06-23-97 PC Agenda
r/
~:
.
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, June 23,1997
7pm
I. Approval of Minutes - June 10, 1997
II. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning
Applicant: GBe Partners, LLP (Gary and Connie Larson)
Address: East side of Zane Avenue about 400 feet North of TH 55 Frontage
Road
e
Purpose: Rezoning of the property from Open Development to the Industrial
Zoning District. The applicant is proposing to add this piece of
property to the empty lot at 5828 Olson Memorial Highway in
order to construct an office/warehouse on ~he site.
III.
Informal Public Hearing - Subdivision
Applicant: GBC Partners, LLP (Gary and Connie Larson)
Address: 5828 Olson Memorial Highway and the north 100 foot lot
Purpose: Consolidate the vacant lot located at the Northeast Quadrant of
Zane Avenue and the Olson Memorial Highway Frontage Road
with the lot located directly to the north which is approximately
12,000 sq.ft. in area. The applicant is proposing to construct an
office/warehouse on the site.
- SHORT RECESS -
IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council and Board of Zoning Appeals
V. Other Business
. A. Discussion of State-Mandated Comprehensive Plan Update
VI. 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 ttesire to speak.
Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments.
.
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.
.
.
.
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 10, 1997
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 Tuesday June
10, 1997. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. '.
Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, McAleese
and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Beth
Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Recording Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - May 27.1997
MOVED by Prazak, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the
May 27,1997 minutes as submitted.
II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan Map
Address:
9011,9039 and 9105 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, MN
Purpose:
Change the Compo Plan Map from a Low Density Residential
Use to a Medium Density Residential Use which would allow for
the construction of a 33-unit townhome development.
III. Informal Public Hearing -- Rezoning
Applicant:
Golden Valley Development Corporation
Address:
9011,9039 and 9105 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, MN
Purpose:
Rezone the above mentioned properties from Single-Family
Residential to Two-Family (R-2) Residential which would allow for
the construction of a 33-unit town home development.
City Planner Beth Knoblauch summarized her staff reports to the Planning Commission on a
Compo Plan Map amendment and a rezoning of the above mentioned properties.
City Planner Knoblauch reviewed a colored map outlining the subject properties and those
adjoining properties in the area. She noted to the Commission on what lies directly to the
north of the subject properties in New Hope.
Knoblauch talked about the surrounding land uses and how well the proposed townhomes
would fit in. She said that this type of development is similar to what could be found
elsewhere in the City considering neighboring uses. Knoblauch also commented that the
proposed properties tend to be subject to redevelopment of some type because owners of
these kinds of properties are getting older. She said the proposed area could be developed
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 10, 1997
Page 2
.
for people who want to stay in the City; who no longer want to own a single-family home and
do maintenance work. .
City Planner Knoblauch briefly talked abot..:~ the church property, located to the west of the
proposed site; the Zoning Map and the Compo Plan Map show the use of the property as
Institutional. She noted that the redevelopment of this property would be uncertain until it is
sold.
Knoblauch told the Commission that the developer had spoken with the owners of the
properties to the immediate south about selling. The developer told staff that the owners
were not ready to sell.
Knoblauch stated staff is recommending the amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan Map from a low-density residential use to a medium-density residential use.
Knoblauch reviewed the rezoning request commenting that the zoning of the property and
the amendment to the Compo Plan Map have almost identical issues. Knoblauch said that
staff first believed that the development would be zoned M-1 Multiple Dwelling because there
were more than just doubles proposed for the site (some triples are planned). Staff reviewed
the City Code more closely and noted that M-1 was more geared toward apartment buildings
and believe that the R-2 zoning is more appropriate. She also commented that the R-2
zoning gives the neighborhood more protection if this project would not go through. .
Knoblauch said that the R-2 zoning, without a PUD, does meet R-2 requirements of City
Code, that each townhome could be sold separately.
Knoblauch stated staff is recommending rezoning of the property from single-family
residential to two-family (R-2) residential.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff to explain why the Compo Plan Map is being amended to
medium density but the properties are being rezoned to R-2. Knoblauch said that low
density equals 1- 4.9 units per acre, medium density is 5-12 units per acre and high density
starts at 15 units per acre.
Commissioner Kapsner asked if the Kings Valley development was individually owned.
Knoblauch said that that development was unique in that the units are owned by individuals
but the land under the units are held in common with a lease of 99 years.
Johnson asked if there was any rental property in Medley Park Townhomes. Knoblauch said
these town homes are subsidized rental units.
Commissioner Prazak asked if the church property is large enough to accommodate its own
development. Knoblauch said yes.
Commissioner McAleese irritated that the proposal is for a medium density use of 5-12 units
per acre. He noted that R-2 doesn't address the maximum amount of units per acre and if
developed as a double bungalow it would be eight (8) units per acre. He asked if 12 units per .
acre is the maximum, not particularly for this development, but in the future. Knoblauch
commented that the difference comes in between the straight terms of the zoning code and
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 10, 1997
Page 3
the PUD overlay. McAleese then related this to the church property, which is 3+ acres, one
is then talking about 36 units per acre, and with only an exit/entrance on Medicine Lake
Road, would 36 units be reasonable. Knoblauch responded that this type of development,
for the church property, would have to go through the P.U.D. process and staff can take into
account any traffic problems that may arise. McAleese commented that he believes the City
is setting a precedent by taking the combination of what is allowed in the Compo Plan and
what the Code says are R-2 is, and feels developers will go for the cap. Knoblauch said that
that is not always the case, that this developer was proposing M-1 and went down to R-2.
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, talked about the required ponding on
this development and added that townhome developments are not coming in as dense as
they could because of other requirements and people wanting one-level living. McAleese
said he understood this but the market changes from year to year and again noted that the
City would be setting a long-term precedent for maximum use of land. Knoblauch
commented that through the hearing process, the Planning Commission, City Council and
members of public could ask to have the number of units reduced.
Commissioner Groger noted that the proposed properties are ripe for expansion given ~s
size. He wanted to know if the development were for 15-20 single-family homes, with a cul-
de-sac off of Ensign Avenue, would be possible. Knoblauch said that a single-family
development would be impacted by how the roads go through the development and the
configuration of the lots could be difficult to do. She did add that a single-family
development would only need subdivision approval. Groger noted that 20 homes could go
on the site which isn't much different than the proposal before them.
Commissioner McAleese asked if residents in New Hope, within the 500 feet radius,
received a hearing notice. Knoblauch said that a notice is sent to the City of New Hope and
it is up to them to relay the notice. She also commented that the Community Development
Coordinator for New Hope requested staff's memo for this development proposal.
The developer, Arne Zachman told the Commission that its marketing was for empty
nesters. Mr. Zachman said that the information they received says that empty nesters
generally want to stay in the area where they presently live and want townhome like living.
He said the development would be set up with an association that would take care of the
maintenance. Zachman said that the units being proposed are single to two-level with a
price tag of $180,000 - $200,000. He told the Commission and audience that he has other
developments and would be happy to show them. He.also noted that he had designed a
development of single-family lots but found that he could not get as many lots as he wanted
because of the need for a cul-de-sac and that the minimum cost for single-family home
would be in the area of $250,000. He said he would be concerned with about who would
buy these homes with a high density use on the church. site to the west.
Zachman told the Commission that he had met with the homeowners and one concern was
the roadway coming out of the development onto Ensign Avenue. He said that the residents
in that neighborhood want to see a stop sign further to the south to help slow down traffic.
Zachman talked about the letter sent in by a neighbor and said that he does not believe that
empty nesters would be having loud parties. He said that he didn't believe that traffic from
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 10, 1997
Page 4
.
the development would be fast because they wouldn't have that far to go to Medicine Lake
Road.
Kapsner asked if the roadway within his development could tie in with the possible
development of the church site. Zachman responded that it could but it would be up to the
City if they wanted the road cross over to a development on the church site.
..
Chair Pentel asked about the style of the townhomes and how many bedrooms would there
be. Zachman said two to three. Pentel asked about the porches on the back and whether
they were walkout or steps down to the ground. Zachman said that there would one step
down to the patio and about 10 steps down from the decks, which would extend no farther
than 10 feet.
Pentel asked staff if they knew what the value of homes were in this area. She said she
believes that if someone sold there home in this area, they could not afford to buy in this
development. Staff said they did not know. Zachman talked about his Plymouth
development and said that 40% of the owners come from Golden Valley.
Prazak talked about the roads in Kings Valley and the association wanting the City to take
over the care. He asked staff what prevents this developer from wanting the same.
Knoblauch commented that the P.U.D. is more stringent on this issue and that engineering
would be making their recommendations concerning the roads.
Groger asked Zachman about the two single-family homes directly to the south and is there
any intention to buy them. Zachman responded that they do not want to sell.
.
Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing.
Dale Folen, 2420 Ensign Avenue North, said that he was spokesperson for the
neighborhood. He handed staff a petition opposing the rezoning of the property and the
townhome development. Mr. Folen said that he talked with the City before he bought his
property and that he bought intelligently - if he would have known that this area would be
rezoned he would not have purchased his house. He finds the rezoning unfair if not
maintained as single-family. He said there is a concern with storm water runoff and would
like assurances that this will be handled. Folen believes an R-2 zoning will decrease
property values. He said he also believes the only ones to benefit from this development are
the existing homeowners and the developer.
Kapsner said that if the property is developed with 20 single-family homes, he sees very little
difference from the proposal before them. He said he can see objecting to rental property.
Folen commented that a too tightly packed development of townhomes would change the
atmosphere of the neighborhood.
Dennis Steen, 8845 Medley Lane, is concerned with what will happen to the neighborhood
because of the proposed development. He talked about the closeness of the people who live
in this area and the close proximity of Medley Park. He noted that this area is a safe place to .
live and a very good looking neighboring. He also commented that the community is turning
over to young people with children. Mr. Steen said that he is concerned with the traffic, from
Medicine Lake Road, speeding down Ensign to 23rd. He sees additional traffic being
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 10, 1997
Page 5
.
generated from this development. He believes that more park space is needed and would
rather see this property bought by the City and turned into park land or see a development of
single-family homes. He does not want the property rezoned. Mr. Steen is concerned that
the units will not be sold because of the high price tag. He also wanted to know where snow
would be pushed to on these small lots.
Jim Johnson, 2420 Decatur Avenue North, believes that it is wrong to .rezone this area for
townhomes. He reaffirmed Mr. Steen's finding about the neighborhood becoming very close
with many children in the area. Mr. Johnson noted that if this development is targeted for
empty nesters, the empty nesters will have nothing to do with the neighborhood, and that
. retirees do not fit in the neighborhood. He is concerned with a drop in property values and
traffic. He would like to see single-family homes on the site. Mr. Johnson asked staff to
explain the minimum lot size and how many homes could be placed on the site. Staff said
with streets, probably 3 an acre or 15 homes all together. Mr. Johnson said that a single-
family development would be brought into the community, but an empty nester development
is radically different and would not be included into the community.
