04-09-84 PC Agenda �
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
(Civic Center, 7800 Golden Va11ey Road)
April 9, 1984
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
I . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1984
II. SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PUD AMENDMENT PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN
APRLICANT: Stanley M. Chasney
LOCATION: 4959/4969/4979 Olson Memorial Highway
REQUEST: Preliminary Design Plan approval of PUD #28,
Pondwood Office Park, Amendment No. 2
� III. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 15 OF
�3�TY�Z�NTNGZ�D�'--- - - -
IV. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 3, 1984 '
�
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
• March 26, 1984
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the Council Chambers of
the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chairman
Forster called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Those present were Commissioners Forster, Leppik, McAleese, Prazak and Tubman.
Commissioners Russell and Singer were absent.
Also present was Alda Peikert, Assistant Planner.
I . ANNUAL ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Chairman Forster introduced the annual election of officers and opened the
meeting to nominations.
It was moved by Commissioner Leppik and seconded by Commissioner Prazak to nomi-
nate Commissioner Forster for the office of Chairman.
It was moved by Commissioner Prazak to nominate Commissioner Leppik for the
office of Vice Chairman. Commisisoner Leppik declined the nomination, stating
that she could not make the time commitment to serving on the Board of Zoning
Appeals (BZA) . Commissioner Leppik asked whether Commissioner Prazak would be
interested in the office, and Commissioner Prazak stated that his time is
already committed as representative to the Community Development Block Grant
. fCDBG) Program Planning Area Citizen Advisory Committee (PACAC) .
It was moved by Commissioner Leppik and seconded by Chairman Forster to nominate
Commissioner Tubman for the office of Vice Chairman. Cormnissioner Tubman
expressed interest in BZA membership as tying in with her legal background.
It was moved by Chairman Forster and seconded by Co►r�nissioner Leppik to nominate
Commissioner Prazak for the office of Secretary.
There were no further nominations, and Chairman Forster closed the nominations
for Planning Commission offices.
A vote was taken on the slate of nominations, and it carried unanimously to
elect Commissioner Forster as Chairman, Commissioner Tubman as Vice Chairman,
and Commissioner Prazak as Secretary of the Planning Commission.
II. APROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 27, 1984
It was moved by Commissioner Prazak, seconded by Commissioner McAleese and
carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the March 12, 1984 Planning
Co�nission meeting as recorded.
�
Planning Commission Meeting - March 26, 1984 -2-
• III. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING
APPLICANT: John J. Day
LOCATION: 1300-1304 Gettysburg Avenue North
REQUEST: Rezoning from Residential (Single Family) to Two Family
Residential (R-2) Zoning District to allow construction
of a duplex
Chairman Forster introduced this agenda item and recognized the proponent, Mr.
John Day, who was present. Chairman Forster then explained the hearing
procedure and opened the meeting to questions of staff.
Chairman Forster confirmed with Assistant Planner Alda Peikert that this request
previously appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) in 1978 but that it
has not previously been before the Planning Commission. Ms. Peikert explained
that procedure changed from a variance procedure to a rezoning procedure with
the establishment approximately three years ago of the Two Family Residential
(R-2) Zoning District.
Commissioner Prazak asked whether there are other duplexes in the immediate area
of the subject property. Ms. Peikert replied that she is not aware of any
others besides the existing double adjacent on the east owned by the proponent.
� Chairman Forster called on the proponent, Mr. John J. Day, to present his propo-
sal . Mr. Day began with the statement that it is his understanding that
construction of four doubles is approved for a location on the other side of
Plymouth Avenue and to the east. Ms. Peikert confirmed that the Midtown Planned
Unit Development (PUD) located southeast of Boone Avenue North and Plymouth
Avenue several blocks to the east of the subject site calls for ten units in
five duplexes, one of which is already existing.
Mr. Day offered background on his rezoning request stating that he obtained BZA
approval for a duplex at the subject site in 1978 but did not proceed with
construction at that time due to unfavorable financing conditions. Mr. Day
explained that he did not realize that approval for a duplex lapsed and that a
new procedure is required until he applied for a building permit. Mr. Day
stated that he now definitely plans to proceed with construction, and he showed
his building plans to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Prazak asked the price range of the proposed duplex. Mr. Day
replied that the price range would be approximately $55,000 to $60,000 per unit,
but that he plans to rent the units. The duplex will be constructed in such a
manner as to allow future zero lot line division if desired, but intent at. this
time is single ownership of the entire duplex.
Commissioner Leppik asked the reasons for developing the subject lot for a
duplex rather than for a single family residence and whether the proponent has
• tried to sell the lot for single family development. Mr. Day replied that he
seeks approval of a duplex due to the large lot size, tMe greater appraised
Planning Cor�nission Meeting - March 26, 1984 -3-
�
value and desire to make use of the lot as investment property. Mr. Day stated
that he has not tried to sell the lot for single family or any other use.
