. OPEN MEETING LAW
All meetings of all public bodies in Golden Valley must be open to the public. There can
be no such thing as a "closed", "private", or "executive" meeting or session. The only
exceptions that have been recognized in the past are certain disciplinary actions
conducted by the Police Civil Service Commission and some personnel and legal
matters before the Council.
The Minnesota Statute requiring City Council meetings to be open to the public has
been in existence for many years. A 1973 amendment and court decisions and rulings
by the Minnesota Attorney General have made commissions, subcommittees, and other
2
public bodies subject to the statute. Any person violating the open meeting requirement
is subject to civil penalty.
.
Commissions and committees should be careful to observe the requirements of holding
all meetings in public places and posting hotices of meeting dates and times at the City
Hall. Scheduling of meetings with the Manager's Office will help prevent conflict with
other groups over meeting times when public participation is particularly desired.
Commission, board, and committee meetings will not be held on designated legal
holidays or recognized religious holidays.
Any questions regarding the meaning or application of the Open Meeting Law should be
directed to the City Council. The Council will seek such advice from the City Attorney
as may be necessary.
III. COMMISSION ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES
.
A. Term of Office: Appointments to commissions are made effective Mayaf6i::l 1 of
each year. The length of each appointment is provided in the governing ordinance
or resolution and is designated by the Council at the time of the appointment. Each
permanent advisory commission should elect officers not later than its second
meeting after M3rch May 1 in each year. The term of office should be one year,
unless otherwise specified by the Council, prior to each election. (Chairpersons of
special committees shall be appointed by the Council.)
Voluntary resignations from a commission should be communicated by letter from
the person resigning to the Mayor.
B. Attendance: Absences in one year should not exceed three consecutive meetings
or more than 25%-percent of the total meetings for the year. (25 percent of
meetings would be three meetings for Ggroups meeting once a month and six
meetinqs me3ns three consecutive and three total. for Ggroups meeting twice a
month means three consecutive 3nd six total. A standardized letter of warning will
be sent from the respective chair to any member after two consecutive and two total
for groups meeting once a month. For those meeting twice a month the letter would
be sent from the chair after two consecutive or five total. If a member exceeds the
allowable number of absences the Mayor will send a standardized letter stating the
member must step down because of the importance of regular attendance and the
number of citizens interested in serving.) If a Commission feels there are
extenuating circumstances in a case of a member who has not met the attendance
requirements, the Commission may send a letter to the Council explaining the
situation and request an exception.
C. By-Laws or Rules of Procedure: Each commission shall should propose By-Laws
or Rules of Procedure governing its work. Such proposed By-Laws or Rules of
Procedure should be submitted to the Council for pFief review and approval prior to
implementation.
.
3
.
D. Orientation: It shall be the responsibility of the staff liaison ch3irperson to provide to
each new member as soon as possible after that member's appointment, a copyies
of the enablinq ordinance for the board or commission and its current By-Laws or
Rules of Procedure, minutes of meetings of the last one year, these Guidelines, and
any other information necessary to orient3tion of new members. (Note: Council
Members who are liaison to a Commission will meet with the Chairperson and new
members as part of the orientation.)
E. Acting as a private citizen: A commission member testifying before the Council as
a private citizen should clearly note before testimony that he/she is testifvinq as a
private citizen .not representing tho 3dvisory commission on which the person
serves.
F. Code of Ethics: Each commission member is subject to the terms of the existing
Code of Ethics ordinance, a copy of which is attached to these Guidelines. Each
person to whom the code applies is responsible to read and understand them.
Questions regarding the meaning or application of the Code of Ethics should be
directed to the Council. If the opinion of the City Attorney is necessary or desirable,
the Council will so request.
.
G. Expenditures: Each Commission is authorized to incur those specific expenditures
included in its final budget, as adopted by the Council. Any other expenditures
require specific Council approval prior to the time the obligation is incurred. Council
approval is necessary prior to solicitation of fundinq from outside sources for any
purpose.
