06-14-99 PC Agenda
.
.
.
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
Monday, June 14,1999
8:00 p.m.
I.
Approval of Minutes - May 24, 1999
II.
Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision
Applicant:
James and Beverly Lester
Address:
1645 and 1637 Lilac Drive North, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Purpose:
To allow for a minor subdivision of two lots so applicants can
construct a new home on the lot fronting St. Croix Avenue
- SHORT RECESS -
III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council and Board of Zoning Appeals
IV. Other Business
A. Workshop - Discussion concerning the HRA charge to review future
redevelopment in the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area
V. Adjournment
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
,
The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use.
The Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon
the Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning .
Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely
affect the surrounding neighborhood.
The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn,
first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments.
Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along
with the Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision.
With the completion of the informal public hearing(s) there will be a short recess before the
commission continues with the remainder of the agenda.
To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission
will utilize the following procedure:
1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommendation from staff.
Commission members may ask questions of staff.
2. The proponent will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the
Commission.
3.
The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so
indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual
questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak.
Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments.
e
4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair.
Remember, your questions/comments are for the record.
5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer
your questions.
6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the
opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information,
not rebuttal.
7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take
appropriate action.
,
,
e
e
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 24, 1999
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 24, 1999. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:00 p.m.
Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, McAleese and
Shaffer. Commissioner Hoffman was absent. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director
of Planning and Development, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Tammi Hall,
Recording Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - Mav 10. 1999
MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the
May 10, 1999 minutes as submitted.
II. Informal Public Hearina - Rezonina
Applicant:
City of Golden Valley
Address:
845 Meadow Lane, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Purpose:
Rezone the northeast triangle from open development to light
industrial to be used as part of the Animal Humane Society
campus
Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes stated that the Animal Humane
Society (AHS) recently purchased from the Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment
Authority about 2.4 acres that is adjacent to their site to the north and east. He stated
that the eastern 1 acre of this property is former railroad right-of-way which was zoned
Open Development. Grimes stated that the AHS is planning an expansion of their
building and in order to allow this portion of the property to be used by the AHS, the
zoning must be changed from Open Development to Light Industrial, which is the
zoning for the remainder of the AHS property and is consistent with the use. Grimes
stated that all the property currently owned by the AHS (including the property
purchased from the HRA) is guided on the new Comprehensive Plan map as Light
Industrial, so this rezoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map.
Chair Pentel asked where the Hennepin trail will be coming through this area. Grimes
responded that the trail goes north into Theodore Wirth Park to the west of this
property.
.
e
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 24, 1999
Page 2
Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. There were no comments from the
public. Pentel closed the informal public hearing.
Shaffer stated that he would abstain from voting on this item and the next agenda item
due to a perceived conflict of interest.
MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to
recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Open Development to
Light Industrial as requested. Shaffer abstained from voting.
III. Informal Public Hearina - Preliminary Desian Plan Review - Animal Humane
Society. Planned Unit Develooment (PUD) No. 84
Applicant:
Animal Humane Society
Address:
845 Meadow Lane
Purpose:
Preliminary Design Plan review of PUD No. 84 which allows for
more than one structure on a lot
Grimes stated that the Animal Humane Society (AHS) has been located in Golden
Valley since the 1930s. He indicated that since their main building was constructed in
the early 1960s, many improvements have been made to meet the expanding needs for
the humane treatment of animals in the metro area and the state. Grimes stated that
the AHS would now like to expand their facility to better serve the public. He indicated
that AHS must apply for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) since the property will
have more than one building and use on the site. He stated that the expansion will
include a 29,000 square foot building addition to the north side of the existing building.
It will also include the construction of a separate 5,600 square foot storage building to
the north of the main building and just south of the railroad tracks. Grimes stated that
the cell tower located on the property creates the second use of the property. He
stated that the cell tower property is owned by AHS with the understanding that the
HRA has the right to lease the property for cell tower purposes. Grimes stated that the
proposed expansion includes additional parking which will be added on the site and a
memorial garden which will be developed at a later time. Grimes stated that the entire
site is approximately 5.6 acres including the 2.4 acres that the AHS bought from the
Golden Valley HRA. He indicated that the sale was approved by the HRA with the
understanding that the AHS would improve the site as is now proposed. Grimes stated
that the main entrance to the AHS was originally off France Avenue. He indicated that
when redevelopment occurred in this area, the access for the AHS was changed to
Meadow Lane. As a result, the former France Avenue was divided down the center
.
e
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 24, 1999
Page 3
with half of the street becoming the property of the Minneapolis Park Board and half the
property of the AHS. The actual street remains and is used as a driveway by AHS with
the permission of the Minneapolis Park Board, though no formal written agreement is in
place. Grimes indicated that there have been informal discussions with the Park Board
regarding selling their half of France Avenue but nothing has been seriously pursued at
this point. Grimes also stated that the City will be considering, in the near future, a
request by AHS to vacate Sunnyridge Lane. He indicated that City staff will be
recommending in favor of this vacation with easements maintained for utility purposes.