Pentel commented that people moving into the proposed development would not be radically
different than his community and she hoped that the neighborhood would make overtures to
whomever lives in the area. Mr. Johnson commented that the persons Mr. Zachman is
targeting (empty nesters) would be different.
.
Kapsner mentioned how the neighborhood is in transition and the City is looking for housing
for everyone, including rental, and that everyone has that responsibility. Kapsner noted that
as the neighborhood changes, wouldn't it be great to move across the street for housing.
Blaine Johnson, 2500 Ensign Avenue North, said he was concerned and opposed with the
driveway coming out onto Ensign. He talked about the existing traffic on Ensign and that
another 60 cars would be added. Mr. Johnson said that he has talked with the City to put a
stop sign on Ensign.
Howard Noreen, 2425 Decatur Avenue North, commented that this is an area where there
are children, where turnover is happening and that this is a nurturing area. he believes that
townhomes are somewhat transient and that a price tag of $200,000 is too much money;
people will end up moving in and out. Mr. Noreen said that there were may children in the
area and is concerned with the amount of traffic on Ensign to 23rd.
Eric Mattson, 2445 Decatur Avenue North, said that his house is directly across from the
proposed access to the development and is worried about seeing only headlights at night.
He believes the development doesn't fit into neighborhood. Mr. Mattson would like to see
single-family homes or nothing.at all.
Bob Blenkush, 2340 Ensign Avenue North, said his only concern is traffic using Ensign down
to 23rd and then over to Winnetka Avenue. He said that more traffic is not needed on
Ensign.
.
Dave Babcock, 2430 Ensign Avenue North, also said he was concerned with traffic, noting
that both sides of the street is lined with cars in the evenings and kid shoot out between
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 10, 1997
Page 6
.
these cars. He would like to see the entrance on Ensign eliminated and placed on Medicine
Lake Road.
Donna Hamel, 2440 Ensign Avenue North, wrote a letter to the Planning Commission. Pentel
acknowledge that the Commission has the letter and noted her issues. Ms. Hamel
questioned whether residents in the area would have to pay for sidewalks because of the
development or will there be sidewalks within the development. Grimes said that sidewalks
are not assessed to property owners. Grimes also said that sidewalks are placed on heavily
traveled streets. Pentel noted that sidewalks usually go in when the public asks for
sidewalks.
Zachman commented that empty nesters want to stay within their neighborhood and near
their churches. He said that this type of project is happening all over Hennepin County.
Zachman told staff that he is willing to work with the City on the traffic issue.
Sheila Anderson, 8840 Elgin Place, said that she has been in real estate for a number of
years and doesn't believe property values will change. She said that she can see the
concern with traffic on Ensign. Ms. Anderson believes that single-family homes would be a
real plus.
Dennis Steen, 8845 Medley Lane, said that the neighbors would socialize with those in the
development. He said that he was concerned with a comment by a commissioner that the .
City is trying to provide housing for everyone. He said that he is not saying that housing
should not be available to everyone, but there is ample land elsewhere. He said that if
Golden Valley is to provide housing for anyone, and at any price, there should be care in
where it is provided. Mr. Steen said that it was incorrect for the developer to associate
people buying $200,000 townhomes in Minnetonka and Plymouth, to buying in Golden
Valley.
Chair Pentel closed the Informal Public Hearing.
Pentel asked staff to address Mr. Folen's concern about storm water ponding and drainage
problems. Knoblauch noted that the Assistant City Engineer does have concerns about this
issue and will also be watching what happens very closely, if this proposal goes forward.
Knoblauch noted that the Asst. City Engineer has made a list of items that will have to be
attended to.
Pentel asked staff who would be responsible for snow removal. Knoblauch said the
association.
Pentel asked if these are two-car garages. Zachman said yes.
Pentel asked if there has been a traffic study done in this neighborhood and asked if
Hennepin County would allow a driveway out onto Medicine Lake Road. Knoblauch said that
the City could pursue a driveway out onto Medicine Lake Road. She said that Hennepin
County approves/denies driveway permits. She suggested that staff talk with the City's
Public Safety Department with having only access out onto Medicine Lake Road. Knoblauch
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 10, 1997
Page 7
noted that Hennepin County has been reluctant to have any more driveways on a county
road if there are alternatives.
Pentel asked about headlights coming out onto other properties and wanted to know if there
were mechanisms to help eliminate the problem. Knoblauch talked about another
development proposal and how it provided screening for headlights. She said that screening
could be addressed here also.
Prazak commented that this is an appropriate usES' in the general sense and an attractive site
for a townhomes. He believes this is a housing alternative and an appropriate use.
Johnson agreed with Prazak saying that she lives in the area. She said that one needs to
look at alternatives for the proposed area, which will front Medicine Lake Road and is one
block from Hwy. 169. Johnson believes the solution to the "race track" on Ensign Avenue is
to talk with the City's Pubic Safety Department and maybe the soft ball teams using the park.
She believes the plan is a decent plan and that the rezoning and amendment to R-2 is
appropriate.
.
Groger commented that there are three pieces of property to look at that will eventually be
developed, and that there could be worse things proposed. He said that he was concerned
about the impact on Ensign. Groger said that of one looks at this property as single-family,
and then if the church property is developed at a higher density, the same issues will arise
as having single-family homes next to a higher density use. He believes the rezoning will be
good for the area and that this type of housing is in need and a desire for it.
McAleese commented that he liked the project being proposed, although he sees no
compelling reason to change the Compo Plan Map or to rezone the property. He also
commented that he believes this area could be single family with 15 or so homes and bean
appropriate use for the property. McAleese commented on the two homes, to the south of
the development, being stuck between the development and the park. He said that traffic is
an important issue because of the problem of getting onto Medicine Lake Road, but noted
that if a subdivision for single-family would go in, there would still be a traffic problem. He
said that he was not opposing the amendment to the Compo Plan Map and rezoning
because of this problem.
Kapsner agreed with McAleese about having no compelling reason to rezone the properties.
He commented on the issue of who would benefit from this development. He noted that the
Commission has always looked the at neighborhood issues or concerns when deciding
issues, not from who benefits from it. He believes that because this development is not that
different from single-family, the two houses to the south should work with the proposed
development. Kapsner said that 33 empty nesters townhomes will generate less traffic than
single family homes with teenagers. Kapsner said he supports the rezoning.
Pentel agreed with points made by Groger and Johnson. She said that she doesn't see the
town home development in this area and price range that different from single-family homes.
Pentel said that she was concerned about traffic but was not the main concern before the
. Commission. She supports the amendment to the Compo Plan Map and the rezoning.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 10, 1997
Page 8
MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Prazak and motion carried by a vote of 5-1 (one seat
vacant) to recommend to the City Council approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan Map from a Low Density Residential use to a Medium Density Residential
use.
.
MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Johnson and motion carried by a vote of 5-1 (one seat
vacant) to recommend to the City Council approval of a rezoning of the properties from
Single-Family Residential to Two-Family (R-1) Residential. "
IV. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan Review for Medley
Hills Townhomes Planned Unit Development (P.U.D. No. 76)
Applicant:
Golden Valley Development Corporation
Address:
9011,9039 and 9105 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, MN
Purpose: Review of the Preliminary Design Plan. Approval of the P.U.D.
would allow for the construction of a 33-unit townhome .
development on the above mentioned properties.
City Planner Knoblauch told the Commission and audience that the developer must go
through two more hearings after tonight, Preliminary Design Plan review and General Plan of .
Development Review before the City Council. She noted that the Commission will make
recommendations which will be forwarded to the City Council.
Knoblauch reviewed her memo regarding the Preliminary Design Plan talking about the
number of units in the development, storm water runoff, and about the developer requesting
the City to vacate a portion of Ensign Avenue. She noted that the dedicated right-of-way
was quite a ways west of where the road actually lies. She added that there would be a 60
foot right-of-way, Which was a gap, along Ensign Avenue.
Knoblauch reviewed portions of Section 11.55, noting four (4) subdivisions that come into
play. Beth reviewed Purpose and Intent, Definition, Applicability and Standards and Criteria.
She said that in order for the developer to construct these town homes under normal zoning,
it would have to be under M-1 (does not meet needs of town home construction) or be cut
back to all doubles. She talked about the eight (8) items found under Subd. 5. noting that
only two of the eight items can unquestionably be demonstrated at the Preliminary Design
Plan stage and the others would be coming up at General Plan review.
Knoblauch reviewed "Planning Considerations" of Zoning, Park Land, Livable Communities
and Engineering/Construction Issues. She said concerning the item of zOning, that a major
intent of the PUD process is to "permit design flexibility by substantial variances from the
provision of [the zoning] chapter, including uses, setbacks, height, parking requirements, and
similar regulations". Knoblauch said variances are given with a PUD. She said that staff
looks to make sure that what the developer is asking for is not harmful to the City or to be .
found exorbitant; and that there were not extreme variances required for the development.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 10, 1997
Page 9
Knoblauch said that there could be other concerns about safety, aesthetics, or points not
related strictly to zoning requirements that could cause this body or the City Council to lower
the density, but from a strictly zoning aspect, the applicant is not asking for a great deal.
Knoblauch then reviewed "Comparison of StandardsD - R-2 Residential Zoning vs. Medley
Hills Townhome PUD. Another issue talked about by Knoblauch concerned additional
berming along Medicine Lake Road which may be desirable. Knoblauch talked about the
angled lots and that it is advantageous to have these because one is not looking into the
windows of the one across the lot. She talked about an area that coutd affect the number of
variances, commenting on the additional three feet the County is requesting for a bike trail.
The County is requesting 10 feet of right-of-way, 3 feet of which is for a bike trail which can
be taken as an easement or right-of-way. She said the Commission had three alternatives
to choose from regarding the extra 3 feet and forwarding something to the City Council,
which are: 1) requiring it by right-of-way which will make the lot sizes smaller, 2) take It by an
easement, which would allow the affected square footage to still be counted in the lot size, or
3) do nothing at all. Knoblauch noted that staff has no information about Medicine Lake
Road being a bike route.
Knoblauch talked about the park land issue saying that there is no official recommendation
from the Open Space and Recreation Commission. Rick Jacobson, staff liaison told staff
that the Commission would be taking a tour of the parks between the Planning Commission
meeting and when this item goes to the City Council. He said the Commission would be
made aware of the proposal. Knoblauch told the Commission that City Code allows land
area or cash in lieu of. She said that Jacobson's early opinion is that the Commission would
not want more park land in this area and felt that they would be asking for cash in lieu of, this
is staffs educated guess. Knoblauch said that the Planning Commission can make its own
recommendation.
Knoblauch talked about the Livable Communities goals noting that Golden Valley made a
commitment to the Livable Communities Act of the State Legislature. She said as part of its
commitment, the City adopted a policy of including a Livable Communities impact evaluation
in considering any proposed housing development. She noted the four measurement areas
involved in this development, those being: housing variety, negative impact on ownership
affordability, owner/renter mix, and multi-unit density. Knoblauch said that only the multi-unit
density is related but is considered very low. She noted that for the City to increase its
density, it would have to build more buildings like the Calvary Co-op, which is unlikely.
