03-09-92 PC Agenda �.
� GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION �
Regular Meeting ;
GOLDEN VALLEY CITY HALL
Council Chamber, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, Minnesota
March 9, 1992
7:OOP.M. ;
AGENDA
i
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 10, 1992
II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
III . REYIEW OF ATTENOANCE
� IV. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING -- AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 11,
PERMITTING THE GRANT OF VARIANCES FOR NONCONFORMITIES IN PARKING
CREATED BY GOVERNMENTAL ACQUISITION
� V. REPORTS ON MEETINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY
COUNCIL AND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. • ADJOURNMENT
;
;
{
�
3
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
� February 10, 1992
A regular meeting of the Planning Co�mission was held at the Golden Valley City
Hall , Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Rd. , Golden Valley, Minnesota.
The meeting was called to order by Chair McAleese at 7:03p.m.
Those present were: Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, McCracken-Hunt
and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Direc�or of Planning and Development;
Beth Knoblauch, City Planner; Don Taylor, Finance Director; Fred Salsbury, Public
Works Director and Mary Dold, Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - January 13, 1992
MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve
the January 13, 1992 minutes as submitted.
II. CIP Review by Don Taylor and Fred Salsbury
Mark Grimes introduced this agenda item and told the Planning Commission that
they were reviewing the CIP because it is an element of the Comprehensive Plan
and is updated every year.
Don Taylor, Finance Director, reviewed the CIP (several pages in detail ) and
� discussed what options the City would have in case the Legislature cuts more
State Aid. He also commented on tax delinquencies and abatements and what effect
the lack of these dollars coming into the City has on the General Fund.
Commissioner Prazak asked how the City's General Fund looked like at the end of
year 1991. Don Taylor stated that the General Fund Fund Balance will be approxi-
mately $25,000 less than projected and feels this is due to abatements.
Don Taylor and Fred Salsbury discussed the Winnetka Avenue right-of-way and total
takings with the Commission.
MOVED by Prazak, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to recom-
mend to the City Council approval of the 1992-1996 Capital Improvement Program.
III. Discussion of the National APA Conference in Washington, DC
Discussion took place among staff and the Commission on who was eligible to
attend the National APA Conference.
IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housin and Redevelo ment Authority, City
ounc an oar o oning � s
Mark Grimes gave a brief report on the January 21st City Council meeting con-
� cerning the proposal on the Ewald Dairy Site. The City Council asked the HRA to
review single-family, home-ownership options for this site.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 10, 1992
• Page Two
V. Other Business
No new business was presented.
VI. Ad�ournment
Chair McAleese adjourned the meeting at 9:OOp.m.
ean ewis, ecretary
i
!
MEMORANDUM
•
DATE: March 3, 1992
T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission
FROM: Mary Dold, Planning Secretary
SUBJECT: ELECTION OF OFFICERS
According to the Planning Commission By-Laws, Section 1 the
annual meeting of the Planning Commission should take place at its
first regular meeting in March of each year. Section 11 states
the Commission shall elect a Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary and such
other officers as it may deem necessary at its annual meeting.
.
�kd
•
M E M 0 R A N D U M
•
DATE: March 3, 1992
T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission
FROM: Mary Dold, Planning Secretary
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF ATTENDANCE
According to the Planning Commission By-Laws, Section 12, the
Chair shall review the attendance records every six months.
Attached please find this record.
� mkd
�
� PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
(Number of Meetings attended)
# of McCracken
Year Mtgs. Groger Johnson Kapsner Lewis McAleese Hunt Prazak
1991 14 12 12 13 11 13
" 11 10
" 10 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# of ° McCracken
Year Mtgs. Kapsner Lewis McAleese Hunt Prazak
1986 20 19 13 20 18 16
1987 19 14 12 18 17 17
� 1988 20 18 15 19 15 12
1989 18 17 14 18 15 15
1990 14 11 8 12 12 13
�
MEMORANDUM
�
DATE: March 3, 1992
FROM: Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission
SUBJECT: INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING -- AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 11,
PERMITTING THE GRANT OF VARIANCES FOR NONCONFORMITIES IN PARKING
CREATED BY GOVERNMENTAL ACQUISITION
Several months ago, the City Council approved an amendment to the zoning chapter
of the City Code in order to provide assurance that the owners of property
affected by takings for public right-of-way purposes would be granted variances
if necessary (City Code Section 11.90, Subd. 4.6.4 [attached]) . This amendment
was initiated by then City Engineer, Lowell Odland. He was involved in several
condemnation hearings for property in the I-394 corridor, and he found that the
condernnation hearing commissioners, as well as attorneys for the property owners,
were often very skeptical when told that it has been the City's policy for many
� years to grant variances in such circumstances. He felt that the City, and other
affected government agencies, would be on firmer ground if the policy was for-
mally spelled out in the City Code.
The City Attorney drafted the actual language for the code amend�ent. He wanted
to be very specific about the purpose and extent of the variance to be granted,
so that the new provision could not be misused or misconstrued. Since the origi-
nal language was adopted, it has become apparent that the wording was a little
more specific than intended. Variances were guaranteed only for nonconforming
setbacks created by the taking. Until some time in the 1960's there was no
pa� setback requirement for many of the City's nonresidential zoning
districts. Developments established in those districts before that time could
put parking all the way up to the property line. Consequently, when land is
required to be taken from such properties for street widening purposes, a noncon-
forming parking situation is likely to be created rather than a nonconforming
setback (which already exists).
After several discussions among staff, between staff and other affected govern-
ment agencies, and with the City Attorney, it has been determined that parking
variances should also be listed as a right for which property owners may apply if
they are impacted by a right-of-way taking. The City will continue to work with
property owners to formulate alternative parking arrangements or to take the
entire property if the parking nonconformity is significant enough to warrant
such action. However, those businesses that could still remain viable even with
the reduced parking should not be penalized by a taking that the property owners
� cannot control . This again conforms with existing policy, just as the original
setback variance provision was based on City policy. The proposed language is
attached.
One other minor change to the code provision is also included in this proposed
� amendment. Staff had always thought of the provision as relating specifically to
takings. However, it was necessary to refer to property acquisition, rather
than takings, because often times land is acquired for public improvements by
negotiating purchasers. An ordinary citizen might think that this would include
property dedications that are required as part of the subdivision process, which
would actually be governed by a completely different set of rules (the subdivi-
sion chapter of City Code). In order to eliminate this potential source of
confusion, staff recormnends wording that specifically excludes subdivision
dedications from consideration under this provision. This is purely for clarifi-
cation purposes, and has no impact on the intent of the provision.
The City Attorney has advised expediting this amendment to the City Code. The
Minnesota Department of Transportation is still involved in several condemnation
hearings along the I-394 corridor in Golden Valley, and some of those proceedings
do involve parking nonconformities that were caused or worsened by the highway
takings. Other recent or proposed street widenings have been or are likely to be
impacted by parking considerations as well . The intent has always been to pre-
vent unnecessarily high condemnation costs by reassuring property owners that
they will not be unfairly penalized for situations caused by public takings.
Until parking is added as a consideration under the existing provision, the
reassurance is not as complete as desired.
Action necessary at this time is approval of the amended text of City Code Sec.
11.90, Subd. 4.B.4. The City Council has already been asked to schedule this
item for a formal hearing on March 17, 1992.
. Attachments: Page 295 of City Code
Proposed Amendment to City Code
�
-2-
§ 11.90
1. To decide appeals where it is alleged that an
O error has been made in any Order, requirement, decision or deter-
mination and/or interpretation made by a City administrative officer
in enforcement and administration of this Chapter.
2. To hear requests for variances from the
literal provisions of this Chapter in instances where their strict
enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique
to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such
variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in
keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. The Board of
Zoning Appeals may not permit as a variance any use that is not per-
mitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected
person' s land is located. The Board may impose conditions in the
granting of variances to insure compliance and protect adjacent pro-
perties.
3. To hear appeals filed with the Board pursuant
to MSA 462.359 (4) .
Source: Ordinance No. 583
Effective Date: 12-31-82
4. When either the City, Hennepin County or the
State of Minnesota creates a nonconforming setback by acquiring a por-
tion of a lot for a public improvement, the lot owner shall be
entitled as a matter of right to obtain a variance for the noncon-
forming setback so created.
Source: Ordinance No. 74, 2nd Series
� Effective Date: 9-12-91
Ce Procedure.
1. Appeals to the Board of Zoning Appeals may be
taken by an affected person upon filing of a petition form with the
Zoning Administrator. Such petitions shall be heard at the next regu-
lar monthly meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, provided that such
petitions must be received by the Division of Zoning and Inspection no
later than twelve (12) working days prior to the meeting date for
which a hearing could be scheduled. Failure to follow this procedure
shall result in a delay of the hearing until the next regular meeting
of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Each petition shall be comprised of a
Registered Land Survey locating all property lines, buildings, and
streets along with a completed petition form, provided by the City,
and a filing fee as prescribed in this Chapter. The petition form
shall be completed in sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate the
variance applied for or the administrative act being appealed there-
for, and shall set forth the reasons and justification cited by the
petitioner as grounds for granting the petition.
2. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall give written
notice of the time, place of hearing and nature of the appeal to all
adjacent (abutting) property owners and shall make its Order with
respect to said appeal within seventy (70) days from the date of the
hearing thereon. Within thirty (30) days of the final written Order
� of the Board any petitioner feeling aggrieved by the decision of the
Board may file a written appeal with the Zoning Administrator, thereby
appealing the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to the Council.
GOLDEN VALLEY CC 295 (11-1-91)
ORDINANCE N0. , 2ND SERIES
� AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
(Amendment to the City Code, Chapter 11, Permitting the Grant of Variances
for Nonconformities in Parking Created by Governmental Acquisition)
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley does hereby ordain as
fol l ows:
Section 1. City Code Chapter il, entitled "Land Use Regulation (Zoning)"
is hereby amended in Section 11.90, Subdivision 4(b) by changing subparagraph 4
to read as follows:
4. When either the City, Hennepin County or the State of Minnesota
creates or worsens a nonconforming setback or preven'ts or wor-
sens compliance with the applicable parking requirement by
acquiring, except through the subdivision process, a portion of
a lot for a public improvement, the lot owner shall be entitled
as a matter of right to obtain a variance for the nonconforming
setback or parking condition so created or worsened. Nothing
contained in this subparagraph shall be interpreted to lessen
the requirement for a traffic management plan contained in
Section 11.56 of the City Code.
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation"
and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
� entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and
after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council this day o� , 1992.
arry . a en, Mayor
ATTEST:
S ir ey J. e son, ty er
Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun Post on
