01-09-89 PC Agenda , .
.r
' Golden Valley Planning Corra�nission
Civic Center, 780Q Golden Valley Raad
' Monday, Januarv 9, 1989
� 7:00 P.M.
, AGENDA
I. AFPROYAI Of MINUTES - DECEMBER 12 1988
II. INFORMAL PUB�IC HEARING - AMENOMENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING COQE
APPLICANT: Neal fiift
REQUE5T: Amendment to the Residential Zoning Code to change
the definition of "Residential Facility" to include
tfiose facilities licensed by the State and Level IV
' Board and Ladging Faczlities
III . REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL BZA AND HRA MEETINGS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ,r� * * * * * �t * �c �r *
PLANNING COMMISSION 6UIDfLINES FOR PUBLIC INPUT`
The Planning Go�amission is an advisory ��y, created to advise the Gity Council on land use. �The Commission
will reconmend Gouncil approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Commission's determination of
whether th�e proposed use is permitted under the Zoni�g Code and the Comprehensive Ptan, and whether the pro-
posed use wilt, or will not, adv�rsely affect the surrounAing neighborhood. �
# The Comrtission halds informal pubiic hearings on land use proposals to enabte you 'to iearn, first-hand, what
5uch proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comaents. Your questions and co�nts become
part of the record and will be used by the Gouncil� along with the Cwrmission's recommendation, in reaching
its decision.
To aid in your understanding end to facilitate your camients and questions, the Comnission ►vill utilize the
following prosedure:
i. The Comnission Chair will introduce the proppsal and the rec�mendation from staff. Commission
members may ask questions ofi staff.
2. The proponent will descri� the proposal and answer an
y questions from the Cannission.
3. The Chair wild ape� the public hearing, asking first for those whq Mish to speak to so indicate
by raisiaq their hands. The Chair aay set a time limit for individual questions/ca+�ents if a
targe rtumber of persons have'indicated a desire to speak. Spok�s�rsons for groups wiit have a
longer period of time for questions/co�ments.
4. -Piease g;ve your full na�e and address clearly when recognized by the Cha9r. Remember, your
que3tions/tomments are for the record.
5. Direct your guestions/cpaments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who ►vilt answer your
questions.
6. No one will be given the opportunfty Lo speak a second ti�e uniil ereryane has had the o
to speaic initially. Please limit your second presentation to new infor�atio�, not rebutt�rtunity
7. At t�he ctose of the public hearing, the Cadnission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate
action. '
�
t1I NUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING C0�1t1ISSI0N
� t�leeti ng of December 12, 19�8
A regular meeting of the Planning Co�mission was held in the Council Chambers of
the Golden Valley Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Ualley, P1P�. The
meeting was called to order at 7:10 PP1.
I. Approval of �linutes - Nover�ber 28, 1988
On page 3, paragraph 2, Comr�issioner Leppik requested deletion of the language
relating to gas running off into neighboring ya rds, as this wording did not
accurately represent her concern. Commissioner ticCracken-Hunt moved to approve
the minutes of Nover�ber 28, 1988 Planning Commission meeting as corrected.
Commissioner Russell seconded the riotion, and it was passed unanimously.
II. Discussion of Residential Facility Policy As It Relates to Level IV Board
and Lodging Facilities
At the request of (layor Anderson, the Planning Conmission hosted a discussion
rega rding a proposed amendr�ent to the Zoning code. Present at the meeting we re
mer�bers of the City Council and itur�an Rights Comr�ission. The proposed amendment
would change the definition of "Residential Facility" to include those facili-
ties that are licensed by the State and Level IV Board and Lodging Facilities
under agreement with Hennepin County. The request for the change has been r�ade
by Neal Tift who is proposing a six (6) bed Level IV residential facility in
Golden Valley. Planning and Developnent Director Mark Grimes began the
� discussion by explaining the requested change by �1r. Tift. He explained that
Level IV Baard and Lodging facilities are not licensed by the State, therefore,
such facilities are not permitted in Golden Valley. If the City would choose to
anend the definition of "Residential Facility" as requested by t�r. Tift, a Level
IV Qoard and Lodging Facility could be pe nnitted the same as a S�ate Licensed
f acility.
He also explained that the City changed its Zoning code to add the definition of `
a residential facility as required by a change in State Statute seve ral years
ago. The Statute states that residential facilities serving six (6) or fewe r
persons in a single family zoning district must be considered a permitted use.
He also said that the State Legislature will probably be considering a change to
license Leve1 IV type faciiities during the upconing session.