Knoblauch moved on to the Engineering and Construction issues mentioning Assistant City
Engineer Oliver's memo. She said that the applicant would need to provide additional
information to the Engineering Department.
Knoblauch said staffs recommendation is for approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for
Medley Hills Townhomes, P.U.D. No. 76, subject to the following items:
1. All recommendations and requirements set out in the Engineering Department memo
dated June 4, 1997;
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 10, 1997
Page 10
.
2. A decision regarding the appropriateness of the dedication of ten feet of right-of-way
along Medicine lake Road, or seven feet plus a three-foot wide bike path easement, or
just the seven feet as with other plats in the area;
3. Any park dedication recommendation the Planning Commission deems it appropriate to
make; and
4. Any Livable Communities recommendation the Planning Commission deems it
appropriate to make.
Prazak asked what steps were in process to assure that the types of units being proposed
would be built, because there has been concern that the market cannot handle the price tag
of $180-200,000. He asked what would prevent the developer from building $75,000-
100,000 units. Knoblauch commented that if all the engineering and construction concerns
are met there is little to prevent the lower price tag - prices of the units are up to the
developer. She further commented that the P.U.D. permit can specify amenities, siding,
roads, etc; once something is in the permit, it would take an amendment to change it.
McAleese said for the record, that specific details would be discussed at General Plan
review and there will be another public hearing for the public to address concerns.
Knoblauch agreed. Grimes noted that part of the information to be supplied at General Plan
review would be landscaping and architectural plans including exterior wall finishing which .
can be made a part of the P.U.D. permit.
Groger had related questions to access commenting on what kind of odds were there that
the County would allow another access onto Medicine lake Road, and if this were not
possible, how close could the access be moved on Ensign Avenue to Medicine lake Road.
Knoblauch commented that she did not feel qualified to comment on how close the Ensign
driveway could be moved to Medicine lake Road. She said that staff will do research and
have it available for the City Council meeting. Knoblauch said, in regard to another access
on Medicine lake Road, she would want the public safety people to comment, and in
particular the Fire Department. She added that she was unsure whether the County would
accept the proposal and noted that a number of existing driveways would be removed. She
said that staff would talk with the County on this matter.
Grimes commented that he is concerned with the width of the proposal from east or west
and to put in another access could cause problems regarding turning distances. Groger
commented that his concern with the access, at the lower end on Ensign, would encourage
people to go south, cutting through neighborhoods. If the access were closer to Medicine
lake Road, drivers may tend to use Medicine lake Road. Grimes said that the trips per day
may be slightly higher for the empty nesters, but they use the road at different times during
the day. Groger said it is important to minimize the amount of traffic on Ensign and not
make it any worse.
McAleese asked if staff had a recommendation about whether the right-of-way or easement
for the 3-foot bike trail would be better, noting that variances would be greater with the .
recommendation of a right-of-way. Knoblauch commented that Fred Salsbury, Director of
Public Works, said that the three feet was a last minute add-on to a County motion which
caused this to be a bike route. Staff isn't sure that this will materialize, but based on the lack
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 10, 1997
Page 11
. of information, staff would lean toward the easement, because if the trail was never put in,
then the land is there for the people who live there.
Pentel asked about dedicated right-of-way on Ensign, and does it go pass the homes to the
south down to the park. Knoblauch said yes. Pentel questioned whether this land would
have been set aside for a sidewalk connection to the park. Knoblauch said no, that it was a
surveying issue. Grimes said that there is adequate space for sidewalks if needed.
Arne Zachman talked about the townhome, at the northwest comer of the development, that
it doesn't meet the square footage requirement. He said that the road that is proposed to go
into the church property probably would not happen, therefore the townhome could be
turned. He talked about the length of driveways and being able to get parking in front of the
garages, that there would be six foot berms along Medicine Lake Road and Ensign Avenue
to shield road from the town homes, and that he has given the seven feet for right-of-way and
will work with staff on the other three feet. Zachman talked about the town homes being one-
level living, but can offer full basements, or an upstairs area which is cheaper to do and have
more natural lighting.
.
Knoblauch asked if this would affect the 22 foot height of the building to the rear property
line. Zachman said yes. Knoblauch noted to Mr. Zachman about staying away from the rear
property line of a single-family lots as many feet as the height of the townhome. Zachman
asked staff whether a patio is a structure. Grimes said no. Zachman said that the porches,
on the rear, would be 10' x 10' which would provide a bit more square footage, which would
make the townhomes more eye appealing.
Grimes asked Zachman about having only access onto Medicine Lake Road. Zachman said
that is a County issue, but feels it would be a problem for homeowners trying to get onto
Medicine Lake Road. He likes seeing the road coming out onto Ensign Avenue. He said
that he would be willing to work with the neighbors across Ensign or move the road closer to
Medicine Lake Road.
Groger asked the applicant which units would be used for two-story, if someone expressed
an interest. Zachman commented that the footprint of all the buildings would be the same,
that the difference would be a bit more height in the front and would show more at the rear.
Groger asked about the landscaping plan. Zachman commented that the planting shown on
the plan is what they were proposing, but would continue the berming along Ensign.
Pentel noted that there are currently large trees on the property and asked if any of these
could be saved. Zachman said trees up to eight inches, using a spade, could likely be saved
and would try to save as many as possible because trees give a more woodsy effect. He
noted the square footage of plantings as a requirement.
.
Prazak asked if the evergreens would remain because they would be a good buffer.
Zachman said that he couldn't answer that question. Prazak said that he hoped his
landscape plan could show what trees could be saved. Knoblauch told Zachman that the
City does have a Forester who could come out to the site.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 10, 1997
Page 12
.
Prazak asked the developer to mention where his other projects were which may be helpful
to those who wanted to look at them. Zachman commented on the ones in Minnetonka and
Eden Prairie.
Pentel said that she realized that this was a preliminary plan but she did not see any
elevations and did he have any plans with elevations. Zachman said not with him.
Pentel asked Zachman what style townhomes he was planning. Zachman said that they
would be of a ranch style with a front bay area. The front would be done with brick, with
aluminum facia and soffit and vinyl siding.
Prazak asked if there would be access directly to Medley Park from the development.
Zachman said that he doesn't have a problem with providing access and will work with staff
on this item.
Johnson asked if there would be trails. Zachman said he would work with staff. Grimes said
that staff would work with the Park Department, that there may be a grade change which
wouldn't allow the access. Knoblauch commented that Park and Rec Director, Rick
Jacobson said that there is enough of a grade change that it would be easier to walk out of
the development on to Ensign and use the park entrance. Jacobson also noted that there is
an easement from the park at the northwest comer to get out to Hillsboro.
Chair Pentel opened the Informal Public Hearing.
.
Dale Folen, 2420 Ensign Avenue North, asked about storm water ponding and whether the
overhead telephone and other lines would be placed underground. He also wanted to know
where the sanitary sewer would go through on Medicine Lake Road or Ensign Avenue. He
is concerned about the trees and feels the developer did not take into account the trees
when he laid out the development. Folen said that he had met with the development but
issues were not resolved. He also noted that the development affects the landowner across
the driveway on Ensign the most. .
Pentel asked about the overhead lines on west side. Zachman said that the lines associated
with his project would be underground and that sewer and water would come off of Medicine
Lake Road. Zachman commented on the pond issue noting that Pasce Engineering placed
it in the best spot on the development. He said that he could not answer, at this time, how
many trees would be saved. Pentel said that this may be addressed at the City Council
meeting.
Dennis Steen, 8845 Medley Lane, commented on the landscape area and buffer area on
Medicine Lake Road and Ensign Avenue. He wanted to know if there is enough space
available to build a buffer and leave room for the balconies. Pentel informed Mr. Steen that
these were porches or patios, not balconies. Grimes said that they would be outside the 35
foot setback area. Mr. Steen questioned whether the plantings being put in meet code
requirement for square footage of shrubbery. Mr. Steen questioned whether 33 units of
empty nesters met the City's Livable Community goals on diversity. He asked if there would .
be a condition that a certain amount of these town homes be diversified. Mr. Steen
commented that he was disappointed about notification to those persons within 500 feet
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 10, 1997
Page 13
because many people in the neighborhood, outside the 500 feet, didn't get noticed. He
believes that the people were ignored at the meeting and that the elected Commission set
their own agenda. Pentel informed Mr. Steen that the Commission is not elected but
appointed and that the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council who are
elected.
Pentel responded to the question on the size of plantings and noted th~t the Commission
can make a recommendation. Grimes noted that a detail landscape plan will be submitted at
the General Plan review. He also noted that the City does not have a tree preservation
program.
Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing.
Prazak said he has lived in the area for many years. He said that he was concerned with the
conflicting objections that too high of a sales price would bring in the wrong people. Prazak
noted that at his end of the block (south end of Ensign) there is a nice diversity of seniors
and families and he doesn't see why there would be something different from one end to the
other. He noted that this development is an alternative to rental property and more
desirable. He would like to see the entrance to the development moved closer to Medicine
Lake Road and would like to see an access to the Medley Park. Prazak believes the
neighbors will benefit and the development will allow people a choice to remain in Golden
Valley. He believes property values will go up due to the development.
McAleese said that he remains convinced that this land would be better as single-family. He
continued by saying that he does like the proposal before the Commission and 'finds it
appropriate. He said on the issue of the bike path, that the Commission should recommend
the 3.feet as a dedicated easement. McAleese said that he was unsure how to address the
park dedication and suggested leaving this to the City Council who will hopefully have the
recommendation from the Open Space and Recreation Commission. He specifically noted
to incorporate the City Engineer and Fire Department reviews and agrees with the issues
raised. He recommends to preserve as many trees on the site as possible and endorses
Prazak's comments to move the driveway on Ensign closer to Medicine lake Road, placing
it between the houses across Ensign. McAleese said that he was concerned about the
Livable Cities issue, but in this case it was a wash, that there is an increasing need to
provide empty nester housing, but on the other hand a detriment to other goals. He said he
did not find this issue a problem.
Kapsner said he agrees with berming along Ensign and is in favor of saving as many trees
as possible. He noted that one cannot put six foot berms around existing trees, that there
would be new plantings in with the berming. Kapsner said this would be a benefit to the
residents on Ensign instead of looking at back yards.
Prazak recommended that the plan show where mature trees are now located and where
berming would be.
Johnson commented that she liked the development because it would be owner occupied
and that it is addressing a need in Golden Valley for those who may not want to care for a
big home anymore. She would like to see as many matures trees saved as possible and
berming along Ensign and Medicine lake Road. Johnson would like the developer to look at
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 10, 1997
Page 14
.
the size of the plantings so it doesn't take 30 years to grow. She said she would like to see
the entrances on Medicine Lake Road, if it wouldn't cause problems within the development.
Groger commented that in was in favor of the Preliminary Design Plan subject to the four
recommendations outlined in staffs memo along with an easement for the bike trail,
alternative for a driveway on Ensign, and retaining as many existing trees as possible.
Pentel said that she would like the Planning Commission to consider and make a
recommendation on park land dedication and seems that it would be advantage since the
land is going from three single-family homes to 33 townhome units. She believes that a
cash dedication would be appropriate. She would like the developer to explore access to
Medley Park.
Prazak asked that one more condition be looked at which provides common space for
meetings and encourages get.togethers.
MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval to the City Council for the Preliminary Design Plan for Medley Hills Townhomes,
P.U.D. No. 76 subject to the following recommendations:
1. All recommendations and requirements set out in the Engineering Department memo
dated June 4, 1997;
.
2. A dedication of seven feet plus a three-foot wide bike path easement;
3. The developer make a cash payment in lieu of providing park land;
4. The 33 townhome units be provided as an alternative housing need for empty nesters in
Golden Valley;
5. Explore trail access to Medley Park;
6. Retain as many existing trees as possible;
7. An alternative for street access by explored, by placing all access on Medicine Lake
Road or moving the proposed entrance on Ensign Avenue closer to Medicine Lake Road
and placing it between the houses across the street on Ensign;
8. Provide some common area within the development; and
9. Maximum green space on the development
V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. City
Council and Board of Zoning Appeals
Commissioner Groger gave a brief summary of the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting from
May 27,1997.
.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 10, 1997
Page 15
Chair Pentel brief the Commission on a City Council meeting she attended.
VI. Other Business
No other business was presented.
VII. Adjournment
Chair Pentel closed the meeting at 10:30pm.
Emilie Johnson, Secretary
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
.
.
June 18,1997
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Informal Public Hearing .. Zoning Map Amendment for Parcel 2 of
Proposed "GBC Partners Addition" (Property is the North 1 00 feet
of the property located at the Northeast Quadrant of Zane Avenue
and Olson Memorial Frontage Road) from Open Development to
the Industrial Zoning District.. GBC Partners, Applicant
GBC Partners are the owners of Golden Valley Supply, a local acoustical ceiling
tile distributorship. Gary and Connie Larson are the general partners. They are
currently located at 1150 Zane Avenue North (Golden Valley Road and Zane
Avenue). Their goal is to construct a 16,575 sq.ft. office/warehouse for their
company on a 55,814 sq.ft. site at the northeast comer of Zane Avenue North
and the TH 55 frontage road. A copy of their plan for the site is attached.
This site currently is two parcels. (Please refer to the preliminary plat of the
"GBC Addition" that is in this agenda packet.) Parcel 2 or the north parcel is
quite small. It is 100 ft. by 118 ft. or 11,800 sq.ft. in area. This parcel is owned
by R.L. Johnson, a local commercial real estate company. GBC has entered into
a purchase agreement with R.L. Johnson. The parcel is zoned Open
Development as it has been for many years. Parcel 1 to the south is 44,014 sq.
ft. in area or a little over one acre in size. This parcel is currently owned by
FluiDyne and GBC also has a purchase agreement with them. This parcel was
zoned Open Development until 1989. At that time FluiDyne requested that the
property be rezoned to Industrial in order to allow for the parcel to be used as a
parking lot for the FluiDyne business across the street. The parking lot was
never constructed because of reduction in the number of employees at FluiDyne.
In order for both Parcels 1 and 2 to be used as a building site for GBC, three
actions must be taken by the City. First, Parcel 2 has to be rezoned from Open
Development to Industrial. Second, the property has to be replatted into one lot.
This requires a full subdivision procedure because the property is currently
unplatted. And third, the Board of Zoning Appeals must grant significant
variances to allow construction of a building on this new site.
Parcel 1 was originally rezoned to Industrial because the owner of FluiDyne
stated that the property was needed for additional parking. The property had to
.
be rezoned to Industrial in order that the property could be utilized for this use by
FluiDyne. At the same time the City amended the Comprehensive Plan Map for
the both Parcel 1 and 2 from Business and Professional Offices to Industrial. It
was indicated in the Planning Commission minutes in January, 1989 that a_
variance would have to be issued in order to allow the construction of the parking
lot. This variance( s) was never applied for because the parking lot was never
built.
In 1996, Mr. Len Frame of FluiDyne applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA) for certain variances to allow for the construction of a 10,075 sq.ft. office/
warehouse building on Parcel 1. I am enclosing a copy of the report to the BZA
dated December 11, 1996 which describes the variance requests. The BZA
denied the variances. Mr. Frame appealed the denial to the City Council and the
Council granted the variances. A copy of my memo to the City Council dated
February 11, 1997 is attached. The minutes from the February 18, 1997 City
Council meeting where the City Council granted the variances is also included.
Since the variances were granted, Mr. Frame reported to the City that the
proposed building for his company would not be built and that he was putting the
property on the market. It was hoped that another company would want to build
the same size building and use the variances granted by the City Council.
Several months ago, Connie Larson of GBC approached City staff about buying
this property in order to build an office/warehouse building for Golden Valley
Supply. Staff explained the issues that would have to be addressed including
the replatting of the property, rezoning of the Parcel 2 and new variances.
When the Planning Commission and City Council first reviewed the rezoning of
the property from Open Development to Industrial in 1989, the intent of the
proposer was to use the property as a parking lot. Although this was the
understanding at the time of rezoning, the rezoning could not be made
conditionally. In other words, the City Council cannot state that the property can
only be used as a parking lot within the Industrial Zoning District. Because there
are no restrictions on rezonings, the owner had every right to request variances
to construct a building on the property in 1996. Without variances, construction
of a building is impossible because of the 100 foot sideyard setback requirement
when Industrial is next to Residential. (The width of the lot is only 118 feet.)
Parcel 2 should not be left as a separate lot. It is only 11,800 sq.ft. in area and it
would be impossible to build on it due to parking, landscaping and setback
requirements. Adding Parcel 2 to the FluiDyne parcel makes sense. It could
also be added to the Tennant parcel to the north. As of this time, Tennant has
not shpwn interest in buying it.
The proposal is to rezone Parcel 2 to Industrial which is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan for the site. All property to the west and north is both
zoned and guided on the Plan Map for industrial- uses. The property to - the east
is zoned Residential (four single family homes on a dead end street) but the Plan
Map indicates that the land is guided for Business and Professional Offices.
There has been concern by the residential property owners to the east regarding
the development of this site. They are concerned because of the potential
impacts of the building, and activities at the site, on their properties. Because
.
.
2
.
the residential properties are higher (15 to 25 feet) than Zane Avenue, there was
concern when FluiDyne proposed the building that the residents would have to
look at the top of a flat roof. Also there was concern about trucking noise.
Unfortunately for the residents, this is an industrial and business area. The four
houses are the only ones left on the north side of TH 55. Noise and other
nuisances that would not be acceptable in residential areas exist in industrial
areas. These nuisances can be mitigated or reduced but they will not be
eliminated. (In this area, the largest noise generator is probably TH 55 and TH
100.) In this industrial area, the City has worked with several of the owners to
help reduce or eliminate nuisances that have been offensive to residents
adjacent to the industrial area.
By rezoning this property, the Planning Commission is stating that they believe
that the appropriate use of this property is Industrial. GBC has submitted plans
that indicate how they would use the property which is consistent with other
Industrial uses in Golden Valley. This property is somewhat of a special case
due to its location next to a small residential area. As long as the lots where the
four homes are located are zoned Residential, the use of the subject site for
industrial uses will require substantial variances. If the property, where the four
homes are located, was zoned Business and Professional Offices (which is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan), a building could be built on the subject
site with significantly less or no variances. (Rear and side setback from
Industrial to Business and Professional Offices. is 50 feet rather than 100 feet as
it is to Residential.)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends amending the Zoning Map from Open Development to
Industrial for Parcel 2 on the proposed "GBC Addition". The rezoning is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the overall development plans for
the area. With careful planning and design, a building can be constructed on this
site that will have minimal impact on the residences to the east. These issues
would be addressed by the BZA as part of the forthcoming variance procedure.
.
Attachments: Location Map
Planning Commission Minutes dated January, 1989
Report to the BZA dated December 11, 1996
Staff Memo to the City Council dated February 11, 1997
City Council Minutes dated February 18, 1997
Preliminary Site Plan
Proposed Plat: GBC Partners, LLP (Note: The plat now reads
G.V.C. Partners and will be changed to reflect the correct name
of G.B.C. Partners)
.
3
~ .-
~
~
~-
~
c--- -] --------
1\.. i5
. ... ;t\ 8
. i N ~-:'Jo;..
\It :::: ~'-r .~
o . _ -:" "ica. .
,. .. .- 0..
~. ~ i'" ZS'j(rW 455.2') _. :l
\~ ~q'~.L
10 _ __..'''0 ^' Itfz',.7W ~
. '. J M'~ lias- )'11-" ~~.......~ --1080'. ...__
'. :; '.11 JLM ~.~-~ 1l;R'-
~ ---a
If '.OO',t- ' .---
10 7.8
..- - - y..Q~I-:- - n...1="'
"0
.
Clol
C)
...
,
~
,
~
.w
~ ~<<"
"'...~
Q-:~
I 0:'"
(i.H. Tenn..1nf Co.
...
o.
~
~o\jG.~
(~S1;t "" ,I \~ \~t
t'\stU \S" tO~
n~O?V ".\\~G. ,,' \S
f ~t1..0" \S\O,'
~ .. ~'OU\~ ~\\t
.. <:) t~\\~t
1 to G.H. Tennanf Co. and arILacen;
\1unorlal PIal Cars No./3"OU;.
. , -
. ..,
O~
...\.'/'
0..
~~
oc,
u:"
... Jl.M 10
, II' ~.
'\ IJ' J \
...
NQle: Pistances (fnd headn1.s perf"-
are taken ('rom P/rf,.,'
IoU JLM
....!o)
. --< .
, ,
r'~~ -
,.., '
I .......J .
...-:
~
~
!
....
'" .
,a
o
o
I
..
'"
-
!!
I
t
.
...
-
~
.
I'
.
.
~7~8 ~uo
~ ....
C) 0
~ -~~Nd-
. ~
. _.1 L_____
It'
.
io
i .
\-
i-
..
~
.
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 23, 1989
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the Council Chambe
the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Th
was ed to order by Chair Prazak at 7:00 P.M.
It was moved byComm
carried unanimously to
Commission meeting as ame~
ner McAleese, seconded by. mmissioner Leppik, and
anuary 9, 1989 Planning
cCracken-
or of Planning
Mayor Anderson went on to as Commissioners
for reappointment this year.:. ou1d be willing to s
they- would be.
Those
Hunt, Pra
and Develop
t were Commissioners Kapsner, Leppik, Lewis, McA1ees
and Russell. Also present were Mark Grimes, Di~
and Beth Knoblauch, City Planner.
II.
ittee of the Association of Metropo1-
t Committee which was was looking at
pending legislation.