He indicated that this would allow AHS to add land to their campus and provide better
security to the site. He indicated that this vacation will probably be considered by the
City Council prior to General Plan approval. Grimes stated that one of the issues for
the AHS in regard to the vacation of Sunnyridge Lane is the P.U.D. requirement that the
property have 100 feet of frontage on a public street. He indicated that AHS would
probably have at least 100 feet of access onto Meadow Lane North. In regard to the
parking, Grimes stated that the AHS is somewhat short on parking as required by code,
but they are proposing to do a proof of parking on the site which would allow them to
meet and possibly exceed the parking requirements. He indicated that parking on the
current site has not been a problem. AHS has agreements in place with surrounding
properties to use their parking if needed during peak times, typically evenings and
weekends. Grimes referred to the May 19 memo from Jeff Oliver, City Engineer in
regard to drainage issues on the site. He indicated that the AHS has agreed to do
whatever is necessary to comply with City requirements in this area. Grimes stated that
the issues in regard to drainage must be resolved prior to General Plan approval.
Grimes indicated that staff recommends approval of the PUD with the following
conditions:
1. All recommendations of the memo from Jeff Oliver, City Engineer, to Mark
Grimes, Planning Director, dated May 19, 1999 shall become a part of this
approval.
2. The memo to Mark Grimes from Gary Johnson, Building Official, dated May 12,
1999 shall become part of this approval.
3. The memo to Mark Grimes from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, dated May
13, 1999 shall become part of this approval.
4. Upto 50 parking spaces may be "proof of parking". These spaces shall be
constructed when the Director of Planning and Development deems they are
necessary to meet increased parking demand on the site.
5.
A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted as part of the General Plan of
Development.
.
e
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 24, 1999
Page 4
6. After the General Plan of Development is approved, AHS will be required to
submit a plat of the property which shall show all necessary utility easements as
required by the City Engineer.
7. No building shall be more than two stories in height.
Chair Pentel stated that a crematorium would be included in the new facility. She
asked if the AHS currently has a crematorium on the site. Grimes stated that cremation
is not currently done on the site. Pentel asked if there are specific City codes relating to
the operation of a crematorium for animals. Grimes stated that this would have to be
reviewed by the City Sanatarian. Pentel also asked if the proposed memorial
. garden/pet cemetery could be allowed in light industrial zoning. Grimes stated that the
memorial garden will contain only ashes and will not be a pet cemetery.
Commissioner Eck asked about the access to the cell tower. Grimes stated that the cell
tower site will be accessed from the north side with a secondary access on the west
side. He indicated that this change has been discussed with AT&T and the lease has
been altered to reflect this change.
Commissioner Groger asked about the status of the vacation of Sunnyridge Lane.
Grimes responded that this process has not yet been initiated. Groger stated he was
uncomfortable recommending approval when the proposal includes proof of parking
that is located on land that is not yet owned by the AHS. Grimes responded that the
City does not expect any opposition to the vacation of Sunnyridge Lane. He indicated
that the City would maintain whatever easements were needed for maintenance of the
pond.
Commissioner McAleese asked if AHS will be subject to the newly established drainage
control and tree preservation ordinances. Grimes stated that they will not be subject to
these ordinances since their application was received prior to the establishment of
these ordinances.
AI Stensrud, Executive Director of the Animal Humane Society provided a brief
overview of the facilities that will be added in the expansion. He indicated that the
expansion will include additional holding spaces for cats and dogs, a spay/neuter clinic,
behavioral training classroom space, doggie daycare center, garage space,
crematorium, storage, staff locker rooms and additional office space. The proposed
memorial garden will be added at a later date.
Dan Gallagher with Mjorud.Architecture provided a brief overview of the proposed
expansion. He displayed a rendering of the building identifying how each area will be
used. He indicated that there will also be some minor interior remodeling of the existing
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 24, 1999
Page 5
facility. He stated the materials and motifs of the existing building will be used in the
addition and the new building to provide continuity between the old structure and the
new structures. He stated that the main access to the building will continue to be off
Meadow Lane.
Commissioner Eck asked about the north entrance to the building. Gallagher
responded that the north entrance will be used by people who are using the services
located at that end of the building. Stensrud stated that AHS has 77 employees. He
indicated that no more than 35 employees are at the facility at anyone time. He
indicated that the additional parking proposed with the expansion should be more than
adequate to meet the needs of the AHS.
Pentel asked about the location of the trash facility. Gallagher identified the location of
the trash area and indicated that it is enclosed.
Commissioner Groger asked if the crematorium produces any odor or smoke. Stensrud
responded that it has passed pollution control regulations in all states. He indicated
that there should not be any smoke or odor from the crematorium.
e
Commissioner Groger asked if the AHS has conducted discussions with the
Minneapolis Park Board regarding a formal written agreement in regard to the use of
the former France Avenue driveway area. Stensrud responded that a formal
agreement has not been pursued.
Chair Pentel opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the public.
Pentel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Groger stated that he would be voting against this proposal. He
indicated that he felt there were too many unresolved issues to proceed. He stated he
was concerned with the lack of a formal agreement with the Minneapolis Park Board
regarding the use of the former France Avenue property. He also cited his concern
regarding the approval of proof of parking which is located on property that is not yet
owned by the AHS. He added that with the vacation of Sunnyridge Lane, it is uncertain
as to whether the AHS has 100 feet of frontage on a public street.
Commissioner Eck stated that he felt that it was likely that these issues will be resolved
prior to General Plan approval.
Commissioner McAleese stated that he agreed that there are some problems that need
to be resolved but since the City is involved in some of the issues he was not
concerned that they would present a serious obstacle. He stated that the ownership
e
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 24, 1999
Page 6
issue with France Avenue is the most troublesome but in a worst case scenario it would
probably not create a problem that could not be resolved.