H. Minutes: A person will be provided by the City to take minutes for the advisory
boards and commissions. All such minutes are matters of public record and shall be
kept at the City Hall. The unapproved minutes will be circulated to the City Council in
a timely manner to allow the Council to be informed on recent actions. The Council
will receive and file approved minutes at the next reqular Council Meetinq followinq
the approval of the minutes by the respective board or commission.
Minutes serve the dual function of making an historical record of commission
proceedings and of informing the Council regarding the commission's activities. The
minutes should, therefore, contain an accurate report of the sequence of events and
names of citizens who appear and are heard. In addition to the formal action of the
commission, a summary of the reasoning underlying such action should be included
in the minutes.
I. Staff Liaison: The Council has adopted a policy of providing a staff liaison for each
commission. The purpose of this policy is to provide direct information to each
commission regarding City policy and practices within its area of interest.
.
The City operates under the "Plan B City Manager" form of government, in which all
employees are hired and supervised by the City Manager, who in turn is responsible
to the Council. Neither the Council nor any commission member has the authority to
4
.
.
.
direct staff personnel. Any commission recommendations for modification of City
policy and practices should be directed to the Council.
J. Council Liaison(s): Each Year, at its orqanizational meetinq, the Council shall
assiQn one or more liaison to each Board or Commission. The Council Liaison(s) will
meet at least annuallv with the Board or Commission to which heor she is assiqned.
These meetinqs can serve as an informal means for the exchanqe of information
between the Council and the Board or Commission, but all formal communication
shall follow procedures as outlined in Section IV.
K. Subcommittees: From time to time, the Council may appoint subcommittees of
certain commissions in order that special attention be concentrated in specified
areas. At the same time, the Council also wants the opinion of the commission
regarding each subcommittee's recommendations.
Each subcommittee should submit any report or recommendations intended for the
Council, first to the Commission for review and comment. Such review and
comment should take place at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the
Commission. If it does not, the report or recommendation of the subcommittee shall
be forwarded to the Council without Commission consent.
The subcommittee report or recommendation, together with the commission's
comments, should be submitted to the Council at its next regularly scheduled
meeting. As in the case of commission presentations, a spokesperson for the
subcommittee should attend the Council meeting and be prepared to make a
presentation and answer questions.
The Commission is free to appoint subcommittees of their membership as the
commission sees a need.
IV. COMMUNICATIONS TO AND FROM COMMISSIONS
A. Council Requests to Commissions: From time to time, the Council will refer items
to commissions for recommendation. The purpose of such a referral is to assist the
Council in gathering all pertinent facts and sharpening the issues. The request will
be referred to the commission in writing by the Mayor.
The Council would request a written report from each commission with regard to
each such referral. The report should set forth all the pertinent facts and detailed
recommendations from the commission. The report should be submitted to the
Council Secretary the Wednesday before the Council meeting so that it may be
included in the agenda.
Any time a commission report comes before the Council, one representative of the
commission should be present to make a presentation and answer questions. In the
event there is a difference of opinion on the commission, a minority report written by
the Commission may be presented in the same manner.
5
.
.
.
B. Commission Requests to Council: Any commission request or recommendation
for Council action or legal opinion should be communicated by letter from the
chairperson to the Mayor, giving a full explanation of the background of the matter.
Along with the letter, the commission should submit or refer to the pertinent portion
of its minutes on the subject.
The letter to the Mayor should be delivered to the Council Secretary on the
Wednesday before the Council meeting. A presentation for commission should be
made by a representative from the commission. A minority report may also be
presented.
C. Communications with those other than the City Council: Based upon past
experience, the Council believes that there is some potential. for misunderstanding
regarding communications with persons and governmental units or agencies other
than the City Council of Golden Valley. It is essential that members of commissions
understand and observe appropriate policies and practices in this regard.