Mayor Anderson revi d the Council's reasons ange in land use
on the northeast ner of Duluth and Douglas and asked the Planning Commission
to further stu this area up to Medicine Lake Road to the north and Brunswick
east to determine the best use for this area. A brief discussion
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan followed.
III. INFDRMAL PUBLIC HEARING ~ AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
and McAleese, who are up
ain. They indicated
..
APPLICANT: F1uiDyne Engineering Corporation
LOCATION: 5828 Olson Memorial Highway
REQUEST: Change the Land Use Designation on the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan Map from Business and Professional
Uses to Industrial Uses
IV. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING
..
APPLICANT: F1uiDyne Engineering Corporation
LOCATION: 5828 Olson Memorial Highway
REQUEST: Rezone the property at the Northeast corner of Zane
Avenue and Olson Memorial Highway from the Open
.Deve10pment Zoning District to the Industrial Zoning
District
I
,
,
-1
.~
J
j
~
f
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 23. 1989
Page 2
Chair Prazak introduced this agenda item and asked for a review of the staff
report. City Planner Beth Knoblauch reviewed this request. She described the
parcel as a long narrow strip of land with an unusual topography which makes it
useless for a lot of things. She noted that F1uiDyne, across the street, has a
lack of parking for its employees, that they are parking on the street. F1uiDyne
currently own this parcel and would like to have it rezoned to allow for a
parking lot. Planner Knoblauch said it was staff's recommendation to rezone
this property.
City Planner Knoblauch also stated this would require a amendment to the compre-
hensive plan. The comprehensive plan lists the long range use as business and
professional which would not be economical because of the topography. . She said
she felt the use as a parking lot would be appropriate.
Commissioners asked if staff had received any reaction from the neighborhood and
if they had been contacted. Planner Knoblauch said the surrounding property
owners had been notified but she had not received any calls regarding the
proposed rezoning.
-
Commissioner Kapsner asked if the property was presently used for parking and
staff said it was hot.
-
Commissioner Leppik asked if there would be any landscaping between the parking
lot and the houses. Director Grimes stated that they would probably keep as
much of th~ natural vegetation that is there on the site and that there would be
requirements for sodding, etc. along the boulevard.
Commissioner McAleese said he felt Zane Avenue was qUlte wide and felt that
parking along there was not a problem.
Staff commented that it is not legal for someone to use the street to provide
for their off-street parking and that FluiDyne would be solving this problem by
creating new parking facilities on this empty lot.
Commissioner McAleese questioned whether there was another way to allow for this
parking other than rezoning and staff said there was not.
Mr. Doug Frame was present to represent the proponent. He agreed that the lot
would be unusable for almost any other purpose than a parking lot. Mr. Frame
also noted that Zane Avenue was a wide street but had a lot of truck traffic
which presented a problem when people parked along the street. He said that
with the addition of this new parking area, they would exceed the City code for
parking requirements. Mr. Frame said they prefer to put as little landscaping
on the back hill as necessary. He said they would have to remove some trees to
allow for grading on the hill to avoid erosion.
Consensus of the Commission was that this was a unique lot and the best use of
this parcel would b~ a:parking lot.
I
-
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 23, 1989
Page 3
Commissioner McAleese stated he was uncomfortable changing the comprehensive
plan in order to put in a parking lot but agreed this would be the only way it
could be done.
It was moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Commissioner McCracken-Hunt and
motion carried unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the request to
change the comprehensive plan from open development to industrial.
It was moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Commissioner McAleese and
motion carried unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the change in
the zoning from the Open Development Zoning District to the Industrial Zoning
District on the condition that approval by the BZA for the necessary waivers is
obtained.
V. FORMAL HEARING ON AMENDMENT TO INTERIM ORDINANCE MORATORIUM
Chair Pra introduced this item which provides extension of the 1-3
Development oratorium until April 28, 1989, and Director Grimes re
need for the tension.
VII.
Kapsner and
rim Ordinance
oposed Zoning Overlay
It was moved by issioner McAleese, seconded by Commissi
motion carried una Omously to recommend extension of the
(Moratorium) contin g development restrictions in th
District.
VI. REPORTS ON CITY C
Commissioner, Leppik attended
provided a report, and Commissl
BZA meeting.
January 1989 City Council meeting and
- se reported on the January 10, 1989
ed by Commissioner McCracken-Hunt
second Planning Commission
ing session and that staff take
It was moved by Commissioner. Aleese, se
and motion carried unanimoy to set aside
meeting in February, Feb ry 27, 1989, as a w,.
no other business to b onducted at that meetiR
Commissioner McAlee -'requested staff to tell the ission what the proper
schedule would be d what issues they see that ough 0 be addressed and their
priorities.
The meeti"ng w adjourned at 8:45 P.M.
.
.
.
M.E MaR AND U M
Date:
December 11, 1996
To:
Board of Zoning Appeals
From:
Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary, Planning and Development
Subject:
5828 Olson Memorial Highway (96-12-44)
FluiDyne Engineering Corporation
FluiDyne Engineering Corporation is requesting several variances for the property it
owns at 5828 Olson Memorial Highway. Their proposal is for an office/warehouse
type building consisting of 10,075 sq.ft. The property is zoned Industrial. City Code
states that those uses allowed in the Light Industrial District are also permitted in the
Industrial District. OfficelWarehouse is a permitted use in the Industrial District. This
piece of property was rezoned from Open Development to Industrial on March 21,
1989. The reason for the rezoning was to allow FluiDyne, which 1989 owned the
building across the street at 5900 Olson Memorial Highway, to use the lot for parking.
The proposed piece of property is very narrow, making it difficult to meet side and
street setback requirements. The entire lot is 44,202.8 feet in area or 1.01 acres.
Staff believe that the only way a building could be situated on this lot is by allowing an
applicant to seek certain variances. It is up to the Board of Zoning appeals to
determine if the number of variances is actually needed to accomplish the task of
placing a usable building on the site.
Below are the requested variances in order for a building to be built on the lot at 5828
Olson Memorial Highway.
Section 11.36, Subd. 6(A) Front Yard Setback. City Code states that in the case of
premises abutting a public street, front yard setbacks shall be at least 35 feet from the
right-of-way line of said street. All front yard setbacks shall be maintained as
landscaped green areas. In the case of corner lots, all portions of said lot abutting a
public street shall be deemed to be a front yard. The variance is for 10 feet off the
required 35 feet to a distance of 25 feet. This variance covers the lack of green space
on Zane Avenue North for both the building and the parking areas.
1
.
.
.
Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(1) Side Yard Setback. City Code states that in the case of
premises adjoining a Residential Zoning District or an R-2 District, required side and
rear yard setbacks shall be not less than 100 feet in depth. The variance is for 72 feet
off the required 100 feet to a distance of 28 feet for the proposed building on the east
side.
Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(4) Side Yard Setback. City Code states that all required
front yard setbacks shall be landscaped, and one-half (1/2) of the required side and
rear yard setbacks shall be landscaped. The variance is for 34 feet off the required 50
feet to a distance of 16 feet for the proposed parking area at its closest point on the
east side of the lot.
Staff has asked the applicant to be prepared to show examples, to the Board of
Zoning Appeals, or the type of building materials that will be used on this site. The
applicant will need to appear before the Building Board of Review with information on
the building before any building permit is issued.
mkd
2
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
February 11, 1997
To:
William S. Joynes, City Manager
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Appeal by FluiDyne Engineering Corporation -- 5828 Olson
Memorial Highway - Regarding the Denial for Variances at the
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Meeting of December 17,1996
FluiDyne Engineering Corporation approached the Board of Zoning Appeals, at its
meeting of December 17,1996, for several variances. The BZA denied these
requests (3-2 vote). FluiDyne has now chosen to ~ppeal the decision of the BZA on
the variances to the City Council. The BZA minutes fmm December 17 are attached
for your review as is the BZA packet concerning the request for waivers. -
FluiDyne rents space at 5900 0ls6n Memorial, across the street from the proposed
site. FluiDyne owns the vacant lot at 5828 Olson Memorial Highway. They wish to
construct an office/warehouse building on the site. Because the sije is so small,
variances would be required no matter what size building is .proposed.
Three variances are required in order for the proposed office/warehouse building to be
constructed on the above mentioned site. Language pertaining to code requirements
can be found under the Industrial Zoning District. The requested variances are:
Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 6(A) Front Yard Setback - City Code states that
in the case of premises abutting a public street front yard setbacks shall be at least 35
fe~t from the right-of-way line of said street. All front yard setbacks shall be
maintained as landscaped green areas. In the case of corner lots all portions of said
lot abutting a public street shall be deemed to be a front yard. The request for
variance is for 10 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 25 feet for lack of green
space on Zane Avenue North for both the building and parking areas.
Waiver of Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(1) Side Yard S~tback - City Codes states in
the case of premises adjoining a Residential Zoning District or an R-2 District, required
side and rear yard setbacks shall be not less than 100 feet in depth. The request for
variance is for 72 feet off the required 100 feet to a distance of 28 feet for the
proposed building on the east side.
1
.
.
.
Waiver of Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(4) Side Yard Setback - City Codes states all
required front yard setbacks shall be landscaped, and one-half (1/2) of the required
side and rear yard setbacks shall be landscaped. The requested variance is for 34
feet off the required. 50 feet to a distance of 16 feet for the proposed parking area at its
closest point on the east side of the lot.
As noted in the 8ZA minutes of December 17, this property had been rezoned from
Open Development to Industrial on March 21, 1989 to allow FluiDyne to use the site
for parking. The proposed property was never used as a parking lot.
There are four residential homes to the east of the proposed site. The properties to
the east, north,and west of the residential homes are zoned Industrial or Business
and Professional Office. There is residential property across Highway 55, to the
south. Three residents appeared before the BZA and staff received one written
comment which was forwarded to the Board. Their comments can be found in the
attached minutes.
Necessary Action
The City Council should review the facts and findings and either approve or deny the
request for waivers. Approval or denial would be by a simple majority vote. City Code
(Section 11.90, Subd. 4(C)(2)) states that the City Council shall, within thirty (30) days
from the date of such appeal, make its findings and determination with respect to the
appeal and serve a written report thereof upon the appellant by United States Mail.
The written report can be made a part of the Council minutes.
mkd
attachments:
FluiDyne's Appeal Form
BZA Packet
BZA Order and Minutes from December 17,1996
2
.
Regular Meeting of the City Council
February 18, 1997
Page 5
The motion for the
and upon a vo Ing taken thereon, the
Johnson, er, Micks and Russell; and the ~
wher said resolution was declared duly passe
er signature attested by the City Clerk. .
esolution was seconded by Member Micks
'ng voted in favor thereof: Anderson,
. g voted against the same: none;
adopted, signed by the Mayor
.
Informal Public Hearing - Appeal from Board of Zoning Appeals Denial - FluiDyne
Engineering Corporation - 5828 Olson Memorial Highway
William Joynes introduced the agenda item. Mark Grimes, Director. of Planning. and
Development and Board of Zoning Appeals Staff Liaison reviewed the background of the
item. Allen Barnard reviewed the legal process and answered questions from the Council.