Chair Pentel stated that she was in favor of the proposal but suggested that
Commissioner Groger's concerns be included in the Commission's recommendation
and that these issues be resolved before the proposal goes to the City Council.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to
recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary design plan review for
Planned Unit Development No. 84 as requested, with the condition that the following
issues be resolved prior to General Plan approval:
. establishment of a formal written agreement in regard to AHS use of the
portion of vacated France Avenue which is owned by the Minneapolis Park
Board.
. the vacation of Sunnyridge Lane
. determination of AHS frontage on Meadow Lane
Shaffer abstained from voting.
e IV. Informal Public Hearing - Draft - Transportation Plan
Jeff Oliver, City Engineer, Jeannine Clancy, City Public Works Director and Merlin
Thorne, City Utility Supervisor were present for the informal public hearings on the
Transportation and Wastewater Plans.
Grimes reviewed the executive summary from the transportation plan and briefly
reviewed the transportation map.
Commissioner Eck asked about the language change recommended by the
Commission in regard to Laurel Avenue. Grimes responded that this wording will be
changed prior to City Council review.
Commissioner McAleese asked why the KARE 11 heliport was not included in the
aviation section. Knoblauch responded that this listing does not include private
heliports. She added that the heliport is no longer located at KARE 11.
Pentel indicated that she felt the plan should include an objective of developing a safe
pedestrian crossing area on Highway 55. Clancy responded that this could be added to
the plan as a potential objective without identifying a specific location. She indicated
this would give the City the opportunity to address the issue and determine the best
e solution.
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 24,1999
Page 7
Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. There were no comments from the
public. Pentel closed the informal public hearing.
Pentel stated that there will also be a public hearing on the transportation plan before
the City Council.
MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to
recommend to the City Council approval of the Transportation Plan with the following
revisions:
· change in language regarding laurel Avenue as a local collector from
Pennsylvania Avenue to Winnetka Avenue
· addition of an objective addressing a safe pedestrian crossing area on
Highway 55 near Schaper Drive.
V. Informal Public Hearina - Draft - Wastewater Plan
e
Grimes provided a brief introduction to the plan. He stated that the main purpose of the
plan is to guide the rehabilitation and maintenance of the system. He indicated that
Golden Valley has a large number of metropolitan systems that go through the City.
Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. There were no comments from the
public. Pentel closed the informal public hearing.
McAleese stated that both the wastewater and transportation plans are available for
review at the library or at City Hall. Knoblauch stated that a public hearing on these
plans will also be held at the City Council meeting in June.
MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to
recommend to the City Council approval of the Wastewater Plan.
VI. Renorts on Meetinas of the Housing and Redevelonment Authority. City
Council and Board of Zonina Anneals
Pentel reported on the HRA meeting. She indicated that there were discussions
regarding the possibility of forming a task force to look at the process for redevelopment
of the property where the printing company is located in the Golden Hills area. Pentel
reported that Mayor Anderson had suggested that the Planning Commission may want
e to address this issue, as well as other redevelopment along the 394 corridor. Grimes
.
e
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 24, 1999
Page 8
stated that the original intent was to allow Olympic Printing to redevelop their own
property. However, Duke has indicated an interest in developing this area. Pentel
stated that the City is wrestling with the issue of who should have control of the
process. Grimes suggested that Planning Commission members review the video tape
of the HRA meeting. He stated that the City Council would like the Planning
Commission to respond in July with a strategy for addressing redevelopment in the 394
corridor. Pentel suggested that an HRA representative attend the next Planning
Commission meeting to participate in this discussion. Grimes indicated that he would
send each commissioner a copy of the video tape of the HRA meeting that they can
view prior to the next meeting.
Shaffer reported that the Xenia Advisory Committee will be meeting on May 25 for the
last time to review some changes in the drawings that were approved for bid requests.
Grimes stated that the Mayor will also be contacting Pentel regarding Planning
Commission members who wish to serve on the Housing Task Force.
McAleese reported briefly on the last City Council meeting. He indicated that the Land
Use portion of the Comprehensive plan will now be forwarded to the Metropolitan
Council.
Pentel and Eck adjusted their schedules in regard to attendance at City Council
meetings. Eck will attend the June 1st and June 8th meetings. Pentel will attend the
June 14th and July 13th meeting.
VII. Other Business
A. Reschedule June 14,1999 Planning Commission Meeting
It was decided that the Planning Commission meeting would be held on
June 14 in the Council Conference Room.
Pentel requested an updated roster of Planning Commission members.
VII. Adiournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Richard Groger, Secretary
e
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
e
e
June 8, 1999
Planning Commission
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Informal Public Hearing on Minor Subdivision of Two
Parcels - 1645 and 1637 Lilac Drive North - James and
Beverly Lester, Applicant
Description of Request
James and Bev~rly Lester have requested a minor subdivision of the property at
1635 and 1637 Lilac Drive North. The total square footage of the land to be
subdivided is approximately 48,000 sq.ft. in area. The 1635 lot is currently owned
by the Lesters and is the location of their existing home. The Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will be acquiring the east half
(approximately) of the property (including the house) sometime this year in order
to make way for an improved TH 100. MnDOT has already acquired the lot that is
at 1637 Lilac Drive and the house is in the process of being moved off the lot.
The purpose of the minor subdivision is to create two new, smaller lots to the west
of the existing lots. Proposed Lot 1 will be directly west of the existing Lester
house and will be about 11,900 sq.ft. in area. The Lesters plan to construct a new
house on this lot starting this summer or fall. Proposed Lot 2 is the remaining
property owned by MnDOT. This lot is approximately 15,500 sq.ft. in area. At this
time, MnDOT does not have plans to sell Lot 2 until after completion of TH 100.