The essential principle involved is that the Council alone has the responsibility and
authority to adopt the decisions, policies, and recommendations of the City of
Golden Valley. The Council values the opinions and advice of its commissions and
invites the communication of the same to the Council. The Council will take such
opinions and advice into account in formulating the City's official position.
This method of proceeding does not preclude a commission from gathering such
information as may be pertinent to its activities. Commissions are free, without prior
Council approval, to make inquiries and to give necessary background for such
inquiries, but careful consideration must be given that these communications cannot
be reasonably construed as statements of official City policy and opinion.
The matter of distribution of information to the public is one that is not capable of
specific rules of practice. In general, any such communication which purports to, or
has the effect of communicating an official City position or decision, should be
submitted to the Council for prior approval. Other types of communications, which
are purely informational and do no involve unresolved questions of City policy, may
be disseminated without prior Council approval.
6
BY~LAWS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
e
ANNUAL MEETING
Section 1.
The annual meeting of the City Planning Commission shall be the first
regular meeting in March of each year.
REGULAR MEETING
Section 2. Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held at 7pm on the second
and fourth Monday of each month. A majority of the membership of the
Commission shall constitute a quorum. A City staff representative to the
Planning Commission shall serve as Recording Secretary.
SPECIAL MEETING
Section 3. Special meetings may be called by the Chair whenever he/she deems the
same expedient or whenever the three members request the same in writing.
e
Section 4. The members may adjourn from time to time, absentees being notified. If no
quorum is present on the day fixed for a regular, continued or special meeting,
the members present may adjourn until a quorum is obtained, or may adjourn
said meeting without a definite day fixed.
Section 5. Chair or staff shall give personal notice to each commissioner, at least forty-
eight hours previous to any special meeting, of the time, place, and purpose of
the meeting.
Section 6. No business shall be transacted at any special meeting other than that named
in the call thereof, except by consent of two-thirds of the entire Commission,
or by unanimous consent if fewer than two-thirds, but at least a quorum are
present. If such consent is obtained, any measure adopted by a vote of a
quorum shall have the same effect as if adopted at a regular meeting.
ATTENDANCE
Section 7. Staff will maintain a record of those Commission members present and those
absent for each Planning Commission meeting. Each Planning Commission
member is responsible to notify the Planning Staff in the event that he or she
e will not be able to attend a regularly scheduled meeting. Attendance is
(Revised 4/96)
e
required at all meetings. Absence from four (4) consecutive meetings or one-
third (1/3) of the regularly scheduled meetings in anyone year shall constitute
grounds for automatic review of a member's appointment by the Council. It
shall be the Chairperson's responsibility to contact the Commission member
involved and report circumsjances for the absences to the City Council.
CONDUCT OF BUSINESS
Section 8. Meetings shall be called to order by the Chair, or in his/her absence, by the
Vice Chair. In the absence of both, the Secretary shall call the meeting to
order. In the absence of all officers, the senior member present will call the
meeting to order.
Section 9. The minutes of previous meetings shall be submitted for approval and any
errors noted and corrections made, after which, the regular order of business
shall be taken up.
The further order of business, unless otherwise ordered by the Commission,
shall be as follows, and may be shown on the agenda of each regular
meeting:
e
1. Action Items
2. Planning Items
3. Administrative Items
4. Other Business
5. Adiournment
Section 10.
All motions and resolutions offered and/or adopted by the Commission shall
be recorded in writing. If it is desired that more than the substance thereof be
entered in the minutes, the Chair shall so direct the Recording Secretary, who
will incorporate the additional detail~ with the minutes of the meeting.
At the request of any Commissioner, the vote of each commissioner shall be
taken and entered on the record on any question before the Commission.
Election of Officers
e
Section 11. At the annual meeting in March of each year, the Commission shall elect a
Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, and such other offices as it may deem
necessary; but in case of failure to elect at the time specified, the election
shall take place at a subsequent meeting without delay. The Chair, Vice-
Chair, and Secretary shall hold their respective officers until the next annual
meeting after their election, and until their successors are elected and
qualified.