The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were afforded
the opportunity to express their views thereon.
Len Frame, Applicant, reviewed the Board of Zoning Appeals denial and his reasons for
his appeal and answered questions from the Council. .
Don Edson, 5804 Olson Memorial Highway, stated the lot was zoned for the purpose of a
parking lot and now it is a wooded area, feels if the woods are removed from the site it is
going to turn it into an industrial neighborhood with four residential properties in the middle
of it, expressed concern over the impact on the wildlife, doesn't feel the proposed
landscaping of the site will be able to cover the proposed building, and would like to keep
the lot as it is.
.
Georgia Goodwin, 5806 Olson Memorial Highway, stated if they build she will be impacted
the most, was prepared for the propertY to become a parking lot but not a warehouse in
her backyard, request that the variances not be granted, stated there are 16 cars already
parked on the street today and if the facility is built there won't be enough parking.
'.
Regular Meeting of the City Council
February 18, 1997
Page 6
Informal Public Hearing - Appeal from Board of Zoning Appeals Denial - FluiDyne
Engineering Cor:poration - 5828 Olson Memorial Highway - Continued
,Jim Trebble, 5802 Olson Memorial Highway, expressed concern over the odors from
Printed Media, stated they have to run their air conditioning from May until fall because of
the smell, there is also noise from the snowblowing, and snowplowing from the
businesses at night, semi trucks pull in and sit on Zane Avenue and run all night waiting
for companies to open in the morning, and the smell and noise from the semis filters into
their homes. asked what happens if they move out of the building and someone else
moves in, feels his property values will not go up if the lot is developed.
.
Florence Larson, 5808 Olson Memorial Highway has lived there since 1952 and feels she
should be able to live the rest of her life in peace and quiet.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Micks to uphold the Board of Zoning Appeals denial. Motion died for a lack of
a second.
.
MOVED by LeSuer, seconded by Russell and motion carried to make a finding that due to
the unique circumstances of this lot it has caused an undue hardship in its use and
reverse the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals and grant the following variances:
1. Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 6{A) Front Yard Setback - variance for 10 feet off
the required 35 feet to a distance of 25 feet for lack of green space on Zane
Avenue North for both the building and parking areas,
2. Waiver from Section 11.36. Subd. 6{C){1) Side Yard Setback - variance for 72 feet
off the required 100 feet to a distance of 28 feet for the proposed building on the
east side;
3. Waiver from Section 11.36. Subd. 6{C){4) Side Yard Setback - variance for 34 feet
off the required 50 feet to a distance of 16 feet for the proposed parking area at its
closest point on the east side of the lot.
The grant of the above-referenced variances is subject to the following conditions:
1.
The installation of landscaping that creates a buffer between the building to be built
on the site and the residential lots to the east. Such landscaping must be approved
by the Building Board of Review after consultation with the City Forester.
Mechanical equipment shall not be located on the roof of the building to be built,
but shall be located inside the building.
The building shall have a mansard roof conforming to the drawings shown the
Council and the light poles in the parking lot shall be lowered so the light does not
impact the nearby residents to the east.
2.
.
3.
.
.
.
Regular Meeting of the City Council
February 18, 1997
Page 7
Informal Public Hearing - Appeal from Board of Zoning Appeals Denial - FluiDyne
Engineering Corporation - 5828 Olson Memorial Highway - Continued
Council Member Micks voted no.
The Council requested staff to speak with some of the companies in the area and request
that they ask their employees to park in the employee parking lots provided and not on the
street in front of the residences.
The Council requested the Chief of Fire and Inspections provide the Council with a memo
which outlines the measures that Printed Media, 815 Zane Avenue North, has taken to
alleviate the odors from their stacks.
MOVED by
golf course/swi
basis as recomme
the memo from Rick
1997.
II, seconded by LeSuer and motion carried un ously to approve the
pool exchange with the City of St. L ark on a one year trial
by the Open Space and Recrea . Commission and outlined in
ecreation, dated February 11,
RESOLUTIO'
RES TION FOR APPRO
"::!
LDEN HILLS WEST 3RD /i;.
The motion for the option of the foregoing resolution was s
and upon a vot eing taken thereon, the following voted in t
Johnson, LeS r, Micks and Russell; and the following voted ag
whereupon id resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, s'
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
ed by Member Russell
thereof: Anderson,
the same: none,
d by the Mayor
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
June 17, 1997
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat of the "G. B.C. Partners
Addition" - The North 1 00 feet of the property located at the
NortheastQuadrant of Zane Avenue and Olson Memorial Highway
Frontage Road - GBC Partners, Applicant
.
GBC Partners have requested a preliminary plat in order to consolidate two
parcels that are located at the northeast comer of Zane Avenue and the TH 55
frontage road. GBC has a purchase agreement with the owners of both of these
properties. The area to be consolidated is 55,814 sq.ft. in area (1.28 acres).
Currently there are two unplatted lots. The south or larger lot is 44,014 sq.ft.
(1.01 acres) and the north or smaller lot is 11,800 sq.ft. (.27 acres). Because the
two lots are unplatted, the subdivision code requires that the consolidation go
through the normal platting process which includes a preliminary and final plat.
The property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map as Industrial. The
Zoning Map indicates that the south or larger parcel is currently zoned Industrial
and the north or smaller lot is Open Development. The Planning Commission
will be considering the rezoning of the north lot, to Industrial, prior to this item
being on the agenda. If the north lot is not rezoned to Industrial, the staff would
not recommend that the preliminary plat of the consolidation be approved. It is
not good policy to have one lot with two zoning designations. Also, the applicant
that wants to build on the consolidated lot is only interested if the entire parcel
may be utilized.
GBC Partners is the owner of Golden Valley Supply, a distributor of ceiling tile
products. They are currently located at the southwest comer of Golden Valley
Road and Zane Avenue (1150 Zane Ave. N.) where they rent space. They now
would like to construct a 16,575 sq.ft. office/warehouse building on the subject
site solely for their business. As indicated in their explanation regarding the
rezoning, Golden Valley Supply has operated in Golden Valley for 22 years.
They have stated that they have searched the City and find that the only site for
their new building is the site at the northeast comer of Zane and TH 55.
GBC has submitted a preliminary plat with information that is required by the
subdivision code. Because this is a consolidation of two smaller parcels, the
preliminary plat is not complicated. As indicated on the plat, there are already
.
.
two streets that serve this property. The TH 55 frontage road is along the south
side of the property. No access is planned from this property to the frontage
road. Staff has sent this plat to the State for their comments. Because there are
no driveways planned to TH 55, staff expects to have no significant findings from
the State. The primary access to the site will be from Zane Avenue which runs
along the entire length of the west side of the site. Two driveways are proposed
to be constructed on Zane Avenue. This driveway locations will have to be
approved by the Engineering Department.
One of the requirements of the Subdivision Code. is that all streets in the
Industrial area must be at least 70 feet in width. Zane Avenue is only 50 feet in
width from TH 55 north to the railroad tracks. As shown on the preliminary plat,
Zane Avenue was dedicated to the City for roadway purposes and is only 50 feet
wide. Half of Zane Avenue was given to the City by easement from the west
side of the street, and half by easement from the "properties on the east side.
The existing roadway for Zane Avenue comes to within about three feet of the
property line of the subject property. The staff (Planning and Engineering) are
requesting that an additional ten feet of right-of-way be dedicated to the City
from this property for Zane Avenue. Staff believe that this is important due to the
Mure needs for widening Zane Avenue and for snow storage. The existing
street currently allows for two lanes of traffic and parking on both sides.
With this additional dedication, the lot becomes even more narrow. It is now 118
feet wide. With ten feet more taken off the width, the lot will only be 108 feet
wide east to west. Practically speaking, the lot can only be developed with
significant zoning variances for setback. I am attaching a copy of my report to
the Board of Zoning Appeals for your review.
At the present time, there are cars parked during the business day on Zane
Avenue in front of the proposed site. These cars should be parked in the parking
lot across the street. However, the employees find it more convenient to park on
the street because it is a shorter walk to the front door. If parking becomes a
problem in this area, the City has the right to erect "No Parking" signs.
The site does have a grade difference from east to west. At the east end of the
site, the elevation is approximately 300 feet. At its lowest point along Zane Ave.
the elevation is 275 ft. The site will have to be graded to allow for the building
site and parking lot. There may have to be retaining wall built along the east side
adjacent to the four single family homes. Drainage from the site will be directed
toward the storm sewer system that exists in Zane Ave.
There are currently may trees located on the site. Most of the trees will have to
be removed when the site is graded. As many tree will be saved as possible. A
new landscape plan will have to be prepared as part of the building permit
procedure. Special landscaping attention should be given to screen the
residential properties to the east.
The primary issue to be addressed by the Planning Commission relates to the
rezoning application that is under consideration by the Commission. If the entire
site is rezoned to Industrial as requested by GBC, the consolidation of the lots.
into one lot makes sense. The small 1 00 ft. by 118 ft. parcel is too small to stand
.
.
2
.
on its own. If the rezoning is recommended for denial, the Commission should
not recommend approval of the preliminary plat consolidating the two lots.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of the GBC Partners
Addition with several conditions. First, the Commission recommends approval of
the rezoning of the north lot of this consolidation from Open Development to
Industrial. Second, that the final plat indicate an additional ten feet of right-of-
way for Zane Ave. Third, that a grading and drainage plan be submitted for
review and approval by the Engineering Department. Fourth, the comments of
the MN DOT be received prior to final plat approval. And fifth, all driveway cuts
to Zane Ave. be approved by the Engineering Department.
Attachments: Location Map
Preliminary Site Plan {see plans submitted with
Proposed Plat: G.B.C. Partners rezoning information
.
.
3
L-~- -]/~\ ~---~------ ---- ~-
: N ~~~
~ ~ ~~
· _ -:!;fJ "'i" -,so .
, .". - o.
~ ~:I'" . 'ZS'JD-W 455 ~
-.!. .~
\~ _ ~21.IJ ~....,~.. +7J.-b II-'/~,'__.. ~ .
f 1.1 ...__.' ..1080-!
JH . --- --- ...--
'" JLM -10 Q' . .-
t'l .. Ril:
' . If '.00'11-1V' .---
10 ".
..
..
~
1>
;,z,.
~
~ .-: ~
~ .. ~
~'l -~~N'~-'
. 6;-
~
__lL-----
It'
.
.
-
a
...
,
~
tA
....
J... ~6'
.......+
~~'"
1 0:'"
~Q~.JI'
- 180+.1-
'70
(J.H. Tenn.i1nf Co..
Hole: pis/anees tJmi bearln1.s perf,,'
are faken From Plif,..'
-
0..
~
fSUG~
n c:S~t.. II ",1\ \~~\Wt.
nS~v \5 fOR
oRO?v ...,\"G ..., \5
1" Rt..1.0" \5\0"
~... .~Y>\)\~ 5\\t..
... S t.."\ \ Rt..
~, .
~ ~, ,
.
o
".'.~)
'^
\ ,
C\"~ .
r".....J ,
,__,
I
..
-
~
I
.
.
$7SS S7S0
'1 to G.H. Tenndnf Co. and arIL'acen,
Vlemorlal flal Case No./3'OUi!
. .,(
0"
...'..",'
o'
o .
"';;10
cro
.....
..: JLM ID
\ al 10'
J \
~
~
t
." .
.....
..
o
o
I
.
\6
..
;.
....
"
I.
'"
...
~
- ~
I
-I
..
~
:..
...
I
i
IT'
01'
....
:..
..
i
...
~
..
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
June 18, 1997
Board of Zoning Appeals
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Devilment
5828 Olson Memorial Highway and the north 100 feet behind this
lot (97-6-29)
GBC Partners. LLP (Gary and Connie Larson). Applicant
e
GBC Partners is requesting several variances for the property as noted above.
Its plans are to purchase the property at 5828 Olson Memorial Highway and the
12,00 sq.ft. lot directly to the north. Their proposal is to construct a 16,575 sq.ft.
office/warehouse building on the 55,814 sq.ft. site at the northeast comer of
Zane Ave. and TH 55 frontage road. '
In December, 1996, the BZA denied several variances that would have permitted
FluiDyne from constructing a smaller; 10,075 sq.ft. building at the same location.
FluiDyne appealed this decision to the City Council and the Council decided to
grant the variances. Since that time, FluiDyne has decided not to build on the
site. They have tried to market the site to others to construct a building using the
variances granted by the Council. FluiDyne now has entered into a purchase
agreement with GBC Partners to purchase the site in order to allow for the
construction of a 16,575 sq.ft. building. This building would become the
headquarters for Golden Valley Supply, a distributor of ceiling.tiles. They have
been located in Golden Valley for 22 years. They are currently a renter in a
building to the north at Golden Valley Road and Zane Avenue. Their desire now
is to own their own building in Golden Valley. They have stated that sites are
difficult to find.
In order to make the site large enough to accommodate a 16,575 sq.ft. building,
. GBC has entered into a purchase agreement on the small, 11,800 sq.ft. parcel
north of the FluiDyne site. (This is indicated as Parcel 2 on the preliminary plat
which is attached.) Parcel 2 is now owned by R.L. Johnson.
At the June 23rd Planning Commission meeting, the Commission will consider
two items related to this proposal. First, they will consider the rezoning of Parcel
2 from Open Development to Industrial. Second, they will consider the
preliminary plat of the "GBC Addition" which combines the two lots into one. The
staff will indicate to the BZA the recommendation of the Commission on those
two items at its BZA meeting the following night. Since the action of the Planning
Commission is a recommendation, the BZA should make a decision on the
.e
e
variance requests even if the Commission recommends against the rezoning and
the subdivision. The BZA should take the action of the Commission into
consideration when they make their decision. In order for the City CQuncil to
have all the information necessary to make a decision on this proposed building,
a decision of the BZA is necessary. If the BZA would approve the variances, the
approval should be made contingent on the City Council approving the rezoning
and the subdivision.
I am attaching a copy of the information relating to the BZA and. City Council
decision on the previous variance from earlier this year. 1
The proposed GBC structure is significantly larger than the FluiDyne proposal.
However, the lot is 11,800 sq.ft. larger. Before the necessary variances are
listed, there is one new wrinkle that will effect this proposal and the extent of the
variances. Because the property must be subdivided, the City requires that all
streets in the Industrial zone have 70 feet of right-of-way width. Zane Avenue is
only 50 feet wide in this area. As shown on the survey, the curb is only three
feet from the right-of-way line. The staff is recommending that an additional 1 0
feet of right-of-way be dedicated for Zane Avenue from the GBC parcels. This
essentially makes the lot 10 feet narrower. Because of the traffic in this area, the
staff believes that it is necessary to take this additional property. When and if
the street is rebuilt, it will probably have to be wider. This means that the
proposed GBC building will even be closer to the Zane Avenue right..;of-way.
Section 11.36, Subd. 6(A) Front Yard Setback. City Code states that in the
case of buildings abutting a public street, the front yard setback shall be at least
35 feet. All front yards must be maintained as green space. The front yard
setback variance for the proposed building along Zane Avenue is 20 feet due to
the additional 1 0 feet of right-of-way for Zane Avenue. The proposed building
and parking areas on Zane Avenue. will be to within 15 feet of the new right-of-
way line. This variance covers lack of green space on Zane Avenue for both
building and parking.
Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(1) Side Yard Setback. City Code states that in the
case of a building adjoining a Residential Zoning District, the required side and
rear yard setbacks shall be not less than 100 feet in depth. The variance is for
72 feet off the required 100 feet toa distance of 28 feet for the proposed building
on the east side.
Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(4)Side Yard Setback. City Code states that one
half of the required side and rear yard setbacks shall be landscaped. The
variance is for 35 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 15 feet for the
landscaping adjacent to the parking areas along the east side of the lot.
Section 11.36. Subd. 7(A) and (B) Loading and Parking Requirements. The
City Code requires that there be one space for each 250 sq.ft. of office space
and one space for each 500 sq. ft. of warehouse space. The applicant is
requesting a variance to permit 12 fewer parking spaces than required. The
proposed parking lot indicates 26 spaces when 38 are required. (There is
approximately 2000 sq.ft. of office space and 14,750 sq.ft. of warehouse space.)
Adequate handicap parking is indicated.
e
e
2
.
The BZA may place conditions on a variance. The staff believes that
landscaping of any site is important. In this case, it is especially important
because it is adjacent to residential properties. There may also be concerns
about the design of the building and placement of equipment on the roof.
Attachments: Report to the BZA dated December 11, 1996
Minutes of the BZA dated December 17,1997
Staff Memo to the City Council dated February 11, 1997
Minutes of the City Council dated February 18" 1997
Application material
e
e
3
.
.
.
STATE-MANDATED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
THE MANDATE
In the 1994 legislative session, a law was passed requiring every local government in
Minnesota to "review and, if necessary, amend its entire comprehensive plan and its
fiscal devices and official controls" by the end of 1998. Staff have been working on
various plan elements since the law was passed, but progress to date has been
sketchy. Some plan elements are legally required to take into account the updated
regional systems statements of the Metropolitan Council, which were not available
until the end of 1996. The Metro Council, as state-mandated review agency for the
comprehensive plans of all Twin Cities Metro Area communities, has also been
updating its content and procedural guidelines; delays in releasing the new
guidelines have delayed staff work at the local level. Finally, some plan elements
are being held up simply because there are other elements that must be updated
first. In this report, staff will attempt to outline: a) basic plan requirements,
b) departmental responsibility for various plan elements, c) basic steps in the update
process, and d) where the City stands now with regard to the various elements.
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
State law divides comprehensive plan elements into two broad categories: land use
and public facilities. The land use elements are primarily local in focus, while public
facilities elements must tie in with corresponding regional system plans under the
guidance of the Metro Council. Within the land use category, there are required,
Ilquasi-required", and discretionary elements in varying degrees of specificity; all
element~ in the public facilities category are required. Staff have taken the view that
elements may be shifted around within and between categories, as long as all
required points are adequately covered. The following list summarizes the content of
plan elements identified under state law.
Land Use Plan Elements:
1. General land Use (required) - a discussion of the existing and proposed
location, intensity, and extent of the use of land for agricultural, residential,
commercial, industrial, and other public and private purposes.
2. Housing (required) - standards, plans, and programs for providing adequate
housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and regional needs.
3. Miscellaneous Other Specific Land Uses (discretionary) - Housing is the .
only land use for which a detailed plan element is required in addition to the
General Land Use Plan; however, the state allows local governments to add
any other single-use elements it may find appropriate. The only discretionary
land use element in Golden Valley's current (1982) plan is the Community
Facilities Plan, which discusses the City Hall campus, other City buildings, the
former Golden Valley Health Center, and schools. Staff recommend folding
its contents into General Land Use rather than retaining it as a separate plan.
4. Water Resources Manag~ment (required) - a discussion of the existing and
proposed location, extent, and use of lakes, wetlands, rivers, streams, natural
drainage courses, and any adjoining land areas that affect water resources.
This plan must coordinate goals, policies, and objectives for the City's two
watershed districts. A fairly recent requirement, it is not addressed at all in
Golden Valley's current comprehensive plan.
5. Solar Access (required) - provisions for the protection and development of
access to solar energy. When this requirement was introduced at the time of
the 1982 plan, the Metro Council instructed the City to insert it in the Housing
Plan; staff expect to keep it there.
6. Miscellaneous other "Protection Areas" (quasi-required) - plans outlining
the preservation, regulation, and/or reasonable development of a number of
local resources as appropriate (that is the extent of direction provided in state .
law). Staff expect that any resources appropriate for inclusion in Golden
Valley's comprehensive plan can be folded into other required plan elements.
The list of resources to be considered for inclusion in the plan per state law is:
. historic sites
· wetlands and intermittent water features
· significant groundwater recharge areas
· slopes subject to moderate or severe erosion
· forests and woodlands
· soils or bedrock with particular development constraints
· natural water bodies and water courses
· unique or endangered species of plants and animals
.. agricultural lands
. mineral extraction
· natural resource areas of particular historical significance.
.
2
. Public Facilities Plan Elements:
1. Transportation - a discussion of the location, extent, function, and capacity of
existing and proposed public and private transportation services and facilities.
This plan must be coordinated with the regional transportation system
statement of the Metro Council.
2. Sewer Policy - a discussion of the existing and planned public sanitary sewer
system. This plan must be coordinated with the regional sewer system
statement of the Metro Council.
3. Parks and Open Space - a discussion of existing and planned parks and
recreational open spaces. This plan must be coordinated with the regional
open space system statement of the Metro Council. Because of the
importance of Golden Valley's open spaces as part of the physical fabric of
the community, the City's parks plan has always been considered more as a
land use element than a public facility element.
4. Water Supply - a discussion of the existing and planned local water supply
system, including a conservation program, an emergency preparedness plan,
an investigation of possible joint water supply efforts with other local
govemments, and a wellhead protection plan. This plan must be coordinated
with the regional water supply system statement of the Metro Council. It is
. another fairly recent requirement not included in Golden Valley's 1982 plan.
The content summaries above are included only for broad overview purposes. They
do not provide any direct indication of how much time or effort may be needed to
complete a given element. Actual content requirements for comprehensive plans in
general and for specific plan elements are found in several sections of state law and
can be quite complex in some cases.
The Metro Council contributes its own content requirements to the. mix in the form of
its plan guidelines. Planning staff have learned from past experience that often the
easiest way to get a plan element through the mandatory Metro Council review is to
cover each item listed in the guidelines, even if it seems irrelevant to Golden Valley's
particular situation. Sometimes, addressing a given item is so difficult or yields so
little result for the effort involved that it becomes preferable to take a "short-cut"
through the guidelines; in such cases, a thorough explanation of reasons can be
helpful in convincing the Metro Council not to take issue with the City's decision.
.