The proposed minor subdivision will also include the additional right-of-way for TH
100 to the east of each of the proposed lots. This right-of-way area is about
20,000 sq.ft. in area. (MnDOT has purchased other lots to the south of the Lester
property along Lilac Drive for TH 100 construction. These other acquisitions have
not required property to be subdivided in order to create new building lots.)
This subdivision is necessary because the rear half or west half of the Lester
property, that will not be taken by MnDOT, is not large enough for a single-family
lot. Originally the Lesters thought they could just build a new house on the west
half of their existing lot that MnDOT would not buy. However, because this is a
comer lot, comer lots must have at least 100 feet of frontage. The existing Lester
lot is only about 85-90 feet wide. When the Lesters found out about this problem,
they met with the City and MnDOT to consider possible alternatives. One
suggestion was to add about a 20-foot wide strip to the south side of their
property. This would create a lot that was over 10,000 sq.ft. in area and have the
minimum 100 feet of lot width. MnDOT agreed to sell this 20-foot strip to the City
e
in order that it could be turned over to the Lesters. (MnDOT had already acquired
the 1637 property for TH 100 right-of-way.) However, the only way that the 20-
foot wide strip of property can be added on to the Lester property is to go through
the subdivision process.
Qualification as a Minor Subdivision
Technically, this subdivision does not qualify as a minor subdivision. However,
staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
that a variance be granted to allow this to be considered a minor subdivision.
This is an unusual situation due to the partial taking of the Lester property by
MnDOT. The Lesters have worked with MnDOT for the past year or more to try to
find a solution that would allow them to remain in essentially the same location.
(The location is very important to the Lesters due to the home occupation that
they run from the home.)
The subdivision code requires that a subdivision meet three tests in order to be
considered a minor subdivision. In this case, the Lester subdivision meets two of
the three tests. The following are the conditions for minor subdivision eligibility
and staff comment:
1. The land to be subdivided or consolidated must be part of a recorded plat or a
recorded Registered Land Survey (RLS). In this case, the property is part of
two government lots that are not considered a plat or RLS. Because of the
detailed information that has been submitted by the Lesters and MnDOT
regarding this subdivision, staff believes there would be no benefit from
requiring additional information to be submitted which is required with the full
subdivision procedure.
2. Subdivisions shall be limited to the creation of four or fewer lots. In this case,
the Lester/MnDOT minor subdivision consists of two lots.
3. The subdivision shall not necessitate any additional public investment in new
roads or utilities that serve the site. In this case, St. Croix Avenue serves the
proposed lot where the Lesters will build. Utility services are also available
from St. Croix Avenue. It is true that the subdivision will dedicate right-of-way
for the TH 100 frontage road. However, this plat by itself will not require any
additional public investment for new roads or utilities to serve either of the lots.
MnDOT will do all new road construction.
Conditions for Approval of Denial
There are several conditions that the City must consider when evaluating the
proposed minor subdivision. Those that are pertinent to this subdivision are listed
below with staff comment:
1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the
requirements of the existing zoning district. Both the lots that are to be
created by the minor subdivision meet the requirements of the zoning code
covering the Residential zoning district.
2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the
lots are not buildable. In this case, the City Engineer has reviewed the
proposed subdivision and he believes that the lots are buildable.
e
e
2
e
3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there is not sewer and water
connections available. In this case, both lots have available sewer and water
service.
4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain
easements to the City or other agencies. The final plat would show all
necessary easements as required by the City Engineer.
5. If public agencies other than the City have jurisdiction over the minor
subdivision, the agencies will be given an opportunity to comment. In this
case, MnDOT is the only other agency that would comment and they are a
part of the proposed minor subdivision. As part of the upgrading of TH 100,
the frontage road to the east of both lots will be improved. Access to the
south lot will be from the frontage road. Eventually, this frontage road will be
turned over to the City. Until that time, MnDOT must approve all driveway
access points. Since there are no MnDOT plans to immediately sell the south
lot, this is not an issue at this time. It should be noted that there will be a
sound wall built along the TH 100. The wall will be located between the
southbound lane of TH 100 and the east side of the frontage road.
6. The City may ask for a review of title if required by the City Attorney due to the
dedication of certain easements or street right-of-way. The City Attorney will
make the decision regarding the need for a title opinion prior to final plat
approval.
7. The minor subdivision may be subject to park dedication. The policy of the
City has been that there will be no park dedication required if the new
subdivision does not create any new lots for development. In this case, the
number of building lots remains the same.
Variance Request
As stated above, the approval of this minor subdivision shall require a variance
from the subdivision code in order to qualify as a minor subdivision. The
Subdivision Code states that the Council may grarit variances as long as there is
a finding that the following conditions are met:
1. There is a special circumstances for conditions affecting said property so that
the strict application of the provision of the Subdivision Code would create an
unusual hardship and deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land.
Economic difficulty or inconvenience shall not constitute a hardship situation.
2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the petitioner.
3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other property in the neighborhood in which said property is
situated.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision and the variance needed to
permit this to go forward as a minor subdivision rather than a standard
subdivision. This is an unusual situation created by the taking of property by
MnDOT for the expansion of TH 100. Both MnDOT and the Lesters have worked
hard to reach an agreement regarding the creation of a new, conforming lot for
the new Lester house. The information that has been submitted by both the
e
e
3
.
Lesters and MnDOT provide the City with adequate information to allow this to go
forward as a minor subdivision. If this is approved, as a minor subdivision by the
City Council, a final plat, subject to all the requirements of the Subdivision Code
must be prepared by the Lesters prior to any building permit being issued on the
north lot (Lot 1).