Marge lJherley, representing the Hennepin County Department of Comr�unity
Services, was present to describe Level IV facilities and the County's Level IV
agreenent procedure. She described the Level IV program, the clients it serves,
and the funding process. She said that they are encouraging Level IV facilities
in the suburbs.
Neal Tift, who is proposing the ordinance ar�endment in order that he can open a
Level IV f acility in Golden Valley, discussed his proposed facility. It would
serve six persons and be located in a home in Golden Valley. He explained that
the facility would be for profit, and therefore, pay property taxes. The
funding of the facility would be primarily through the State and County. Almost
� all residents are on general assistance in Level IV facilities.
Minutes of the Planning Comnission
December 12, 1988
• Page 2
�
t1r. Tift explained that his facility would serve six persons with AIDS or ARC.
The staff would be trained to deal with persons with AIDS and ARC. There would
be about four full time staff inembers with �1rs. Tift managing the program.
�1r. Tift was asked why he chose Golden Valley as a site for the proposed Level
IV facility. He said that Golden Valley is known to have a progressive
atmosphere.
After additional discussion, it was determined that the Planning Cor�mission
would decide when they would first consider the amendr�ent to the Zoning Code as
requested by t�r. Tift.
III. Continued Discussion of Informal Public Nearing - I394 Overlay Zoning
District Ordinance
Director Grimes reintroduced the I394 discussion and explained the related
agenda packet iter�s. The two riain items for review were a letter from David
Olson, President of the Twin6Jest Chamber of Commerce, addressing the business
community's concerns about the ardinance, and a letter fror� Allen Barnard,
Golden Va11ey City Attorney acting for the I394 Joint Task Force, addressing the
changes suggested by T1r. Olson's letter. �1r. Olsan was present to provide any
additional input required by the Planning Commission. Rick Weiblen of ��EPC and
John Schevenius of General P1ills were also present.
� Commissioner Leppik asked for clarification on the purpose of the Planning
Commission's review of the proposed I394 Ove rlay Zoning District Ordinance.
Director Grimes explained that this ordinance will constitute an amendment to
the City's Zoning Ordinance, and so the Planning Commission r�ust make an offi-
cial recomr�endation to the City Council regarding its approval .
After some general discussion, it was decided to proceed by going through the
Chamber letter and the Task Force response iter� by iter�. Specific recommen-
dations for changes to the proposed ordinance would be noted for forwarding to
the Task Force and the City Council . Cor�nissioner Russell pointed out that the
Attorney's opinion should be carefully considered on all iter�s. P1r. Olson indi-
cated that the proposed ordinance seems to be getting stronger as it goes
through the review process, and this is contrary to the concerns of the Chamber.
Section 2N of the proposed ordinanee defining "reserve capacity", was discussed
at length. t1r. Olson reiterated the Chamber's concern that the allocation of
developr�ent capacity in square feet, being based on all generated trips using
only the I394 system rather than spreading out into local streets, was too con-
servative. The 1,767,000 square feet allocated to the Xenia/Vernon interchange
appeared to be of _particular concern. It was the decision of the Planning
Commission that the square foot allocation is an important element in the ordi -
nance. While the numbers may be conservative, they can always be amended at a
later date when traffic counts from actual development are available to support
a change; until then, the conservative approach would be preferred.
� Cor�missioner P1cAleese proposed that a map should be included in Section 3 of the
ordinance. Director Grimes said that a map had been prepared to accor�pany the
notices sent to property owners in the affected area. This map might be
svitable for inclusion in the ordinance.
Minutes of the Planning Commission
December 12, 1988
. Page 3
� The Planning Commission discussed the changes that were already made to Section
4B, based in part on previous input from the Commissioners. It was agreed that
the changes fi ad gone beyond what had been reconmended. The Planning Commission
would prefer to see a return to the idea that traffic management plans would be
prepared when traffic generation reaches a level of service just above the mini-
r�um accepted level , but not be effectuated until traffic generation actually
reaches the minimum level .
The Planning Gommission determined that the Attorney's condensation of the
information to be attached to leases in accordance with Section 4C was still
longer than necessary. A preliminary recommendation was to delete the entire
sentence reading "The traffic manager�ent plans required involve. . . techniques
which reduce traffic and its related impacts.° Also to be deleted was the
phrase "under penalty of law" in the sentence following the one proposed for
deletion.
After further discussion, the recommendation was for an even shorter notifica-
tion. With appropriate legal changes in exact wording, the recommended notifi-
� cation would read, "The Cities of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park have
established an I394 Overlay Zoning Ordinance which places restrictions on the
total amount of traffic generated by this development and others located within
a targeted area. Under certain circumstances, tenants will be required to pre-
pare and impler�ent traffic management plans as described in the ordinance. A
copy of the cor�plete ordinance riay be obtained at the City offices of Golden
Valley or St. Louis Park.°
� Commissioner h1cAleese questioned the definition of the terr� "qualified traffic
engineer" in Section 6. First, it implies that there is a list of qualifica-
tions. Second, there may be professionals other than engineers who could pre-
pare traffic r�anagement plans. The other comr�issioners agreed that the
terminology was misleading, and recorinended that it be deleted.