Because the City is under a deadline, Planning staff recommend that the current plan
update be limited to the basic required elements and the basic required contents for
each element, except where the Planning Commission or City Council identify a
pressing local need to deal with a subject not otherwise required. Discretionary plan
elements, or discretionary expanded discussions within required elements, can be
considered at a more leisurely pace after the required elements are all in place.
3
B. DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBiliTY
.
Staff responsibility for various plan elements will be distributed among the Planning
and Development, Public Works, and Park and Recreation departments. The
amount of time and effort to be expended on any given element of Golden Valley's
comprehensive plan will be left up to the City department with the greatest
responsibility for a particular subject area. Planning staff will be available for joint
meetings, if desired, on matters relating to general content and consistency of style
among elements. Planning staff will also pick up "loose ends" - such as overall
introductory comments, a profile of the City's Capital Improvements Program, and
definition of common terms - after the individual elements are drafted. Areas of
responsibility for plan elements are identified as follows:
Required Plan Element
Land Use
General Land Use
Housing
Water Management
Solar Access
Miscellaneous Protection Areas
Public Facilities
Transportation
Sewer
Parks and Open Space
Water Supply
Departmental Responsibility
Planning and Development
Planning and Development
Public Works
Planning and Development
Park and Rec/Planning/Public Works
.
Public Works
Public Works
Park and Recreation
Public Works
C. STEPS IN THE PROCESS
This section will discuss only the legally mandated planning process, which puts
public input at a relatively late point in plan development and in a relatively formal
context. Staff recognize that in Golden Valley, as in many other communities today,
there is a desire for broader and earlier citizen input in certain plan elements than
strictly required by law. Staff applaud the increased public interest, but the looming
state deadline is a concern at this point.
For now, staff recommend establishing the basic framework of the legally required
plan elements by following the standard planning process. That framework could
easily include recommendations for expanded investigations involving citizen
planriers as appropriate. In other words, the City could "plan" for citizen planning. .
The citizen-involvement recommendations would then be implemented through
special planning studies and/or future updates of individual elements.
4
.
.
.
At the beginning of the planning process for each plan element, staff - with
consultant assistance in some cases - must investigate and outline all of the specific
requirements for that element. Information on pertinent City characteristics must be
compiled and analyzed. Issues or opportunities must be identified and explored.
From this groundwork, a draft of the plan element can be drawn up and circulated for
review and discussion. The Planning Commission has the main responsibility for
reviewing the collected information and establishing draft goals, policies, and
objectives. The Parks element is an exception to the rule, as City Code makes the
Open Space and Recreation Commission responsible for changes to that part of the
comprehensive plan. If desired, various other City groups may be called upon to
make comments or recommendations as appropriate for any given plan element.
Once the plan element has been fully assembled in draft form, the Planning
Commission is required by law to hold a publi9 hearing for its consideration.
Although all meetings of City boards and commissions are open to the public, this is
the first point where public input is formally solicited. From the time the Planning
Commission hearing is announced until final adoption by the City Council, the
proposed plan element and any pertinent related materials should remain available
for public review at the Golden Valley library.
The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council, which then
holds its own public hearing. If the Council determines that more work is needed on
the proposed plan element, the document may be sent back to the Planning
Commission, or even further back to staff, or simply held for additional debate by the
Council. No plan element advances beyond this stage of the process until it is found
suitable for approval by the Council. .
Once the City Council determines a proposed plan element to be satisfactory, the
document can be forwarded for outside comment as required by state law. Council
approval at this point can take one of two forms: the plan element may be given final
approval, subject only to subsequent administrative action on any changes required
by the Metro Council; or it may be approved for review purposes only, subject to final
consideration after termination of the review period and receipt of all outside
comments. If approval is for review purposes only, the public hearing will either be
continued or adjourned until the comment period is over, and then will be reopened
or recalled as necessary.
State law requires that each Metro Area city allow a suitable period for outside
comment by the Metro Council, neighboring cities, and affected school districts after
initial consideration of any comprehensive plan element. Staff at the Metro Council
spent several months trying to interpret the impact of recent changes in state law on
this outside review requirement. The final determination is that cities must allow six
months for review and comment by their neighbors and by school districts, and 60
5
days for review and comment by the Metro Council. The six month review period .
can be terminated early if ALL of the neighboring communities and affected school
districts have signed off on the draft plan.
The Metro Council will accept plan elements for review at any time after City Council
approval as discussed above, but will not issue final comments until the end of the
longer review period or until all other reviewers have signed off. The City can have
the proposed plan element available for citizen review and can continue to hold
information meetings throughout the outside review period if desired; however,
should such meetings result in any major rethinking of plan content, the City may
have to cancel the review and start over.
A major problem with the six month outside review period is that it significantly
shortens the effective deadline by which the City must complete each draft plan
element in order to have the updated comprehensive plan fully in place by the end of
1998. Between the day the Planning Commission decides a draft element is ready
for its first public hearing and the day it finally becomes an official part of Golden
Valley's comprehensive plan, staff estimate a minimum interval of eight months to a
year. This means that the last draft element must enter the hearing stage no later
than April 1998 if the City is to meet the deadline.
D. WHERE THE CITY STANDS TODAY
.
As indicated earlier, staff have begun work on several of the required plan elements.
The Housing Plan - including provisions for solar access - is the farthest along,
having gone to the outside review stage in April. For purposes of clarity and general
reader-friendliness, the plan itself has been kept short and to the point, with all of the
extensive supporting documentation collected into a separate background report.
A consultant prepared a draft Water Supply plan last year. Due to some confusion
over whether it really was part of the comprehensive plan, it never advanced to the
public hearing stage. With that matter finally settled, the document should appear
before the Planning Commission any day now. Planning staff are concerned about
how the Water Supply Plan should be made available to the general public after
adoption. It is longer than the entire current comprehensive plan, and includes
several oversized color exhibits which add to the cost 'and difficulty of printing. It also
contains extensive technical discussions that are not at all reader-friendly.
Unfortunately, much of the content is required under state law. Planning staff would
like to have the consultant or Public Works staff prepare a "plain-speaking" executive
summary for inclusion in the comprehensive plan, with a reference to the availability
of the complete Water Supply Plan on request. Metro Council staff have confirmed
that many other metro area communities are considering this same strategy. .
6
.
.
.
The Water Resources Management Plan must be coordinated between the City's
two watershed districts. The Bassett Creek Water Management District plan has
been ready for more than a year, but the Minnehaha Creek district plan is still under
debate by member communities. Current estimates of time needed for compiling the
City's Water Management Resources Plan from the two district plans would put the
- completion date well beyond the state-mandated comprehensive plan deadline.
Since the City does not have sole control over completion of the remaining district
plan, and cannot proceed without it, this situation will probably qualify for a deadline
extension. State law requires that cities without a plan in place adopt an interim
policy for water management, and Golden Valley has done so. Producing a Water
Resources Management Plan in a format suitable to include in the comprehensive
plan raises the same printing and readability concerns as for the Water Supply Plan;
staff recommend using the same executive summary strategy in response.
The Parks and Open Space Plan is in the hands of the Park and Recreation
Department and the Open Space and Recreation Commission. It is one of the plan
elements that must incorporate updates to the Metropolitan Council's regional
system statements, which were completed late last year. To ensure consistency of
style, easy and inexpensive printing, and a reader-friendly document, Planning staff
recommend that this element be drafted in the same format as the Housing Plan.
Among the elements in what state law considers.the Land Use Plan section of the
comprehensive plan, Golden Valley has made the least progress with its General
Land Use Plan. New plan content requirements may make it difficult or impossible to
complete an update of this element without using computerized mapping software,
which is not yet available to the City in-house. Also, it is important to have access to
at least some of the information from the updated Parks and Open Space Plan
before the Planning Commission focuses its attention on the General Land Use Plan.
Staff have begun investigating some general land use issues, however, and will try to
accomplish as much as possible while waiting for the other matters to be settled.
When the General Land Use Plan finally reaches the plan-drafting stage, staff
recommend formatting it in the same way as the Housing Plan.
The Transportation Plan and Sewer Plan must also be in conformity with updated
Metro Council regional system statements. In addition, they depend on information
from the General Land Use Plan; obviously, any planned changes in population or
employment concentrations around the City could have an impact on local streets
and sewers. In theory, then, the General Land Use Plan should be updated before
the Transportation Plan or Sewer Plan. In practice, because Golden Valley is fully
developed and redevelopment is costly and time-consuming, it may be possible to at
least begin work on transportation and sewers with the assumption that few or no
significant land use changes will be included in the comprehensive plan. Again,
Planning staff would like to see these elements cast in a format similar to that. of the
housing plan, or else accompanied by an executive summary that could be included
in the comprehensive plan document in lieu of the actual plan.
7
That leaves the "quasi-required" miscellaneous protection areas. As a fully
developed community, Golden Valley is no longer impacted by some of the items on
the recommended list. Others can be comfortably accommodated within required
plan elements such as Parks and Open Space, Water Resources Management, or
.. Water Supply. At this time, staff do not anticipate a need to prepare separate plan
elements for any of the listed miscellaneous protection areas.
.
CONCLUSION
Given the need to allow as much as a year for hearings and outside review, the
preferred option would be to have all required plan elements ready for their first
hearing at the Planning Commission level by January 1998; the last-minute fall-back
is April 1998. A rough scheduling calendar is provided on the next page. At this
point, staff are assuming that the City will be pushed to the last minute on at least
two elements.
The increased workload for staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council in
the upcoming months will be enormous. Staff may need some outside assistance.
The Planning Commission and/or Council may need to schedule some working
sessions aside from their regular meetings. If absolutely necessary, staff believe that .
an extension may be obtained, but the City should first be prepared to show that
reasonable effort has been made to comply with the state-mandated deadline. For
example, if several plan elements have been fully adopted, and most or all others are
at least as far as the outside review stage, the City should have a pretty solid
argument. It will also help if there are several other cities in the same boat.
.
8
.
.
SCHEDULING CALENDAR
FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
(As of June1997)
PLAN
ELEMENT
Housing
CURRENT
STATUS
At Metro Council
-waiting end of
6-month outside
review period
BEGIN
RESEARCH
Completed
TARGET PC
HEARING
DATE
Completed
BEGIN
OUTSIDE
REVIEW
7 Apr '97
Water On hold for In process ? ?
Resources remaining
Management district plan;
interim strategy
in place
Water Supply Draft complete, Completed June or July '97 Aug or Sept '97
need summary
for comp plan
. Parks & Open Park/Rec staff June or July '97 January '98 March '98
Space looking at
options.
General land Not started yet! Aug or Sept '97 January '98 March '98
Use need info from
Parks element
Transportation Not started yet; ? (Maybe April '98 June '98
need info from concurrent with
Gen. land Use Gen. land Use,
element or after approval
of map portion
of land Use)
Sewers Not started yet; ? (Maybe April '98 June '98
need info from concurrent with
Gen. land Use Gen. land Use,
element or after approval
of map portion
of land Use)
.
9