It should be noted that the two lots that are created by this minor subdivision
exceed the requirements of the zoning code for lot size in the residential zoning
district. Staff believes that the new lots will be good residential lots due to the
upgrading of TH 100 and the eventual construction of the sound wall.
Staff is recommending the following conditions for approval of the minor
subdivision:
1. A final plat be prepared that is in conformity with the minor subdivision sketch
plan that was submitted with the minor subdivision application.
2. Certain easements may be required on the final plat as required by the
Subdivision Code and the City Engineer.
3. There shall be no park dedication required as part of this subdivision since
no additional lots are being created.
4. The variance to allow this subdivision to be considered as a minor
subdivision is approved.
e
Attachments:
· Location Map
Proposed drawing of location of house on Lot 1
MnDot letter and parcel sketch submitted to the Lesters
Drawing submitted by MnDOT showing the two proposed lots
.
4
e
. III") 141 L
):
~-
.....v
~-
N.,-st~I"[ ZIl,5Z ·
660$-96 DfJI.UrH ST
u 'S!l~:~........
40 ~ '1_
:,.
...
;,.
a
,..'0
.,.-
0..
....
~ N - 1:~ Z05 -:..._
S .; on ,'" .
m JI':. "4 ..... ~ :
..J ... .,. ..
en...... . -'~ ----'" !........!lP... ::
- ~ ,'4 .....'j ...
.9 CD ~EFUL-:;' . ... IT
> .,~ .::
8 ..OCO 9 .....'-
" ~m N~:a
121 AZA; ~ '0 en '7/0 . r' ~
rl.. '0 c _ .,.
coca; ,
en en u ,.
o CO.- 14'...
D.e-
eca8:
fL-,c(
4CT
.
l\O-
,-
-
.:
.:
...
...
~ 118S.;
::.... PAR'
~-- --
"0
HIPPS
CrO~4.fAX~tll
40 ': /Ill
e
\1,?Jta
A
.,
,
. ..~~"
~
I'.
.
'i~
~~
r
'. '.. ~~ ,
:c . .
.
I~"
I ..
..
...
"
.
_j" ~O
u. 10
.,' ,'"
t J:
....
~
+
'N
IM.J j'
z,=--_ _ _ _ _ __~
, ...-
.:.;...: !-' I
t. .. :0 .. I
I~"": .- I
'!.tJ ~I':'
..... ------".
I;..;.... .~ ~~
......
, ' ..
J4' - '(.~.f-
L_________
~ S"..}'W
.
.
'...
\';
:0
'~::
.. :
. .....
I
'J"-
.,..
,..,
1'00
~, ::
!::
I
~
41
or.-
,.
-
....
! '" '0
!-.
....
e
e
e
Approximate location of new heme cn ~roPQsed let.
House will face s~. Croix AvenU8.
119,60
o
o
'.0
o
,--l
'". . -- . '''-.-. -- 50 '
----~;..
I
,-___ __--1
I
-------.- -------
"1\ \
\
I
35'
I
i
I
...~
111.55
St. C:..-e; ix A venL:e
0'1':
20'
.:..1
Fm Rm
1 4x 2 2
House
30 x 50
Ii
I_~__-!
i
!
1
i
"':,- 1 5 '-;' ;
i
~-
L()
N
o
o
,--l
.
e
e
'~\lNUo11:t
I '\
\1 rJ
~ OF TV~'"
\., <... - t'\tcAJ,L~~ "'" /
.
~.~
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road 82
Roseville, MN 55113
r!i)[? fru fr1nnf7r:1
: --- -- i.L.uuul r f0
;i MAR 2119~}'11
U lli:::::-or::=:;o.-;n-r:J/! .
----_________......_ ~ l-.JG
-----..---....
March 18, 1999
Jeff Oliver, P.E.
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427
RE: S.P.2735-134 TH 100
James A. Lester Property Information
Dear Jeff:
Enclosed is a copy of the Mn/DOT Right-of-Way parcel sketch for the James A. Lester property.
This is the most recent information regarding this parcel. The permanent taking is shown in red,
temporary easement is shown in green.
If you have any questions regarding this matter or need additional information, please contact me
at (651)582-1316.
Sincerely,
~~
Ron Rauchle, P .E.
TH 100 Final Design Project Engineer
M~esota Department of Transportation
Water's Edge Building
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113-3105
An equal opportunity employer
[NNESOT A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORIA IlON ,~~
~pogrophlo InformatIon requlredl Proposed R/W line & aocess taking. Lot lInes & dimensIons.
10W north arrow. Outline & location of buIldIngs & Improvements. Streets or hIghway frontage.
e. P. 2735-134 <100=130-23) COUNTY HENNEPIN
OWNER Jomes Alon Lester et 01.
PARCEL NO. 230H
Sca leI cm = 10 m
I
0 ~
0
-
+
(}")
-
I J
0 ~
c I
I
. [
J :
I
I
r-J.
iJ
--'
:>- ) ~
. i 0 I I 't, \ITO)n - *...) \CSJ \
.. J / I \ \Jt> 0) N I
o 0/ I ~\Tr . PJR 230Hi:?o,-l
/ / \'P'I
___~---- _-1- L-- _ _______ -1 ",,\ fl rL
o (; '... ~6 x -
~ ~ '- ~4 ) ~ ,xJ m - -: 1-
00 ~ - * * * * 0 * \ 0 ~ I~
_ _ ~ v @ -1 Lxc 0 ~ (~ ).c-
0\0
\ I
-- ----------0 \ J
----------- -
I
-- -----------~ 6--------\:.- - \-;i
2 /" Xc l..j I" r-
@ ~I_- <: -~--
,.J.. - - - 0
J I Z
o I
\
{>
t I
I ~,~ :
.______--------- - ~4 )
> GJ[) 0 0 ()(l[(> 00 0 0 p'
I ~ I \:i
\ ; ~ \ \: [~
\PE MANE ~T ~AL\Lt- :(?