Commissioner Russell indicated that she found Section 7 to be confusing to read.
In the course of further discussion, the other cor�missioners agreed. The
Planning Commission recommended overall simplification of this Section. There
was also some concern about the autor�atic triggering of the provisions of
Section 7, but Director Grimes explained that this is the way nonconforming uses
are treated in the City's existing Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner P1cAleese
expanded on this by pointing out that there is always an implied appeal process
for nonconforming uses under regular zoning. The Planning Commission's response
was to recommend that the equivalent appeal process for the Overlay Ordinance
shouid be clarified.
With regard to Section 8 of the proposed ordinance, the Planning Comr�ission
agreed that there should be provisions for both residents and business owners to
be included on the Joint Task Force. The recommendation was for each City to
appoint one resident and one business owner from within the affected area.
Furthermore, it was agreed that each City would limit staff participation to one
member, that being either the City t1anager or another staff inember designated by
the City tlanager.
� That concluded the Planning Commission's review of the proposed Qverlay
Ordinance. For the record, F1r. Schevenius of General Ni11s reiterated his cor,i-
pany 's concerns about limitations on development due to the proposed ordinance.
'
Minutes of the Planning Commission
December 12, 1988
� Page 4
� General tlills would like to see the City offer it some protection against the
possibility of losing out on future development capacity. �1r. Olson thanked the
Planning Commission for its consideration of the concerns expressed by the
Chamber.
Commissioner t1cAleese brought up several points relating to the Joint Powers
Agreement that goes with the proposed ordiannce. On page 3, #5, the words
"square feet° were omitted after the number "1,575,000" in the fifth line fror�
the bottor� of the page. On page 4, #7, he felt that the mutual consent concept
was potentially unconstitutional , and suggested a 60 day notice of withdrawal as
a more acceptable alternative. On page 4, #8, he felt that in order to be con-
sistent with similar provisions in the proposed ordinance there should be men-
tion of arbitration as a second step between mediation and injunction. Final �y,
on page 5, he felt that the use of the terri "prevailing party" in the final sen-
tence was redundant. Other Conmissioners disagreed with the comments regarding
the term "mutual consent.°
Commi ssioner t�1cAleese r�oved, seconded by Chai rman Prazak, to recommend City
Council approval of the proposed I394 Overlay Zoning Ordinance with the added
recommendations for amendments proposed by the Planning Commission. The r�otion
passed unanimously.
IV. Report on November 29, 1988 Ci ty Counci 1 tleeti ng
� There was no report.
V. Other
The Planning Cor�mission recommended that an informal public hearing be held on
the amendr�ent to the definition of a "Residential Facility° as proposed by Neal
Tift, on January 9, 1989.
IV. Adjournr�ent
The meeting was adjourned at 10:43 PP�.
�
January 5, 1989
� T0: Golden Valle Plannin Commi
Y g ss�on
FROM: Beth Knoblauch, City Planner
SUBJECT: Informal Public Hearing on a Request to Amend the Definition of a
Residential Facility in the Zoning Ordinance of Golden Valley
You are all aware af the background to this informal public hearing. Reviewing
the minutes of the Planning Commission of December 12, 1988 (included elsewhere
in this agenda packet) will refresh your memory on the detai-ls. Ms. Marge
Wherley of Hennepin County, or a fellow staff inember, will attend the informal
public hearing to try and answer any further questions you may have.
To summarize the situation, the Zoning Ordinance of Golden Valley has a very
specific definition of the term °residential facility", which covers only those
facilities that the State licenses and requires communities to permit. Hennepin
County, in response to a growing need for a less intensive type of facility
than those currently licensed by the State, has developed a program of its own
for which it is soliciting proposals. One such proposal has been filed for a
property in Golden Valley. The applicant, with the support of Hennepin County,
has requested that our Zoning Ordinance be amended so that our definition of a
residential facility goes beyond what is currently required by State law, to
include facilities operated under the County's program. It has been pointed
� out that the State originally intended to bring such facilities under its
control , and there is a continuing lobby to achieve this end.
Several phone calls and letters have been received from residents of the area
surrounding the proposed facility. The letters are attached to this memo for
your review. Members of the neighborhood watch group have contacted the Police
Department to see if the facility could be kept out on the basis of neighbor-
hood security. A petition is apparently being circulated. There has been no
voicing of neighborhood support for the proposed facility.
