04-11-94 PC Agenda
e
AGE N D A
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
April 11, 1994
7:00 PM
":
,
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 14, 1994
II. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - Rezoning from Multiple Dwelling to
Residential District
Application: Ronald and Melissa Nelson
Address:
5635 Glenwood Avenue, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Rezone 5635 Glenwood Avenue from Multiple Dwelling to a
Residential District
Request:
e
III. UPDATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A. Land Use Section
B. Housing Section
IV. REPORTS ON MEETINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
CITY COUNCIL AND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
V. OTHER BUSINESS
VI. ADJOURNMENT
,
,
e
.
<
:
.
,
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 'j
land use proposal based upon the Commission's determination of whether the pro- '
posed 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 I
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 recommenda-
tion. in reaching its decision.
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 ~roposal and the ,recommenda-
tion 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 rai!ing their hands. The Chair may
set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number
of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for
groups will have a longer pertod of time for. questions/comments.
e
4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the
Chair. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record.
5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will deter-
mine who will answer your questions.
6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until
everyone has had the opportun~ty to speak initiallYf Please limit
your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal.
7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the
proposal and take appropriate action.
e
:
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
e
March 14, 1994
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City
Hall, Council Chamber, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The
meeting was called to order Chair McAleese at 7:04 PM.
Those present were Commi ss i oners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Lewi s, McAleese,
Pentel and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and
Development; and Beth Knoblauch, City Planner.
I. Approval of Minutes - February 14, 1994
MOVED by Groger; seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve
the February 14, 1994 minutes as submitted.
II. Election of Officers
Chair McAleese asked for nominations. Nominations were made as follows:
Kevin McAleese, Chair; Emilie Johnson, Vice-Chair and Jean Lewis, Secretary.
No one contested the nominations, and all votes in favor of the nominees were
unani mou s.
III. Review of Attendance
Chair McAleese reviewed the attendance schedule with the Commissioners.
e VI. Process for Updating Comprehensive Plan
The Commission discussed the updating of the Plan. The first two sections of
the Plan will be brought before the Planning Commission for review at the next
meeting.
V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council and Board of Zoning Appeals
No reports given.
IV. Other Business
Rick Groger reported on a person living in the basement of one of the commer-
cially zoned Starbird buildings at Lilac Drive and Golden Valley Road. This
property has been a matter of concern to both staff and Planning Commission
because of its run-down condition. Staff had heard a rumor about the basement
tenant from another source as well, and will look into it.
V. Adjournment
Chair McAleese adjourned the meeting at 9:20 PM.
Jean Lewis, Secretary
e
M E M 0 RAN DUM
e
DATE: April 5t 1994
TO: Golden Valley Planning Commission
FROM: Elizabeth A. Knoblaucht City Planner
SUBJECT: Informal Public Hearing -- Rezoning from Multiple Dwelling to
Residential District, 5635 Glenwood Avenue - Ronald and Melissa
Nelson, Applicants
e
History
The subject property was platted as part of 4.7 acre Lot 2 of Meadowbrook Acres
in 1910 (see location map attached). Some time between then and 1945t the
railroad line came through, separating the 0.7 acre northwest corner from the
bulk of the lot. The existing house was built on this smaller piece of land in
1947. In 1963t the larger portion of Lot 2 lying southeast of the railroad
tracks was rezoned to the Multiple Dwelling (MD) district so that the apartment
complex could be built. A year later, when the MD district was reorganized into
four subdistricts based on permitted building heightt the larger parcel was
again rezoned to place it in the appropriate subdistrict (M-1). In each of
those rezoningst the legal description of the property involved was very speci-
fically delineated to exclude the subject property. When an Official Zoning Map
was finally adopted in 1983t after 45 years of. relying on 1 i sts of legal
descriptions and a variety of informal maps maintained in different City depart-
mentst all of Lot 2 was incorrectly included as being zoned M-1.
Thi s was one of several zoni ng errors uncovered by staff in the course of an
exhaustive map inspection and updating process undertaken in 1992 and 1993.
Howevert at just about the same time, the then-owners of the subject property
were putting it up for sale. They were aware of its M-1 zoning designation and
wanted to be able to market it for some sort of congregate housing or other
multiple dwelling development. However accidental the rezoning was, it became
legally binding when the City Council adopted the original Zoning Map in 1983.
In view of the property owners' intent, staff felt it would be inadvisable to
try to correct the error through the 1993 Zoning Map update. Unfortunately, for
reasons unknown to staff, the property ended up being sold for the same single-
family purpose that it has served since 1947, and now the mismatched zoning
classification is causing problems for the family living there.
e
Multiple Dwelling ~ Residential Zoning.
Single family homes are permitted in any MD zoning subdistrict. They must,
however, be regulated by Conditional Use Permit making the property owners go
through a lengthy publ ic hearing process for each and every property change.
Furthermoret they are not exempt from the basic district standards for setbacks,
parking, and other site features. In this particular case (see attached site
sketch)t because there is another parcel immediately to the west that is zoned
e
e
e
Memo to Rezone 5635 Glenwood Avenue
Page 2
for s i ngl e fami ly use, a fi fty foot no-construction buffer area is requi red
along the western property line of the subject property. That puts the entire
detached garage and about a third of the main building in violation of the
zoning code. Along the southeasterly property line where the adjacent railroad
property is zoned Open Development, the required building setback is only twenty
feet, but that still puts a small corner of the main building in violation of
the Zoning Code.
The young family now living in the house could continue to legally occupy the
property under the existing M-1 zoning without obtaining a CUP or variances for
the non-conformities as long as they don't make any changes to the buildings.
The problem is, they want to put on an addition to better accommodate their
family needs. Therefore, unless they can get the property rezoned, they must
apply for their CUP, go through the informal Planning Commission hearing, and
then go to, the Board of Zoning Appeals to get variances from all violated set-
back (and other) requirements before proceeding on to the formal City Council
cons i derat i on of the CUP. A 1 so, thei r addi t i on can probably go only on the
front of the house unless they are able to obtain additional BZA variances to
build even farther into the prohibited areas. Then, if they decide in another
few years that they want to build a deck or replace the garage, they get to go
through all the same steps again.
Alternatively, if the property is rezoned to the Residential district, the
existing house and detached garage will be fully conforming with all require-
ments of the zoning code. No CUP will be required. There will be ample room
for expanding the house in any direction. Staff has no doubt that the existing
house would never have been permitted to be zoned M-1 in the first place if it
had been considered through proper channels. There is simply no benefit to be
gained by throwing unnecessary hurdles in the path of the City's homeowners.
The Comprehensive Plan
Generally speaking, state law requires that zoning be in conformance with a
Comprehensive Plan. The map delineating future land uses in Golden Valley's
Comprehensive Plan does indicate that the subject property is in an area planned
for high density residential uses (defined elsewhere in the plan as 12 or more
dwelling units per acre). In normal circumstances, staff would recommend
against any rezoning that didn't match the Plan Map. However, it has already
been established that the circumstances in this case are not normal. Staff
research has determined that the previous rezoning to M-l was unintended and
premature. Not only has it caused problems for the existing house, but it is
extremely unlikely that the 0.7 acre parcel could successfully be redeveloped to
a high residential density within the given setback restrictions.
In the long term, the vision of the Plan Map for high density housing makes
sense. On a more immediate basis, though, what makes the most sense is that
neither the subject property nor the residentially zoned duplex to the west
should be designated as M-1 as long as the existing homes remain standing. It
also makes sense from a planning standpoint that neither of these small parcels
shoul d be zoned as M-1 unti 1 the other is ready to go as well, otherwi se the
required fifty foot buffer will really eat into the developable area of which-
ever parcel is rezoned first. The best way to meet the vision of the Comprehen-
sive Plan Map would be to redevelop both small parcels together, but that goes
beyond the scope of this report. The point here is that, given the special
circumstances of this case, staff does not consider the proposed Residential
zoning to be in opposition to the vision of the Plan Map.
e
e
e
Memo to Rezone 5635 G1enwood Avenue
Page 3
Also, the Plan Map is not the only element of the Comprehensive Plan that comes
into p1 ay here. The housing chapter of the P1 an states that Go1 den Vall ey
intends to preserve and maintain existing, moderately priced single-family
homes. According to county assessing records, the subject property qualifies as
moderately priced. It is occupied by a young family willing to invest in its
preservation and maintenance. Encumbering the property with .significant noncon-
formities and requiring a CUP do not seem like sound strategies for conforming
with this aspect of the Comprehensive Plan as required by state law.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the subject property at 5635 G1 enwood Avenue be rezoned
from Ml Multiple Dwelling to Residential (single-family) so that the existing,
mOderately priced home can be maintained and expanded without unnecessary dif-
ficulty for its owners. The existing zoning was acquired unintentionally and
prematurely. The proposed rezoning is in conformance with the housing chapter
of the City's Comprehensive Plan and does not conflict with the long term vision
of the Comprehensive Plan Map.
EAK:mkd
attachments:
Location Map
Site Sketch
\
.\:~
\ ....
00 \ \ ....
..-. (<:~'.::..I
. .- ..... \
....,) \
\
r----.. ~
~7' \ ~
e \ .~...
: 1, It: 42
V~t~ -.....::"!;~.~.,.. ~-V
r"" - -.. - - -
", . ::,a / -
I "
i
,.
-./<'./
. ...
.-&-
do.
,
~~
"
"'\
\
\
,.
\
n
.~
...
'&0
, ~ .0
.__"_ ';'< I=J
~ >: '~;;."o
_ _ -r- ~"
;: ~ f~ ~
~ ..' 16
-..,. j,.,
.' lit' JZ.
I
... !\I -
,,~.~,
· 3i~
i 00
~. ~.
~4+
)' .
-
~
o 45
s
...
....
"
.4
6.'
c;
(,
.(;
~7"OS c
. ..
~
~
I
5.'45
2.
;:;
o
1\
tJ) i;
~\~
-:S 0 ..
., 1\ ~
\b
'-t
\U'
, <;0.
i
o
.,l/t'
-
"'H ?'.r' . :-,;rr- -
SjlDe,.. ,
\
~
::;
'.
---::::-......-
(..
...
~
~
"'\.
.~
~
~
"
\
\
"
B
........
"
~~-9
~d' ~
~ 0",
~
., <0
~
I I
I I
I I
Avenue
I I
I I
I I.
40 I.....
... no.
5147-574; ... ~~
'.'. ~ - - ., , .
... o.~....
~ '"tJlll1~ 17i.';~ ." ~
"
~
Ii"
.
.11
...
Q
I
I~.~
I ....,~
3 . ITl
_-.:..------1 -
ZOd. ~2 - ,--=-
..... ~
. 10
21' S,
J .",r
HZ"
2
I
I
"'I
~u I
.D
NO. \06\
_VI
t;g
-
,..
f',
~:I
.'"
. ..'
,. ro'
~'I
I
. ~ I': ~
eo- .
Ia:. :
j-:'
. ~i'
;::;.
. "'~I
.5550- 'J · () c::..j
!-5m 5530- ~~ ;Y..,.'....
5540 ~ 'l; ?,,, I .
k __ :. :J. , ~: :'",
_. _. . yi',1..-.. .:j._::~: .:....
'4 ......~..
4/,
S" J ....
.......:
...",
-0
!'"c
;;;~
;
-
. __---" I:!:
().I (;;
510
57'"
5;05 I
. . I
,,,"
;: ,,>
it..
... ,..
i..>:,.,;
r--'
~
<
:<
t
-:-l ;::t
C
::0 U
Z (I
m ,.....
::0 ~
'- U
CJ) _C
;'\
..U
,J:
["\
+:
~
~ fJ.
. -~'~-C~.;,te-
fT1 - \
l>
o
I O'
):> t---:E-l-
_ Q l~
....1 ---:m 5~-.-1--1.:-
-f>- rr1- ~I.~!
0,
2
..!
~j
""I
..
'"
. ~~
.;
..:'
)Oi6'-"
;.....
'" ~:
. 6 ~:
6
..
...
~.
,
<-<1.
~
~
-~--.._-
t -.-
CD ...
i . (;
0 :::0 .,
... I
.... 8 Q
eo. '-
""
"J97d'
~0'
~
~
:i.
~
I .0'
. C'~'
.( .
~
-<1~
+v~
CJ.I08S 4il17m NELSON, MELISSA
ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnclnnka. MN SS34S Phtlne (612) 474 7964 Fa., (612) 47411267
SURVEY FOR: MELISSA NELSON
~e;
+~
Oa
~6'9o~
.~.. '>'~'
" 7.s.~'~
.:~. ..._~'..,
-.-... ...
';~1-;".:.t ."
. ~-'(. -
.
SURVEYED: March 17. 1994
DRAFTED; March Ill, 1994
Duplex Property to West Zoned
Single-Family Residential
LEYAL_OESCRIPTION:
That part ot Lot 2, MEADOWBROOK ACRES, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, which lies northerly of the railroad right-of-way.
LIMITATIONS:
We ~ sancyolll1t: 3h:M: dc:KtI"'''' (W''('CT1Y _It"b the- ..11(111 cluml. In C_llt4' "'M1Caft In .MIl lrum ';U1lMa pC'nUlk"'lI h:"'1I'dI
We makc no fC'paCOtahoa lullbr dic1u do:s u, (Xl ...... the' rmpn1y ..." Ih.u .. tC'Um.~ lbe IftURb, Iua. ~ cu.k: 10 ddcrmUlC'
1'- cdC1d a1W nallIUT uI hD bukbap. IllfXn.o it.tlJ! dnuItI CtIIICCf'Dl.. IIte./lC'l"Unl') .. lbe ~ ~nplana. "..cnparftl kpJ ew'U..1
~hl.luW be' ~ to p:rfnna . Idle IIC"Ilrd ahlJ IS&UC' a "'1.: npaWlft rar ~ laC "' pqarutt .be ~"" We-.au..~ lhe..
C'3~tswturillJ~ dinU IJllcJnm ca 01 ut ..hcb we hotppm to "",.......~ ollhnouJb ",lbeT",__",:n. n.: '''''~ ~ CII'lJy lbo1lC'
Uft~Il"hJc1I ~n:,a..Ne and _hieh we dn-m rmrrllflanl
ST ANOARO SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:
"0" Denotes 112" 10 pipe with plasti.: plug he.lring SI:lle License :'\1umher '1235. 'el. if "0- is Iillell in. then
lIcnntc::s founll iron monument.
CERIlFICATION:
I tk:Teb) '--entry that this iunq' """as rrrp.;amJ hy Uk ur under ~ utra.1 \Uf't.-n"".n .d1d lh.a1 I ;am ;I
Pror...innal Engineer .....s . ProrCUlOlUl Su"~"f und.r lbe I...... "I the Sf......1 \hnm:\<ll'
~tt~~.
.
Railroad Property to East
Zoned Open Development
Note: Single-Family and Two-Family Residential
Zoning Provisions Allow Detached Garages
to Come Within 5 Feet of Side and Rear
Property Lines. The Multiple Dwelling
District Provisions do not Allow This.
.
-/
otl'?,s\ ~.
~. C; ~.
~.
I,,\~f, ~
LaO I \~
",-:J :V
or .
,rf, ^c I
I" eo. \.I I
~t--( -""!
~,of' Area where no structures are allowed,
~~ according to Multiple Dwelling
~~~I,,-I requi rements
f,':>> I
o~~~~ [[l Area where no principal structure
~ are allowed, according to single~amily
Residential zoning r-equirements
,.,.-:,
,,'
~-,
,
JOB No. 94085