Revised 4/96)
e.
e
e
DUTIES OF THE CHAIR
Section 12. The Chair or designee shall preside at all meetings of the Commission and
may present to the Commission such matters as in his/her judgment require
attention.
When the Commission has not established rules of parliamentary practice, the
Chair shall be guided by Roberts' Rules of Order Revised.
The Chair shall review the Commissioners' attendance records every six
months in both February and August.
The Chair shall exercise a general supervision over the business, papers, and
property of the Commission and shall act as the Commission's Executive
Officer.
The Chair or his/her designated representative shall present to the Council all
Planning Commission recommendations. The Chair shall perform all other
duties as the Commission may prescribe.
The Chair may appoint ad hoc committees unless the Commission shall
otherwise direct, and shall be an additional member ex officio of all
committees. The Chair shall appoint a Planning Commission member to chair
each ad hoc committee.
The Chair is a voting member of the Commission.
DUTIES OF THE VICE CHAIR
Section 13. The Vice Chair shall act for the Chair when the Chair is absent or disabled.
All duties of the Chair's office or as a member of any committee shall
temporarily devolve upon the Vice Chair.
Vice Chair shall perform all other duties the Commission may prescribe.
DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION SECRETARY AND RECORDING SECRETARY
Section 14. The Commission Secretary shall sign the minutes and perform all other duties
the Commission may prescribe.
(Revised 4/96)
e
e
e
In the absence of the Chair and Vice Chair, the Commission Secretary shall
call the meeting to order.
A member of the Planning staff shall attend all meetings and act as Recording
Secretary to the Commission, and shall, in addition, perform all other duties
usually pertaining to this office. He/She shall keep a true and complete record
of all proceedings of the Commission, and have charge of the all books,
documents and papers which properly belong to this office.
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (BZA)
Section 15. It is the option of the Vice Chair to serve as a member of the Board of Zoning
Appeals. Any member of the Planning Commission may serve as the
representative to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
AD HOC COMMITTEES
Section 16. The Chair may appoint ad hoc committees unless the Commission shall
otherwise direct, and shall be an additional member ex officio, of all
committees. The Chair shall appoint a Planning Commission member to chair
each ad hoc committee.
All committees shall consist of at least three members, except as otherwise
ordered by the Commission.
Three members of any committee shall constitute a quorum of such
committee. If a quorum is not present at a meeting, the members present
may prepare reports and submit them to the Planning Commission on behalf
of the committee, in which case the report shall name the committee members
who prepared it.
Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as waiving the rights of the
Commission at any time to increase or curtail the duties of any committee
and/or to direct or control its actions.
AMENDMENTS
Section 17. The above rules and regulations, or any portion thereof, may be suspended
by a majority of the members of the Commission at any regular meeting, or
may be amended or repealed by a two-thirds vote of the entire Commission at
any regular meeting subsequent to the meeting when the same is proposed.
(Revised 4/96)
e
e.
e
MOTION WITH DUTIES OF PLANNING COMMISSION
The ordinance establishing the Planning Commission has several charges and general
duties giving direction to the Commission. The City Council, by motion, approves the
following list of duties which amplifies and/or gives more specific direction to the Planning
Commission.
The Planning Commission shall:
A. Review specific. development proposals made by private developers and public
agencies.
B. Review and make recommendations on proposed rezonings, subdivision plans,
amendments to the zoning text, platting regulations and variances and similar
items having to do with administration and regulatory measures.
C. Conduct special studies dealing with items such as renewal, civic design,
maintenance of a suitable living and working environment, economic conditions,
etc. These studies may be conducted at the initiative of the Planning
Commission and/or specific direction from the City Council.
D. Review major public capital improvement plans against the policy and goals
stated in the Comprehensive Plan for the area.
E. Advise and make recommendations relative to housing, new development, and
redevelopment projects proposed by the HRA prior to the final commitment of
such projects by the HRA. This charge shall also relate to such responsibilities
as:
1. Make recommendations to the City Council and/or HRA on the use of Federal
and State Funds received for housing and community development.