As Planning Commissioners, you know that the purpose of this informal public
hearing is not to determine the fate of just one facility. Your task is to
consider whether the entire range of facilities covered under the Hennepin
County program should become generally permitted uses at any locations within
Golden Valley, as State-licensed facilities already are. Whatever decision you
may make now, the State Legislature could preempt it in the next few years.
Following the informal public hearing, your recommendation to the City Council
could take one of four forms. Briefly, you could recommend:
1. Amending tfie definition as requested, recognizing that such facilities will
eventually become permitted uses through State mandate;
2. Amending the definition, and including a distance requirement to protect
against Golden Valley being inundated by proposals;
�
v
Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 5, 1988
Page 2
.�
3. Creating a separate definition - with or without a distance requirement -
and making the new use permissible only with a conditional use permit; or
4. Denying the request for an amendment, on the grounds that State Legislation
has already preempted local discretion in the matter of residential facili-
ties, and so any further amendments should also be made at the State level .
Attachments
�
�
�
December 30 , 1988
Mark W. Grimes, Director
Planning and Development
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLBY
Civic Center
7800 GO1den Valley RD.
Golden Valley, MN 55427
RE: PDBLIC HBARI1dG—JANOARY 9, 1989
PROPOS$D GROIIP HOI�—FACILITY
620 Utah Ave. South
Dear Mark:
I appreciated your prompt response to my telephone
call today, regarding your notice of December 28.
Mark, it appears that my wife and I will not be in
town January 9, although at present we are trying
to rearrange our schedule so we can attend this
� important Public Hearing.
If our plans can't be changed, we want to be on record
of being strongly opposed to any amendment in the
zoning code which would allow I,evel IV Board and Lodging
Facilities in the "Residential Zoning District".
While we can sympathize with and have compassion for
those that need group type homes, we feel strongly
that a residential setting is not a proper place for
a qroup home.
We urge you and members of your Commission not to
recommend any change to the existing code.
We understand that a petition will be circulated in
support o£ our opposition, and we intend to sign that
petition accord'ngly.
Than y u fo your�orr�3�eration on this matter.
,� �
Since ely,
� J n P. rtinsen
525 Utah Ave. South, Golden Valley
544-3060
JPM/sh
'�
,�����, 3 /y��
JLL C �Nt�, �'��,C'�-
/,�'f � ���/ �'^ �
. � ..�-t /�ca
y�.-��1 �� ����,5 5�.�7
/
�-�"��-�� .� �- �, ���� ��<<� C���" �.,.���'
��� y�� 1
. ��L�YI Gv� '"` " �, t�-c.L .,[.:,` _ �` �%1��-1�=
j , .
�
�l.�y►s-Z.� �?C►�-�E �ti.L � 'vt
,
� � � L� � �2�>�
j���z �'�-a--��-�-�� �,,:t�--�� l , �� �- �� / '�
�-, � �i-
�C ,c2t',�.��-�-d-r-�t-e u�� lti.. �j1�5 « � f�/�5 /��
C C•-��*-{�' -ti L'��" � a� LG -I—{` L� l��'-L-t u-� -d cL-�T'•._.. . .
J
� G L'7��c� �t �t �r:!ic.,•--c-C� .�Z`�.c�� �-c-c'��'' G ��
� � � � ��
� Gc�i`''`� G��-�' ..� ��.c� C��C �t- �'���
"7' ' y� � ' / r� � ' ' " ' -
�, T' -�-- Nf �� l � �f' i,�;-�-G�.-�'-'� ;
6 „
r 1,�, 3 �7 5 ) �zU c�-z�C.�� � a-u��—,.� ..�L�.-� -t C�.�., � `.�
. . � � ���
�t, �-� ��.. � z,:��:,d �.�,-` c�-�-✓-L- C-�-�--�.� � .
n�/l � ,,, ������".� ��} �� t,�
�.F'7 �-� J�'�. `�/r'"" � J u �i L`� � �--�[� �il.ZL-I � f�'�C._ t�`-'�, ,5
� C �
�..;1,4-L^-�t_ L'`-'t Z"�+ � �,(�a� �!�� '
/ �
, �
1���Y'�^�t�t/�•�E'� � -
, 7 �i• G%r.c .l.F-�.� rt Gf/,���.d--�,
� '" c ,
�%�� 1.��'=-v►���c�[-Er-��C��, �
, ! .
('� : )J'�i c-�� Lc.'. �2z�� �E u •
. .
,.�(,�►�r,�:
+.%�t,(.-.� r G�.�� �
