The URL can be used to link to this page

01-23-89 PC Agenda � � . ''r . � _ Goldert Vatley Planning Cam�nissian `" -` Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road` ' ' Monda�Y, January 23, 1989 � 7:QO P.M. AGEND`A :l I. `APPRQYAL t�f MI NUTE5 '- J�t�UARY 9 1989 II. SES�It�N W�TI� MAXOR A�DERSON Iii. IM�'ORMAL �U�LIC �t�ARtNG - �EZONING APFLICANT: Fluit�y�e;Engineer�ing Cc�rporation : LOCATI£}I�: 582� O�s�n �lemarial Highway REQt�ES'T: Rezotte 'the praperty at the N�rtheast corner ��' Z�ne A��nue ' an�;�Ols�n �emorial Highway f�om the Ope�t peve��z�t Z�n�ng Uistrict to the Industrial Zoning O��tr�ct IV. I�F(IRA4AL HEARING QN �kMENt}MENT TO INl'ERIM ORpINAiVCE M�}RATt��IUM Y. REA�tRT {�N JANUARY 17; 1989 CITY COUNCII MEETING * * * * � * � * �r * * �`� * * ,� ,� '* * * * * * * * * * * � * * * * � �r � � ,� s� � PlANNI�1� Ct�tISSION 6UIDELIlIE5 FOR PUSCIC INPB�T , The Plannin� C�mmission is an ad�isory body, crea�ted to advise the City Council on land use. Ti�;C�sigs��n :. rrifil recanmend Cou�eil approval or denial af: a tand use prapasxt bas�d upon tti� �onmissi�n's �terari�tatd�,p� ' whgther the proposed use is permitted;under the Zaning Code and the Gaapr�hensiwe Pian, .afld ��t4er t#� p�"tt- , �sed use will. or �ritl ntst, adversely affect the surrounding ne9ghbarhood. The Caaraission Aotds info►7aa1 publie hearings on land use proposals to e�able you to learn, first-h�ntl, wt►at sueh; proposals are. �nd to, permit yQU: tc� ask qusstions and offer e�nts. Yourtquesti�rn& end c ts b�cct�e part of the record and witl b$ used by Lt� Gouncii, atong with the C�tnissitsn`s reco�aend��fivti. i-n re�chir►g its dec�siqn. - To aid in your understar�eting enEl ta facilitate your ce�nts and questions, the Conmission �ili utilize �he f�►t towir�g procedur�e: 1, 1he Comn►ission Chair witt fntrad�tce the propasal and the recc�nd±atian frnm' staff. C�iSSi+�t ; members �aay ask questions of Stdff. 2. The prapon�nt wilt clescribe the proposal and answer a�+y q�estions frs�n the Ct�►�ssit�n. 3. 7he Chair Nill c�per► the pub13'c l�eering, asking first #or those who wish ta speak to sp ir�i�te , by raising their hands., Th� Chair �ay �et'a ti� tisrit for irtdivS�tdual questianstc��ts if a large �u�aber of perst►as hav� it►dicat�d a d+esire Lo s�a�k. Spokes{ur�ons fc►r grt►u�s tri11 h�y� a ionger �riad of ti�re far questipnslc�aaenis. 4. Please give your full na� aacl address clearty when �cogni�ed by the Chair.. Re r. yaur questions/co�ents are ft�r t�te record. 5. O�rect your questions/c�ents �o the Chair. Tfie Chair wi11 determine who wi]1 ��s�er you� � ' , questians; , �� 6. No one v�ill be $iven the apporLanity Lo s�ak 8 S�CO(td 'C1� UtiL'11 ererjrt�ne l�as h�td the �ppqrtunity . Lo speak initial)y. Please li�ft your second presentation to new tRfD�'CfE}fii� na�t �r+e�ttal. �. AL LM2 E�flS@ C'f �1� �111b�'iC lt&'Di{"�R�� LItE C4�ItiSS30ri W�j� '(�1SCUSS L�t@ {}I"qP05�� '�171E,� 'C$k6" Bjaj1P�#�!1"'�$L@ 8ttY0t1. , MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY : PLANNING COMMISSION � January 9, 1989 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the CounciT Chambers of the CiviC Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chair at 7:08 P.M. Those present were Commissioners Kapsner, Leppik, Lewis, McAleese, McCracken- Hunt, and Prazak. Commissioner Russell was absent. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, and Beth Knoblauch, City Planner. I. APPROVAL OF MINllTES - DECEMBER 12, 1988 It was moved by Commissioner McAleese, seconded by Commissioner Leppik, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the December 12, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. II . INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE APPLICANT: Neal Tift REQUEST: Amendment to the Residential Zoning Code to change the definition of "Residential Facility" to include those facilities licensed by the State and Level IV Board and Lodging Facilities � Chair Prazak introduced this agenda item and reviewed the procedures for the hearing process and asked for a review by staff giving background of the pro- posal and to answer questions from members of the Planning Commission regarding implications of the proposal . Director Grimes gave an overview of the proposed ordinance change. He stated that a request had been made by Mr. Neal Tift to amend the definition of °Residential Facility" in our Zoning Code in order that Level IV Board and Lodging facilities, which are under agreement with Hennepin County, may be permitted in a Residential Zoning District. Currently our definition of a °Residential Facility" states any facility licensed by the State of Minnesota is a permitted use in the Residential Zoning District if they serve six or fewer persons. Director Grimes reviewed the staff inemo dated January 5, 1989. The request for the change would include facilities under the County's program. It was painted out that the State's original intention was to bring such facilities under its control and there is continuing lobby to achieve such an end. Director Grimes passed two petitions and several letters to the Chair which he had received stating opposition to the proposal . He also noted that there were a number of te7ephone calls stating opposition as well . Director Grimes then reviewed the recommendations that the Planning Commission could make to the City Council as outlined in the January 5, 1989 staff report. They are as follows: � ' MINUTES OF TNE GOLDEN VALLEY � . PLANNING COMMISSION January 9, 1989 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the C�uncil Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chair at 7:08 P.M. Those present were Commissioners Kapsner, Leppik, Lewis, McAleese, McCracken- Hunt, and Prazak. Commissioner Russell was absent. Also present were Mark Grimess DirectQr of Planning and Development, and Beth Knoblauch, City Planner. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER I2, I988 It was moved by Commissioner McAleese, seconded by Commissioner Leppik, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the December 12, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. II . INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE APPLICANT: Neal Tift REQUEST: A�endrr�nt to the Residential Zoning Code to change the d�f��tion of "Residential Facility" to include those . �'�cilities licensed by the State and Level IV Board and Lodging Facilities Vice Chair McAleese introduced this agenda item and reviewed the procedures for the hearing process and asked for a review by staff giving background of the proposal and to answer questions from members of the Planning Commission regarding implications of the proposal . Director Grimes gave an overview of the proposed ordinance change. He stated that a request had b�en made by Mr. Neal Tift to amend the definition of "Residential Facility" in our Zoning Code in order that Leve1 IV Board and Lodging facilities, which are under agreement with Hennepin County, may be permitted in a Residential Zon�ng D�strict. Currently our definition of a "Residential Faciltt�" �tate� an�r #acility licensed by the State of Minnesota is a permitt�� se in the R�sidential Zoning District if they serve six or fewer pers��s. Director Grimes reviewed the staff inemo dated January 5, 1989. The request for the change would include facilities under the County's program. It was pointed out that the State's original intention was to bring such facilities under its control and there is continuing lobby to achieve such an end. Director Grimes passed two petitions and several letters to the Chair which he had received stating opposition to the proposal . He also noted that there were a number of telephone calls stating opposition as well . Director Grimes then reviewed the recommendations that the Planning Commission could make to the City Council as outlined in the January 5, 1989 staff report. � They are as follows: ° Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission - January 9, 1989 ' . Page 2 . 1. Amending the 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 b�ing inundated by proposals. (Director Grimes noted that because these are not State licensed facilities, the City could suggest that Level IV facilities have a distance requirement from one another such as a quarter of a mile. ) 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 facilities, and so any further amendments should also be made at the State level . Commissioner Leppik asked if we were to wait until the Legislature licenses Level IV facilities, would we then go back and put in a space requirement or is that something we would have to do before any changes are made by the Legislature and if we did, would it then hold up if and when the legislation passed. � Director Grimes stated that current legislation states that licensed residential facilities that serve six or fewer persons in other than a first class city, in other words Minneapolis and St. Paul , there is no distance requirement. They can be placed right next to each other. He stated that a City can not make requirements on State licensed facilities. Commissioner Leppik also asked if we changed it now, before State legislation, would that then apply if the State changed the legislation? Grimes felt it would not, that State law would preempt any ordinance Golden Valley would pass. Commissioner Kapsner asked if the State were to license these facilities would they come under a Planned Unit Development or require any other type of approval by the City. Director Grimes stated that if the State were to license Level IV facilities, the City would have no power to review the proposal , only our health inspector would inspect the property to make sure it complied with the health code. Chair Prazak asked if we could change our Zoning Code to allow Level IV as a permitted use with Conditional Use Permit at this time which would require a public hearing. • � Minutes of the Golden VaTley Planning Commission � , January 9, 1989 � Page 3 Director Grimes indicated we cauld create a separate definition for Level IV type facilities with or without distance requirement and then permit them only by a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt questioned whether this could be done after State licensing. Director Grimes indicated he did not know. Chair Prazak asked what current programs group homes permitted and what would expansion of coverage to Hennepin County supervised Level IV homes permit, if approved. Director Grimes stated that State licensing currently covers homes for mentally ill , chemically dependent people, homeless, mentally retarded, and includes correctional facilities (such as people on parole) , etc. He indicated that the definition of Level IV programs with Hennepin County is as follows: provide safe, healthy, supervised group housing to adults who because of physical , intellectual or emotional impairments or chemical abuse dependency are unable to live independently. Director Grimes further explained that these facilities are not treatment programs, and adults who need and want residential treatment services for chemical dependency, mental illness or physical handicaps should be � referred to a licensed treatment center. Commissioner McAleese asked exactly what language would be voted on, the one proposed by Mr. Tift or the one recommended by Hennepin County. Director Grimes stated the language would be one he suggested stating that "residential facilities are any facility licensed by the State of Minnesota or Leve1 IV Board and Lodging facilities under Hennepin County's Department of Community Services. Chair Prazak asked if there were any other suburban communities that had expanded their Zoning Codes to include provisions for Leve1 IV facilities and Director Grimes stated he was not aware of any. He stated that Bloomington has a Level IV f��t� b�� th�� it s�rves more than seven people and thought it probabiy required a conditiona] use permit. Director Grimes stated that there were only eight Level IV facilities in Hennepin County and thought they were all in Minneapolis. Commissioner Leppik asked if there were many of these projects waiting so that if we changed our Zoning Code we would be flooded with applications for this kind of facility because no other city has done it, Director Grimes stated Hennepin County has encouraged these applications in certain communities such as Golden Valley and not in others because some already have a high concentration of group type facilities. � ( ._ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 9, 1989 � Page 4 � Director Grimes stated one concern staff had is that the Count made no effort y to discuss Le�el IV programs with the City before Mr. Tift's proposal and that it is staff's opinion it should have discussed the situation long before the proposal was submitted to the City in a crisis situation. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt asked if the City Attorney had made any further comments on Level IV Board and Lodging facilities since the initial review by staff. Director Grimes stated he had not provided any further comments. Chair Prazak asked Mr. Neal Tift to give an overview of his proposal and that the Commission should consider this as one of the types of applications that the Commission would be getting in the future if the change to Zoning Code were made. Mr. Nea] Tift r�oted that he ar�d his wife, Der�ise, were present to request a change in the Z�ni�g CQde to a��aw them to open a Level IV Board and Ladging facility at 62U Utah Avenue South to serve six people with AIDS or AIDS related complex. He stated that if they were allowed to open this facility, his wife would be the Director and he would be a part-time business manager. He noted that he was employed elsewhere and would continue and that he presently runs another Level IV Board and Lodging facility in Hennepin County. Mr. Tift said it was their intention t� recruit and screen and house six adults with ATDS or � ARC in that facil�ty �it� 24-h�ur staff that would meet Hennepin County's definition for Level IV facilities, Chair Prazak asked at what point in the disease would persons be referred to this facility and if it would include hospice-type services or care. Mr. Tift explained that the facility would be mostly for people with ARC but persons with AIDS would also be welcome, and that they would be persons who wanted to improve their life style and mental health status and live with other adults in this type of enviro�roment. He stated it was not a hospice type care facility although they would have a public health nurse visit their facility once or twice a week, Mr. Tift went on to explain that the persons living in the facility would not be dangerous to themselves or others and that they would have the right to reject anyone who applied to the facility and refer them to other types of housing. Commissioner Lewis asked why Golden Valley was chosen for this facility over some of the other suburban areas. . � r . Minutes of the Golden Vailey Planning Commission ' January 9, 1989 °� Page 5 Mr. Tift replied that he had been asked that question a lot and his response was "why not?°. He noted that where he lives in South Minneapolis there was an abundance of group homes and that it did not make it a bad neighborhood it just makes it not normal . He said the house they found in Golden Valley was a large home with six bedrooms, near a busline and in a normal neighborhood, which were some of the criteria they were looking for. Commissioner Kapsner asked if it was a for-profit facility and why they chose a single family neighborhood rather than a multiple family neighborhood. Mr. Tift said that would have been okay but this house met more of the criteria for this type of facility than any other locations they looked at. Commissioner McAleese asked Mr. Tift if, as an experienced provider, he had any opinion on the subject of the quarter mile distance between facilities and what would conditions would be appropriate if the Level IV facilities were allowed by Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Tift said he felt it was reasonable to require a restriction on how many can be in a neighborhood and that Hennepin County already has a number of conditions that the facility would have to meet so any reasonable conditions placed on the facility by a Conditional Use Permit should not be a problem. There was further discussion between Planning Commission members and Mr. Tift � regarding care and types of persons that would use the facility. Ms. Marge Wherley, Hennepin County Human Services, was present. She reviewed the rationale of Hennepin County for issuing this type of request for proposals for programs in suburban communities. Ms. Wherley went on to explain that the Legislature passed laws in 1984 requiring the County to deconcentrate group homes, and as a part of that they set a limit on how many beds could be within the City limits of Minneapolis and all other development beds would be in suburban areas. Chair Prazak asked how many AIDS facilities the County expected to fund in the next year and Ms. Wherley stated this would probably be the only one. Commissioner Leppik asked has the County tried to place these facilities in multi-family housing. Ms. Wherley said they had no specific preference but the direction has been to use single-family housing for smaller facilities. Commissioner Kapsner asked if there would be less resistance in multi-family areas but Ms. Wherley indicated she was not sure, that the question had not come up before. � 1 ' Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission ' January 9, 1989 , Page 6 . Commissioner McAleese noted that this particular facility was not the issue before the Commission, but that the issue was Level IV facilities in general . He asked if the County had any long-range plans for these facilities. Ms. Wherley said the County's only plan at this point was to get the State to license these facilities. They presently do not have any other proposals for Level IV facilities for anywhere in the County at this point as they do not have a lot of money left to do the building rehabilitation, etc. Commissioner McAieese aiso asked if �his iss�ee would come before the legislature this year and Ms. Wherley r°esponded that she fe�t sure it would. Chair Prazak asked if there was a similar de�r�lopment in other metropolitan areas that they are modelling this program after nr l�mked at or learned from. Ms. Wherley indicated St. Louis County has done this and are fairly successful but was not sure if St. Paui had any facilities of this type. After a brief survey of other counties, while they didn't have as many requirements for this kind of facility as Hennepin County does, all of them had some kind of facility with 24-hour, on-si�e supervision for vulnerable people. Commission McAleese asked if the County's requirements were as stringent as the State's requirements are and Ms. Wherley said she felt basically they were � similar and had been modelled after State licensing rules. Chair Prazak asked what building improvements would be made that might change the appearance of the structure. Ms. Wherley said there would be no major exterior changes only some handicap accessibility and interior changes. Chair Prazak acknowledged that he had letters from Virginia and Homer Hauke, Victoria Winters, John Martinsen, Monica and James Linhoff, and two petitions. Neither petition specified the rationale for opposing the modification in the Zoning Code. Chair Prazak ope�ed the Informal Public Hearing. Richard McCamp�e�� , 705 Hanl�y R�ad, asked what the effect of a petition would be if it had a good rationale -- how many names are required, and whether or not the Planning Commission is obliged to act in favor as the petition recommends. Mr. McCampbell said he felt this was a residential neighborhood and for it to be made into something else is a big mistake. Chair Prazak explained that there were no number requirements for a petition but that it communicates to the Planning Commission that there are a substantial number of people who have questions or concerns about the proposal but that the Commission was not obliged to act as the petition recommends. � . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 9, 1989 . � Page 7 Leland Hanvik, 901 lltah Avenue South, stated he is a psychologist by profession, had practiced in Hennepin County County for over 35 years, and for 17 years was a director of a mental health center and active in State and County mental health associations. He stated he had served on various committees and task forces aimed at deveiopi�g a continuum of human services of this type. He said he felt the issue before the Comm�ssi�r� was not whether a group home is a good thing, ��ric� �� fe�t it was, but wheti�er the current Zoning Ordinance should be amended ta a�la+� unlic��sed grra�p homes. i�e felt the Ordinance should not be changed because he feit th� ��w �rc�v)d be changed� possibly this year, to allow only licensed group homes, He had a� cop� of a r�esolation dated December 20 by the Hennepin County Board recommending �hat �he 1989 Legislature direct the Department of Human Services to develop licensing standards for supported living residences (group homes) . Patty McElroy, 1320 Edgewood Avenue North, felt that once Golden Valley opens the door for these types of facilities, we' ll be known as an easy place and people will not bother to go to a place where they face much opposition and the City would bPCOme saturated with these homes. She stated that she felt that, contrary to Mr, Tift's be]ief, people with AIDS do not lead healthy lives and that this progra�t wo��ci b� a da�ger to �eople in the neighborhood. Richard Ka3ish, 115 �ouisiana Avenue South, stated he was confused about the State licensed verses not State licensed facilities and if it is not State � licensed, what are the deficiencies that prevent it from being licensed. Mr. Kalish asked who would supervise the program and whether Golden Valley would have the resources to see that it maintains standards. He also felt the liability questions were very real . He had concerns regarding removal of biohazardous substances from this type of facility and also noted that many of these patients we�-e �dr�g users and did not want them in the neighborhood. Bill Jewett, 731 Utah Avenue Sot��h, questioned the need for this facility, that there si�ould be room in hospitals for these types of people. He also felt it would give developers an opportunity to buy up homes at less than market rates along the I-394 carr�d�r. �� lso wanted to know why, if this would affect the entire City, a�� residents were not notified. Chair Prazak stated that staff followed the recommendations of the City Attorney and that there would be a notice in the paper when it goes to the City Council . He also noted that the Planning Commission's role was to advise the'City Council and that ultimately the Council would make tf�e decision. Director Grimes stated that when there was a change to the text of the Zoning Code, there is no notification required to anyone specifically, however, when it comes before the City Council for a Formal Public Hearing, a legal notice will be published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post and that the Council will have to decide if they want to send mailed notices to anyone. � , Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission � January 9, 1989 ` � Page 8 Joe Gately, 642 Sumter Avenue South, wanted to stress that if the Zoning Code were changed, it would allow Level IV Board and Lodging facilities in any residential area in Golden Valley. Henry Lundgaard, 700 Utah Avenue South, said he lives next door to this property and felt that his property`value would decrease because of this facility. Bill Waldusky, 8009 Ridgeway Road, asked if this type of program would be acceptable in other Zoning Districts. He stated that he felt it was income property in a residential area. Mr. Waldusky also wanted to know why Mr. Tift was not licensed by the State and felt Golden Valley should not be the first to start allowing such facilities. He strongly suggested that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council not to change the Ordinance. Chair Prazak responded to questions raised to this point. Marge Wherley said that was a question for the State, but about three years ago there was a change in Statute that said there would be this kind of facility for people that were vulnerable. Ms. Wherley also made the following comments: There were some who believed these facilities would all be for people who were mentally ill and that they would be used as a means of denying needed treatment. That lobbying group kept the State from developing licensing standards and was able to get this category of facility removed from Statute. There is na � specific license proponents can apply for. Commissioner McAleese asked if the standards the County has developed for these facilities had been reviewed by the State. Ms. Wherley said the State did not have jur�sdiction over licensing these facilities and therefore does not get involved, and do not get involved with the way any county regulates any kind of facility such as this. Chair Prazak asked if the County anticipated the kinds of requirements that would be laid dowr� by the State in the future. Ms. Wherley stated that if the State did license these facilities in the future, the County would have to meet whatever standards they establish. She also indicated that the County could establish more restrictive standards than the State but not less. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt asked Ms. Wherley who would oversee this program and Ms. Wherley said that the City would only enforce such things as building and fire codes, and that the County would monitor staffing, services, policies, admission, discharges, etc. � � Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission � January 9, 1989 � � Page 9 Barry Kane, 30 Western Terrace, said he was a signer on one of the petitions. He wanted to know from Hennepin County how large a staff would be overlooking this facility and wanted to know why we don't resist these facilities such as other communities - if we are being picked on because we are immediately adjacent to Minneapolis. Does not want this facility and doesn't feel other people do either. HaroTd Lysne, 20 Winnetka Avenue South, wanted to know why we were trying to anticipate what the State was going to do and preempt and anticipate and say lets go ahead and do that until we know actually what they are going to do. He felt that after this facility is established, someone else could come in and take it over and it may not have the care that these people are talking about. Chair Prazak noted that it was his understanding that the County would have to relicense or recertify a program where the ownership changed so there would be an opportunity to review the qualifications of the new owners. Richard McCampbell wanted to know what course of action, since the petition appears to be useless, the residents could take that would impress the Council that they do not want a change in their residential neighborhood. Commissioner Leppik stated what they have done is exactly what they need to do -- come, make their position known and try to base it on as much rational � argument as they can. Chair Prazak said they could speak at the formal public hearing the City Council would have. Dennis Carlson, 150 Hanley Road, felt that all residents should have been informed of this hearing. He wanted to know in simple terms what the whole process is, how a proposal like this actually got to where it is, what the function of the Planning Commission is, what happens when the City Counci7 looks at it and what the time frame is. Mr. Carlson said he does not read the Post, and felt that a question of this magnitude should be publicized so everyone understands what is going on. Chair Prazak asked Director Grimes to review the sequence of events, which he did. Didi Scanlon, 7315 Olympia, wanted to know if the house was still on the market. Rosemary Kirley, 500 Hanley Road, listing agent for the property, said the house was still on the market. � _ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 9, 1989 � � Page 10 Patty McElroy stated she did not live by this house but lived near Oasis. She stated at that time the Council did not do what the Planning Commission advised them to do and left it up to the Attorney. She suggested residents advise other residents on their own and to attend the Council meeting. Mark Gottsacker, 8010 Ridgeway Road, wanted to know if the State, regardless of community zoning, has the power and is considering to force the communities to accept these types of Level IV homes. Director Grimes said it was his understanding that the State was considering licensing these types of facilities which would put them under the same category as any other State licensed facility which would then give the City virtually no power at all in determining where they could be placed within the City. He said the people should be talking to their State Legislators. Sylvia Nelson, 820 Sumter Avenue South, asked Ms. Wherley if it was the County's practice with other group homes in the past to work with them under a purchase of service agreement. Ms. Wherley explained that they do have purchase of service contracts with a large number of facilities but also have facilities that come under negotiated services agreements which are identical to purchase of service contracts except they have different legal implications. Richard Fox, 24 Hanley Road, wanted to know what the staffing would consist of � and also who carries the liability and will the City be held harmless, Director Grimes reviewed the County's requirements for staffing of Level IV facilities. Lisa Kane, 30 Western Terrace, stated they were already in a high crime area and wanted to know what would happen to the house when Hennepin County withdraws funding and who would move into their neighborhood, who would use a house like this that had been made to accommodate six people. Stuart Mittert said he felt the property was too smail for six people p]us staff. Virginia Hauke, 600 Utah Avenue South, said the houses are too close together, there is no privacy and too much traffic. Mary Maier, 115 Florida Court, said she does not live in this neighborhood but felt it was important that she speak. She felt all residents should have been notified of this proposed change to the Zoning Code. She felt the City should do an impact study before moving ahead on this. Larry Wright, 605 Hanley Road, wanted to know if there would be a change in the property taxes on this property if it is a for-profit situation. � Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 9, 1989 • . Page 11 Chair Prazak said there would no longer be any homestead credit, and Director Grimes noted that it would be determined how the assessor valued it. Victoria Winters, 424 Winnetka Avenue South, wanted to know how this house could accommodate six residents plus about four staff persons. Staff indicated the staff would be working in shifts and also that more than one person could shar� the bedrooms. Florence Wright, 675 Hanley Road, said her house borders behind this house and wanted to know what rights she would have regarding people from this house trespassing on her property. Chair Prazak said she would have the same rights as any property owner, that the police can be called if there is a problem with people trespassing. Larry Jocelyn, 614 Winnetka Avenue South, asked the Planning Commission how this would benefit Golden Valley, where the tax dollars would come from and how the surrounding properties would be affected. Chair Prazak sai� it was his understanding that funds to operate this program would c�me from Hen�epin County. � Chair Prazak asked Mr. Tift if he had any comments. Mr. Tift stated that the use of this home for a group home would not change the residential character of the neighborhood. He stated in response to problems with parking and traffic that the residents are low income and do not have cars, that there would probably be* only two staff cars around there at any one time. He also noted there needs to be more public education. Mr. Tift also stated no studies had been done regarding AIDS facilities and its effect on property values, but other studies throughout the United States addressing group homes did not show a significant negative �ar �ositive impact over all on property values in the neighborhood. He also noted that AIDS people are very careful about their health as they are susceptible to all kinds of diseases and bacteria even more than other people. Mr. Tift said he too was concerned with crime rates and and that one of their criteria is that persons using this facility will have to be free of all chemical use, on or off the premises. Chair Prazak closed the Informal Public Hearing. He noted that the earliest this matter could go to the City Council would be February 7, 1989, and residents could call the City or watch the paper for notices. Commissioner McAleese requested a five minute break. � _ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 9, 1989 � � Page 11 Chair Prazak asked staff to review what the Planning Commission's options were. Director Grimes again listed the options available as set out at the beginning of the meeting. Commissioner Leppik stated she was concerned about Golden Valley being the first to allow these facilities but thinks this type of facility should be spread out over a wide area. She felt that we need to continue to put pressure on the Legislature to license these facilities or in some way require them to be spread out. Commissioner Leppik said she did not object to the group home but would object if she felt her neighborhood was being targeted, meaning the whole community, and felt very strongly that we should wait and let the Legislature change the legislation so it is equally applied across the board to all communities. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt said she agreed with Commissioner Leppik in that she was comfortable with the Zoning Code as it now stands which relies on the State licensing. She stated she was not comfortable with amending the Zoning Code just because one situation has come up. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt also agreed that pressure needs to be on State legislation and if a community would accept it without State licensing being required, it would let up on their need to make up their mind regarding legislation on it. Chair Praza9c said he found this specific proposal less troublesome than some of • the oth�r uses that are already permitted under the current legislation but was concerned about opening up the entire City and all residential areas to group homes with which we have had relatively little experience. Consensus of Commissioners was that they were disturbed by the fact that if these facilities do become licensed by the State, that there could not be a requirement that there be a certain distance 6etween them. Director Grimes noted that the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities is working on looking at the group home issues. Commissioner Kapsner said he felt that government, whether county, state or city, does have an obligation to people who are unable to care for themselves, but does not feel the City should put itself in the position of being a mecca by puttie�g thes� gr�up �omes into single family residences. He stated he would be more comfortable putting these homes in an institutional area ar multi-family area. Commissioner Kapsner felt that we have had zoning laws for many years to separate the multi-family residences from the single-family residences, and that there are good reasons for these laws and that amending the zoning laws just because we now have a need, lessens the importance of zoning laws. He felt that the Planning Commission should recommend denying the amendment. � _ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission � January 9, 1989 •. Page 13 Chair Prazak said in addition to spacing requirements of group homes, we should have some guidelines regarding the number of residents in such homes in relationship to the population. He felt that we are now probably serving less than our fair share based on population but at the same time does not see that we should need to serve twice as many per capita as other neighboring communities. Commissioner Lewis stated that, regarding the liability, we should wait for the State to license these facilities. She felt that if we approve it now, the City would probably be more liable than if we wait for the State to license them. Commissioner Leppik noted that the issue had been raised regarding the cities being able to license these facilities and wondered if that would be possible, and if we could be made liable should we then also have our own licensing procedure. Director Grimes stated that we would depend on the County to do their jobs. He noted that we do license various other things and could do so, but who on the City staff would be qualified to make any determinations regarding the group homes. Commissioner McAleese said it was his feeling that if the City were to license the group homes, it would increase the liability. � Commissioner McAleese moved that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the change in the Zoning Code. The motion was seconded by Commissioner McCracken-Hunt. Commissioner McAleese offered the following rationale for his motion. He stated that licensing does not always solve the problems but on the other hand that we are being asked to just accept and trust the opinion of the Hennepin County staff that they have set forth the proper standards and would be more comfortable relying upon the State to set the standards. Commissioner McAleese was also concerned with the liability problem. He felt that when taiking about putting an income property in a residential neighborhood that it doesn't make any sense when the Commission has consistently opposed home occupations in residential neighborhoods and put large restraints on them that now suddenly we say here's something that can go in without any restraints. Commissioner McAleese said if we were to allow this, he felt the appropriate mechanism would be a Conditional Use Permit. He also noted that he thinks the City should become involved in the process of legislation and that there needs to be some constraints on distance between these homes and that they should consider the characteristics of the neighborhood. � . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 9, 1989 �� Page 14 Commissioner Kapsner advised that the Planning Commission should suggest to the City Council to get actively involved in what the State does regarding these residential facilities. Chair Prazak said he did not want these comments to be interpreted that Golden Valley is not appropriate for group homes. for vulnerable people, that we have an obligation as a community to do our fair share, but would like the cities to be given more option other than "you must do it° and "you must allow it anywhere, whatsoever". Upon vote, the motion carried to recommend that the City Council deny the request to change the definition of "Residential Facilities° in the City Zoning Code. Mr. Kane felt the Planning Commission should consider passing the suggestion along to staff and City Council that the Minneapolis Star/Tribune, which is more widely read, be contacted to provide publi�cation of items of interest to people in Golden Valley in their Community section. III . REPORTS QN CITY COUNCIL, BZA AND HRA MEETINGS Uarious Planning Commission members gave reports on the December 13, 1988 HRA meeting, BZA meeting, and December 20, 1988 and January 3; 1989 City Council � meetings. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. � � January l9, 1989 T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Planning and Development Staff SUBJECT: Meeting With Mayor Anderson Please remember that Mayor Anderson will be present at the Planning Commission meeting to discuss how things have been going during the past year and to exchange any concerns or comments about Commission activities. She will also probably want to discuss Planning Commission appointments for 1989, so Jean Lewis and Kevin McAleese might want to da some thinking about whether they would like to be reappointed when their current terms expire at the end of February. � � January 19, 1989 ,� T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Beth Knoblauch, City Planner SUBJECT: Comprehensive Land tlse Plan Map Amendment and Amendment to the Zoning Map, Northeast Corner of Zane Avenue and Olson Memorial Highway F1uiDyne Corporation has requested the rezoning of a parcel of vacant land at Zane Avenue and Olson Memorial Highway. The parcel is across the street from the F1uiDyne facility, and is currently zoned for Dpen Development. The proposed rezoning would be to Industrial and the proposed use is expanded pa�king f�r �IuiDyne employees. A Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map amendment would also be required, because most of the block face from Zane to Highway 100 along Olson Memorial Highway is currently planned for business and professional offices. Several considerations are important here. The first is that the F1uiDyne Corporation obviously lacks adequate parking on its existing site; the parked cars along Zane Avea�u�e are a nuisance at best, and can be a real hazard in the winter months wher� snow ae�umulation narrows the street. The second is that the parcel ir� qu�stion is long (about 375 feet) and relatively narrow (118 � feet) , with some fairly significant grade changes from its lowest point in the northeast corner to its highest point in the southwest; these site character- , istics create some difficulty in trying to design a suitable and cost-effective office development for the site. A third consideration is that adjacent zoning on two sides of the site {north and west) is already Industrial , while the fiighway buffers the site to the south, and the sloping terrain buffers it from the mixed zoning areas to the east, including the single family home next door. While the first three considerations all tend to favor the requested amendments, a fourth consideration is somewhat less positive: the proposed parking lot would require setback variances of 15 feet along Zane Avenue and 8 feet along the eas�ern proper�ty iine. Balancing F1uiDyne's need for s�lui�g �ts immediate parking problem against the long-term suitability of this site for office development, I feel that the proposed parking lot is the better choice. I suggest that the Planning Commis- sion recommend approval of the requested Ct�rnprehensive Land Use Plan Map amendment and the amendment to the Zor��r�g Ordinance. I feel that this is a case where a specific' need, in cambinat�on with development constraints on a specific property, legitimately overrules the City's generalized plan. � Enclosures: 1. Site Location Map 2. Site Plan (enclosed separately) 0 ^^ 9,. ------�.� ' � N ° � � ��-. _ � � . ?-�.�1__ M ' �3.!' - o o � � �f 1 _Q'.{'� G '200 , `/�� o �" •-.. M83'25'30••ry b.. ��"i+ - ` � 455.2�j � ��'sc•r.N. s S 2P.�3 42 � � .� r � ' ' s� _ - • j''� �, , i - � MAE' 3'i�'N - - — - _�,IL�� iog, 6jep t , , T5 0 � II JlM �o o -�--__ ' 1k � ' � .' t � �� i � tiG � � i� , M� � �/'/ I RS�'� , � �G�Q! S/� 1`° w o� . wI�''�7� „ . � -,, e � o_ G.r�,: T�:-,,�a�i Co. 0 N 3 t � , ��' No�e: Distances ondbta,�in�s pc.�ta�;�:n.a '�o G.H. 'en,� .., a�e token from D�sfr�cj Cou�t 1',^e.r.oriai P!c -- -i�T»-- - �sc , .., .o o� � o + � � ° ��: t � �. . -�., � .� _ '•, 2 _ i � o o . ♦ � t. . WP � . . , �.✓ . w N G o � � S'�� I� j` �1 �St��l'�5't� w�+ �..tJLr' � M Si9'N'O'E 2lb 5 �:M ' tt{ � .. �o � ZS .� �. � c� i3�::5 �39.�5 ,:. i3� li J4 w • 1 4 � .t, tn � i � � � 31 - � o °o � D• o° ti � 'L � ��. 1 � ° - :.. � �;, � , .`}� 1 `1 p o ° �� . I � � � � � � I � � , , .+` � ._ ; I i � � �� `� � � � "' t� � ' `�", 2 n ° • i� ; d lm � ,,:,r ` � I ,I �n., �l �. ° •� `Q� : •� , " I:, � I- a i ♦ , N a � � ' ` � .:Zac.��t ,�� ;, � o - � ' � , ) � �� -.j M� _ . _' . __� __ .�.__._ �_ _ - _� P �'� . 1 1 �\ - �,! r r • � 1 4 ^�40 : . Z " .,T �- �y,, • � • • -' - �''i. ��' � , ' S � I;i.2{ �' ST38 5T30 3610 tl� ; � 6/00 � 3900 . � � 1 '! t�, — --�� •. ,_ _rf�s __ ii�s4 �-- l ' � I I Jly : i;;' _ _ • � - N ; { FLOYt� �. QLSO(� MEMO�IAL H Y . ( r� N , i � �� - 0 0 o y I � ° � I ( �I � . � 5° 5e ' I . I I � � 1ij N '�� rsr _ -1`o•_. , � .I 1�G.26„+ �__,..��{;= Ii7.2S �._ Ii�•25 - i �i"--_ � . � _. � �' � , I J .__ i I l J '�'�G4'�_ -=r�- --j__—•.6'.8� �{' 1 1 I i L� 1O I o i..13'3:I �, - � � � � � � � � � � �� . �; seo� �s.�as �s�zo ' ° ; � 6�Y5 � p V �.� ' iT .� _ eD� • • /2S�s.�bo p csf� �.eoR. 1° ? d - t�,�( c o! e o . e ti c+�y� Id•!:�f. � ' ' • v o _ O`+ !� � � � � '�. Q � � � N • �� I . N s _�` .. _�o 0 �� o �-�3.7, ON ► v�;, •.x- )90 w J . • 41 Vl 4 p� � •:J�� ps�• �w� o � o� _ _ I OQ L �' 1�1 �. �s .ss +e.r:..�...4�( m /tf.e( SJ.e F}••' 4 � i o!� ;i � �'�� r p °�° sl {� o � Ay �e��j,.e, ' c � � � . q o • � � . � �� I��s, p. w . V� 70 � � N � •, J �o °�•. �o � . v � . � �, N . �� ,� 7J. . � ' �^ a. " N `x o �i � --• 1- '? M g � 'g + ° � • , .:+�,�,,� 3'13aI�0 00 � ,�•, a '9 . .e.,9 � , � N o _ � � �$ ,: ao aI• ioo �zst�..� . � �j -�� . '� 1 - � 4: � NQ/'�x ti T,`tt: o �(O• ` R! e` �1. "_.�� January 19, 1989 T0: Golden Valley Planning Gommission FROM: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Extension of Interim Ordinance (Moratorium) Continuing Development Restrictions Along Highway 12 Until April 28, 1989 In March of 1988, the City Council approved a development moratorium ordinance affecting property in the Highway 12 corridor. The purpose of the moratorium was to allow the City time to develop new zoning restrictions along Highway 12 in order to minimize traffic congestion in future years. The City Council , after reviewing recommendations by the Planning Commission, has now prepared a new Zoning Overlay Ordinance that will address the traffic congestion issue along Highway l2 in future years. This Overlay Ordinance is being prepared in concert with St. Louis Park. St. Louis Park is several weeks behind Golden Valley in the adoption of a similar Zoning Overlay Ordinance. Since St. Louis Park would not be able to complete and adopt their Zoning Overlay Ordinance by the time the original moratorium is over (approximately mid-March) , each City is going to request that the � moratorium be extended until April 28, 1989. The City of Golden Va11ey will not give its final reading of the Overlay Ordinance and publish the new Overlay Ordinance until St. Louis Park is on approximately the same time schedule in adopting their similar Zoning Overlay Ordinance. The proposed extension to the moratorium reduces the size of the moratorium area to the area covered by the proposed Zoning Overlay District. The originaT zoning moratorium covered all the area bounded by 7.H. 12, T.H. 55, T.H. 18 and T.H. 100. Attachments - � . � '� ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE (Amending Ordinance No . 707 Extending The Development Restrictions In The Highway 12/394 Corridor To The Earlier Of April 28, 1989 Or The Effective Date Of the I-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance) The City Council of the City of Golden Va11ey ordains as follows : Section I. Ordinance No. 707 is amended by changing Section 2 . 01 thereof to r�ad as follows : "Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462 . 355 , Subd. 4 , no building permit shall be issued for any property located in the Study Area as defined herein, except the following : a. �roperty des�gnated as single family residential or two family residential (R-2) in the Zoning Code. � b. Property for which preliminary subdivision � approval and/or site plan approval has been granted (but final approval has not been granted) prior to the effective date of this ordinance. c . Interior improvements for existing structures which do not require additional parking under applicable ordinances, regulations , etc. d� �xteriar additions to existing structures which do €�ot increase the size of the structure by more than ��la �f its existing square footage nor require additional parking under applicable ordinances , regulations, etc. e. Improvements necessary to correct violations of State law and City ordinance which have created a threat to public health and safety, as determined by the City. Section 2 . Ordinance No. 707, adopted March 15, 1988, � which establishes development restrictions in the Highway l2/394 - . � '� corridor for a period of 360 days (after exercise of an extension procedure) by changing Section 3 thereof to read as follows : "Study Area 3 . 01 The Study Area is that part of the land lying in Golden Valley within the following described zones : Zone A: Following the South line of Circle Downs easterly from the intersection of Turners Crossroad and Circle Downs to State Highway 100; continue south along the westerly line of State Highway 100 to the nor�hsrly line of Parkdale Drive and continuing in a westerly direction across Vernon Avenue to the intersection of Cedar Lake Road; continue in a northwesterly direction on the north line of Cedar Lake Road to the intersection o� Zarthan Avenue; continue along the east line of Zarthan Avenue north to the intersection of 16th Street West ; continue west along the north line of 16th Street West to the east line of the Minneapolis , Northfield & Southern Railway right of way (except that portion which contains U. S. � Highway 12) ; continue northeasterly along the east line of the Minneapolis , Northfield & Southern Railway right of way to the east line of Laurel Avenue; continue east along the southerly line of Laurel Avenue to the intersection of Turners Crossroad and continue south on the westerly line of Turners Crossroad to the intersection of Circle Downs , the point of beginning. Zone B: Follawing the south line of Laurel Avenue east from ��e intersection of 4Vinnetka Avenue and Laurel Avenue; continue on the southerly line of Laurel Avenue east to the westerly line of the Minneapolis , Northfield & Southern Railway right of way; continue in a southwesterly direction along the westerly line of the railway right of way (except that portion which crosses U.S. Highway 12) to the intersection of 16th Street West; continue on the northerly line of 16th Street West westerly in a straight line to the east line of Hampshire Avenue; continue on the west line of Hampshire Avenue north to the intersection with 14th Street West ; continue on the northerly line of 14th Street West west to the intersection with Pennsylvania Avenue; continue on the easterly line of Pennsylvania Avenue north to the � intersection with 13 1/2 Street West; continue on the northerly line of 13 1/2 Street West west to the -2- . � � intersection of Rhode Island Avenue; continue on the easterly line of Rhode Island Avenue north to the intersection of 13th Avenue; continue on the north line of 13th Avenue west to the intersection with Texas Avenue; continue on the easterly line of Texas Avenue north to its intersection with U.S. Highway 12 ; continue on the northerly line of U. S. Highway 12 west to the intersection of Winnetka Avenue South; continue on the ��s�erly line of Winnetka Avenue South north to �� ntersect�� of Laurel Avenue, the point of beginning . Zone C: ��lowi�g the ��uth line of Betty Crocker Drive east from the intersection of County Road 18 and Betty Crocker Drive to the intersection with General Mills Boulevard; continue on the west line of General Mills Boulevard south to the northerly line of Section 6 , Township 117, Range 21; continue east on the northerly line of Section 6, Township 117, Range 21 to the intersection with winnetka Avenue South; continue on th� c�� l�ne of Winnetka Avenue South south (except th�� portion which crosses U.S. Highway 12) extended t� �he bounda�� line of the Cities of Golden Valley and St . Louis Park; continue on said boundary line �est to the east line of County Road 18; continue on the east line of County Road 18 north (except that � portion which crosses U.S. Highway 12) to the intersection with Betty Crocker Drive, the point of beginning . Section 3 . Ordinance No. 707 is amended by adding Section 4 thereto as folla�as: Section 4 . TERM 4.01 This Ordinance shall be effective upon its publication and shall terminate on the earlier of April 28, 1989 or the effective date of the I-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance currently under consideration by the City Council . Section 4 . This Ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption and publication. � -3- � �� Adopted by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley on the day of , 1989 . Mary E. Anderson, Mayor ATTEST: William S. Joynes City Manager Allen D. Barnard City Attorney 3500 IDS Center Minneapolis , M� 55402 (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post on . ) (This ordinance will be uncodified and referenced in Chapter 25 � of the City Code. ) � 5 9 8 1 U . � � . � � -4-