2. Make recommendations to the City Council on the City's participation in other
Federal, State, Metropolitan Council, County and Multi-City Housing and
Community Development programs.
F. Advise and make recommendations in matters relating to and affecting the
environment such as:
1. Taking into account environmental concerns and the impact on the
environment of any Planning Commission recommended action.
2. To cooperate with and coordinate environmental proposals and programs
with other City groups and Federal, State, Metro, County and other municipal
groups.
(Revised 4/96)
e
3. To make such reviews of land reclamation, filling, excavation and grading
applications as are required by City ordinance or referred to the Commission
by the Council; provided that no review or recommendation shall remove or
limit the right of a property owner in accordance with City ordinances and the
statutes and constitution of the State of Minnesota.
.
.
(Revised 4/96)
.'
.
e
It
~
Charge to Golden
Valley Boards and
Commissions
OUR COMMUNITY TODAY AND TOMORROW
Each year we City Council members face the challenge of prioritizing our own
expansive aspirations for the community, and the last few years we have identified three
top goals to focus on. As citizen advisors to the Council, the Boards and Commissions
have an important role in that process.
At the January 25 joint meeting, the City Council addressed a number of issues with the
Boards and Commissions related to Envision and our long-term planning for the future
of the City. We would like to clarify the charge and address issues raised at the
meeting.
Relate the Mission of the Boards and Commissions to Envision
We recommend Boards and Commissions use the following process to identify issues
and prepare recommendations for the City Council.
· Start by reviewing the Vision Guide. The "How To Use This Guide" section on page
3 explains how the Guide is put together and how to best use it.
. Select the Envision categories that seem relevant to the work of your commission
and study the Category Summary and Supporting Themes for each.
. Inventory all of your current activities that meet the aspirations expressed in the
Category Summary and Supporting Themes. Then brainstorm if there are
additional issues not currently being addressed and should be. Keep in mind that
the Sample Ideas are just that; they are not what you are to focus on.
· Present all of this information to the City Council by September 23. The Council will
use your input in its long-term planning, including its goals for 2006 and the 2007
City budget. Your input may make our job even more difficult, with more issues to
consider, but it will benefit the long-term planning for the community.
The Envision Connection Project
At the joint meeting, the Council distributed a list of goal/project activities that Council
believes would enhance the community in ways consistent with Envision. None of thtlSe
activities made it to the final list of Council goals, but the Council hoped one of them
might appeal to a group of concerned Golden Valley residents. We are inviting the
Boards and Commissions to anoint themselves as such a group and spearhead an
effort on an activity related to your mission.
w
.
.
e
"
"
The Envision Connection Project exists not to carry out such activities, but to support
those who wish to do so. This could be by recruiting more volunteers, publicizing
events, and providing other tactical support. If one of these ideas appeals to you as an
individual, or to the whole membership of your Board or Commission, we invite you to
look into exploring next steps with the Connection Project Executive Board. If you want
to consider these ideas further, someone from the Connection Project can attend your
meeting to discuss how to proceed. The Connection Project is still feeling its way. Your
work could provide a prototype for how the Connection Project can work.
Improve Communication Between the City Council and Its Boards and
Commissions
In response to the request for more dialogue between the City Council and the Boards
and Commissions, the Council suggests the following:
. Review the agendas and minutes for all Boards and Commissions, which are
available on the City Web site.
. We will take some time at the annual Boards and Commission dinner to update
everyone on the current activities of each Board and Commission.
. We will hold an annual joint meeting will all of the Boards and Commissions to
present our goals and get feedback on the state of the city and your work. The
Council may hold a joint meeting with an individual Board or Commission
regarding a specific issue as needed. You may wish to initiate such a meeting to
consider the city approach and policies related to a specific Envision aspiration
and how the current City ordinances enhance or restrict it.
Charge to Golden Valley Boards and Commissions- Page 2