* J EASEt~E~~':
-=LJ __----- :>H) b3nC A; I, '
_ _ _ _ _ _T-.-f--. -PA-R7 -zmc ~ ,~ '"'-
ev v v v v V v v v__~...... , 3
ST eRO X AVF. ~......"-":\~D.m'-~
~'-.L ~.,
\.:T
I.E. IN RD.---
T-BUR
:: ~m_~_ ~
/
o
~/J
J~
o
I
* II
Layout sketch by OEM
l~
c
,\
'-
o
o
~~-
~
o
o
.-I
/
I
I--
o
o
o
j, .
;;;u{!
/
'2l\
-j 0
"- I
OJ
, C
"- ::0
"- ,;,
.r...
'-J
r-- ~I
--;Q -I'
.....,
I
I ~
)
I
o
IX:
.....
.....
~ IX: 0
a:: 0
<t <:j?-
-j + co
I rr ~
OJ Z I""'l
C oct
::0 -
0
.....
::E
o
I 0
J
o
()
h (~ v~ J ,
~ fa
Date 8/2q/q8
Parcel No. 230H
I
I
I
(. :
I
~ I
(~
~ \\::-~
IrI
~~;~
.c (-.j I
~ 13/
- I
~'~-
it
[
~;'f-
~ .,
,
! t 0
- '1_
i.i1
-. It
I
,
I
~
'.~SOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
.. ------- ---.. - --
.opographlc InformatIon reQUlredl Proposed R/W lIne & access takIng. LOT lInes & dImensIons.
Show north arrow. OutlIne & locatIon of buildIngs & Improvements. Streets or hIghway frontage
\'--1
"1'
.
S. P. 2735-134 (100=130-23) COUNTY HENNEPIN
OWNER Jomes Alon Lester et 01.
PARCEL NO. 230H
Sca leI cm = 10
~
....
m
cl ~11 ~ 1!~1 1 '1 1
----------- aJ:D00 -;- 0 p~ 4 )
CO CDJ>- 00 I.
V 0 ,..: a
-------..., \\~"
'--------- I II rt:
i ~~
---,~--- ~-;l 1.~~~r~ll\
~ I ~ ~-Ql~I, ,..J
.......~ 0 a! ' CI
\-- ~ d ~ I I: ~\
~ .~ I ~ I I ~ .
--J c..u:. - I f~ ~ i '
~ \PEI MANt ~T A L:- :( 1
* J EASE ~D I I ~
-- ---- --- ;)AQ 3Rc ~; /.' (
_ - - _T-& -?*R7 -"\:roc::Tf) ,~ '-
~.- y -. ..y. '\... .. .. T ~ ~ "" "".... , 3'
. S 1 eRG x "A y~~"" I ':-.c."r~~m;~
T. E. IN RD.-f- ~ ~:' \ "" '\.I-C'"
f ) ,~ b '1\ :: - ~.. ~ ' ,.
~e..]: 0 If' ~ t1"O'm"'~'" ~l"O~n~' i\
t- I j \ ~J6 o~ <~. ....;:;::'\ ~ '
I 0 (; / I ) ~!J &J ~ .:' 0 '::' ~ .
I / JLlJ = . ~._, ..-....\~~ ,:..,
~1. r ~I J' I I_\. 'C .:, "':';: ~ :t~..: .... ~. I
----L---M-- ,- t.--=---~------(_ ~;. "~n :~:.-, ~.i' _ -:-__
o 13[1 ~4) ~~-~~":"r- I - _ -.~ _1'
- *1 I
00 r * * * 0 ~) ~ f-
9 ,~* I -
_ - .~ ::: m _I L"~t;'~~l. ';:; , I ~
--- --------~ ~ ----------- - ~ \ ~ .J': '
--- -----------~1-6--------t.7 - ~ I ;;t
2 .....hC' 7 ~ I r' I
~ ~ ~I__., -~-f-
'i:7 0 ..J- _ ~ ~
/ I 0 +
~O/iJo ~.~~ n: ili
/ I I
...i i. ,II b' ~l ",. i..... I'
* (~; I
. < . ! J
~-
layout sketch by OEM
\~
/
)
I 1 ,.. L 'I
.: .' f-I'\' '"
. . ~
-':y/
:- ';:-'" 0'\
II;' .. .
c
1\
3
cO
~
~\
o
~~- ~
~ .))J
, 1\
\..
,.:;....
c '\u
'-i
:;
"'>
~
f
..,
~
s'l
.(:
'-I
-
D
\
I
I
,
(
I 0
I
I 0
i ......-4
I
, ::c
!
! I- c.
I c
I 0
) ;,
=.Ill
.~
l
I ex:
l.IJ
-
ex: 0
ex: 0
..:.. < ~-
co
I ......
Z l"')
<
-
0
w
::E
c
Date S/Zq/qS
c
t! ...
! ;
o
Q
.
~
-
-+
0'>
-
b -I
a
J
I" -
I
I
!
r-
j
I, (
I \
I
U.
.,
(
~
...
/
'~i~
uJ,..J "
is f-
,: Ie It (
I t. ,
: rd
I ~
,
I
,
t
I ~
I~
I ~
i
I
I
j
I
j
i
I '~
~
~
~1,1
3- ~
I
J t
~ 'f.
e '1
-; ~
;
Parcel No. 230H
e
PRELIMINARY PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT,
1-394 CORRIDOR LAND USE STUDY DESIGN CHARGE
e
The Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has charged the
Planning Commission to design a public-participation process for determining
desired future land uses in an area abutting 1-394. The HRA's sphere of activities
covers only established redevelopmentlhousing areas or projects. The site that
triggered the request for Commission involvement is the "Olympic Printing" block at
the northwest corner of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive, which is in a
redevelopment area. The draft land use element of the City's comprehensive plan,
however, already sets out a broader objective of considering land use issues
throughout the 1-394 corridor at some time within the next 3-5 years.
The Commission divided its charge into six related tasks:
. Definition of appropriate study area boundaries;
. Identification of interested parties ("stakeholders");
. Establishment of an overall study process;
. Estimation of time needed to complete the study;
. Description of final product form and content; and
. Outlining of basic budget needs for the study itself.
In working through these tasks over the course of two extended Planning
Commission meetings, it became clear to Commissioners that most of them can
only be addressed on a preliminary basis until the Commission is able to obtain
additional information on two points.
e
The first point is the possibility of ongoing HRA or other City involvement in long-
term community development activities throughout the area after the study is done.
Involvement might mean many things, including but not necessarily limited to
establishing a new redevelopment area for tax increment financing or other HRA
purposes, prioritizing targeted locations for City infrastructure improvements or
public amenities, contributing regularly to a pool of funds reserved for the fair
market purchase and turnaround of key properties as opportunities arise, or setting
up a City funding source for aesthetic improvements by area businesses and
property owners. The likelihood of public financial support will have a bearing on
the scope of "visioning" and other study efforts it might be realistic to undertake. If
there is little or no chance of direct HRAlCity sponsorship of area improvement
projects arising from the study, then the appropriate public process and final product
should be limited accordingly. Conversely, as the will to commit long-term HRAlCity
resources increases, it becomes reasonable to include a broader and more detailed
range of study considerations. Before submitting a final recommendation regarding
its charge, and even before executing any of the preliminary recommendations
sketched out below, the Planning Commission thus requests a meeting with the City
Council/HRA to determine the likelihood of committing to these or other options staff
e might be able to suggest.
The second point is the public understanding of assets and/or deficiencies in the
subject area as it exists today. If this is to be a truly participatory process, then
public input should begin at a very early stage. Therefore, rather than having the
Commission or outside experts make an up-front identification of issues or concerns
for subsequent public reaction, the Commissioners recommend a preliminary phase
of study in which members of the public are empowered and encouraged to
contribute toward a consensus view of area issues or concerns. That view in turn
would provide a focus for the rest of the process. The full recommendations of the
Planning Commission with regard to the HRA's charge would be finalized after
conclusion of the preliminary study phase.
For the six related tasks making up the HRA's charge, Commissioners have
formulated the following preliminarx recommendations.
e
APPROPRIATE STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES-The HRA's targeted
block cannot be properly evaluated on its own; it is an integral part of a larger
area which will flourish or fail as a whole over time. Also, while this is to be a
future land use study and recommendation, there are potential infrastructure
and quality of life impacts that may also positively or negatively affect nearby
properties where no land use changes are contemplated. Thus, the Planning
Commission finds a two-tiered study area to be most appropriate.
The Core Study Area should comprise all properties where long-term
changes in land use are being considered. With two exceptions, it should
generally include lands bounded by:
1-394 on the south;
Laurel Avenue on the north;
Rhode Island on the west; and
Turner's Crossroad and Circle Down on the east.
Exceptions are the single family homes on Circle Downs and the designated
redevelopment area sites for which HRA activities are already completed or
in process; all such properties should instead be included in the second tier.
The Potential Impact Area should generally include everything lying outside
the Core Study Area but within the limits of:
1-394 on the south;
Highway 55 on the north;
Brookview Park/Golf Course on the west; and
Highway 100 on the east.
e
2
.
INTERESTED PARTIES-Public participation should be drawn from a
variety of stakeholders or other potentially interested parties. Details of
participation will be fleshed out on the basis of the preliminary process steps
identified below. At minimum, the full process should seek to involve:
Core Study Area business owners and managers as well as property
owners/landlords;
Potential Impact Area residents and property owners, which should
include encouraging apartment owners and other landlords to send
any notices along to all tenants, as well as encouraging churches,
schools, and other facilities to select interested delegates;
Citywide residents and property owners via at least one public hearing
or other public forum (city survey, comments solicited at web site, et
cetera); and
The Development Community via at least one presentation on current
metro area development trends and appropriate area market
demographics, most likely from a "full-service" outfit such as Duke,
Opus, or United Properties; and at least one presentation from
professionals in development-related, but design-oriented, fields.
e
THE STUDY PROCESS, PRELIMINARY PHASE-Using the outcome of
the joint meeting on long-term City/HRA financial commitment as a guide to
an appropriate level of effort, the process should begin with collection and
presentation of data on existing conditions.
Step 1, Data Collection: For the Core Study Area, this effort should be
similar but not necessarily identical to what Commissioners did in a
1989-90 1-394 corridor study and report. Factors examined at that
time included fairly specific land uses, general City Code violations,
general appearance, property ownership patterns, location/ access
issues, environmental constraints, and existing plans/studies
(including traffic analyses). For the Potential Impact Area, somewhat
less detailed information would be collected, with emphasis on land
uses and linkages with or buffering from the Core Study Area.
Step 2, Data Presentation: The data collected, along with a concise
statement of the study's purpose, should be made public in a variety of
ways. If at all possible, early notice of the upcoming study should go
out in a City newsletter. As a "kick-off' event, the City CounciVHRA
and Planning Commission should host a joint public meeting, which
should be cable-cast, to present the information and take comments or
suggestions for shaping Phase Two of the process. Coverage of the
meeting by the local Sun Post newspaper would certainly be helpful,
but a "preview" article, or a guest column by the Planning Commission
or HRAlCity Council, to generate interest before the meeting would be
even better. The information presented at the meeting should remain
available in a special section of the official City web site throughout the
e
3
.
entire process, along with appropriate updates, notices of any work
sessions or other open meetings, and a place for submitting additional
comments or suggestions.
Step 3, Public Input on Area Assets/Deficiencies: As noted in Step 2,
the data presentation meeting should be a forum for public input; it
should not be the only such forum, however. Some people lack confi-
dence about speaking in public, especially when the cameras are on.
Others may have physical conditions or appointment conflicts making it
difficult or impossible to attend the meeting. The City's official web site
has also been identified as a useful forum; for this preliminary step, a
response deadline should be posted along with the other study infor-
mation. Most importantly, the City should sponsor a mailed survey
with summary information about the study and specific questions on
perceived area assets or deficiencies. At minimum, the survey should
be sent to all property owners in both the Core Study Area and the
Potential Impact Area, accompanied by a request that it be passed on
to all tenants as well. Question-drafting help from survey research
experts is strongly recommended (the same questions can also be
used at the joint presentation and web site). If budgeting is a concern,
the survey response need not be professionally monitored to a level of
scientific accuracy, though that would be the preferred option.
Step 4, Completion of Study Design: Using everything accomplished
in Steps 1-3, the Planning Commission will expand as necessary on
its preliminary recommendations for any of the six identified tasks, and
will submit final recommendations on the study process itself and the
nature of its desired product.
e
--'
e
STUDY TlMEFRAME at FINAL PRODUCT FORM AND CONTENT-
Alternatives for both of these tasks vary widely, depending on the outcome of
other tasks. They can be summarized as two options, representing the ends
of a spectrum.
Option A: At its most basic level, the process could be very similar to the
one already used for site-specific amendments to the City's Comprehensive
Land Use Plan Map. The standard plan amendment process is a suitable
model to build upon if a City/HRA commitment to long-term financial support
for area improvements is likely to be limited. The process takes about sixty
days and provides for public participation by requesting input on a pre-
drafted proposal at one informal and one formal public hearing; the Planning
Commission would at least want to look at more creative approaches to the
. usual hearing format. The draft proposal might be as simple as an updated
version of the recommendation resulting from the 1989-1990 1-394 corridor
study. The end result of this type of process study would be primarily map-
oriented ("retail uses should go here, offices should go there... ").
Option B: If the City/HRA is able to commit to the long-term support
necessary for executing a more detailed vision, the study process would be
4
e
longer and more involved. The study timeframe could run anywhere from six
months to a year, with many and varied options for large or small scale public
input. The end product might still include a future land use map, but would
focus more on general principles to follow and specific objectives to meet as
land use changes are considered over time, similar to the range of
development guidelines provided in a typical redevelopment area plan.
e
STUDY BUDGET NEEDS- One problem with some past study efforts is that
little or no forethought was given to potential costs. Regular staff time and
departmental budgets can usually accommodate some miscellaneous added
work load or expenses, but a serious participatory planning effort will need its
own budget. Public outreach, especially in the form of multiple mass mailings,
can be costly; along with postage, stationery, and labels, costs include clerical
time for initial mailing list compilation, later list amendments, and assembling
each mailing. Depending on the scope of study, consulting experts may be
needed for specialized services like traffic analysis or survey design.
Depending on the desired level and nature of public participation, hiring an
outside facilitator may be the most reasonable way of providing adequate
organizational and group dynamic skills to make the process a success.
For the preliminary phase ofthis study, the Commission recommends that an
expenditure of $13,000 be authorized outside of departmental budgets. As
work progresses, there should be some flexibility to shift spending priorities
among the three identified cost categories, but for early budgeting purposes
the sum would be allocated as follows:
. $3,000 to contract for clerical services in compiling the mailing list;
. $5,000 to cover postage and supplies for 3-5 mailings; and
. $5,000 for survey design assistance and administration.
No facilitator is necessary for the preliminary study phase, but may be
recommended if the full study design leans more toward Option B than
Option A. The need for consulting services beyond survey design and
administration will depend on the issues and concerns identified through the
survey and other early public outreach efforts.
e
CLOSING COMMENTS
Golden Valley has limited experience with successful participatory planning efforts.
Recent Valley Square task force assignments and the Xenia Avenue design
committee can serve as models to some extent; however, each of those efforts was
considerably more limited in scope than what is now being contemplated. The 1-394
corridor study will therefore be a learning experience for elected and appointed
officials and staff as well as for the individual and corporate citizens of Golden
Valley. The Commission expects to be able to refine and streamline the process
through re-use and experimentation on other planning projects over time, keeping
only the elements that appear to yield the best results, and learning how to make
the most efficient use of available resources.
5