Chairman Forster opened the informal public hearing for public input.
Mr. Pau1 Lantto, 1301 Gettysburg Avenue North, introduced himself and his wife,
Gerry, and stated that �hey live directly across the street from the subject
lot. Mr. Lantto stated that Mr. Day approached him with plans for a duplex
several years ago and that he signed a waiver application for Mr. Day at that
time. However, he said that he now has concerns including the proposed rental
use of the property, upkeep of the property and the low eTevation of the subject
lot. Mr. Lantto related that an attempt was previously made to build a house on
the subject site but was abandoned due to water problems and that he has a water
problem in his own basement.
Asked to address the question of low elevation, Mr. Day explained that the pro-
posed duplex would be two levels on a slab without a basement and would have
drain tile all around as discussed with the City Building Inspector.
Mr. Lantto elaborated on his concern for the rental use of the property, stating
that he wishes to protect his own investment. Mr. Lantto stated that the
existing double owned by Mr. Day to the east of the subject site originally had
perfect renters who maintained the property but that the situation has
deteriorated. There are trucks and vans parked on the lawn, the garage doors
. are not kept up, and there are always windows out.
Chairman Forster closed the informal public hearing.
Commissioner Leppik asked the proponent whether he lives in the adjacent duplex,
and Mr. Day replied that he does not live in the duplex and that it has been
rented for 20 years. Commissioner Leppik asked whether the proponent uses an
agency to handle rental or personally handles the rental . Mr. Day answered that
he rents the units out himself and that he lives in Robbinsdale and checks the
location regularly. Mr. Day stated that he was unaware of problems mentioned by
Mr. Lantto and thought he had two good couples in the duplex. He stated that
there had been an overhead door problem which was recently repaired and that he
also had the gutters repaired recently.
Corr�nissioner Forster asked about soils problems. Mr. Day stated that he had the
soils tested by Twin City Testing and could make the soils report available to
the City Building Inspector.
Commissioner Tubman asked whether hearing notices were sent to all neighboring
property owners, and Ms. Peikert confirmed that hearing notices were sent to all
property owners within 500 feet of the subject property.
Commissioner Leppik stated that she is reluctant to spot zone for duplex use
based on the desire of an owner to make additional revenue. However, in view of
the existing adjacent duplex and of Industrial use across the street, she is not
opposed to this rezoning. `
�
Planning Commission Meeting - March 26, 1984 -4-
� Commissioner Prazak expressed a preference for the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) process allowing zero lot line division for separa te owne r s hi p r a t h e r t h a n
rental ih a single family neighborhood, but stated that it sounds :as though this
change could still occur in the future.
Commissioner Tubman stated that she feels the proposed duplex is appropriate at
the subject location because it is compatible with surrounding uses.
Commissioner McAleese stated that he is concerned about the rental aspect of the
proposal , but notes that Mr. Day appears willing to cooperate with the City and
with neighbors on maintenance of the property.
Commissioner Tubman asked the proponent whether he owns other residential pro-
perties. Mr. Day stated that he owns one single family home in the Camden area
but that his other property holdings are nonresidential . Commissioner Tubman
speculated that marketing of a new double on the subject lot would provide added
incentive for maintenance of the adjacent existing double.
Mr. Day added the suggestion that development of the subject lot should be an
enhancement to the neighborhood as compared to the current vacant lot.
Commissioner Tubman asked the proponent whether he has given consideration to a
maintenance contract on the two properties together. Mr. Day replied that he
has not considered this option but could do so.
• It was moved by Commissioner Prazak, seconded by Commissioner Tubman and carried
unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the request received from
Mr. John J . Day for rezoning of the vacant lot located at 1300 Gettysburg
Avenue North from the Residential (Single Family) to the Two Family residential
(R-2) Zoning District to allow construction of a duplex.
IV. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF TNE PLATTING ORDINANCE
APPLICANT: Ridgewood Properties, Inc.
LOCATION: 135 and 155 King Creek Road
REQUEST: Lot Division to allow transfer to 5 foot strip to
adjacent lot
Chairman Forster introduced this agenda item and recognized Mr. Paul Oberstar
who was present to represent the proponent. Mr. Oberstar introduced himself as
an officer in Ridgewood Properties, owner of both properties involved in the lot
division and consolidation requested. Mr. Oberstar briefly explained the reason
for the Request for Waiver of the Platting Ordinance.
It was moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Commissioner McAleese and
carried unanimously to reco�nend that the City Council approve the waiver of the
City Platting Ordinance requested by Ridgewood Properties, Inc. to allow
transfer of a five foot strip of land from 135 King Creek Road to 155 King Creek
! Road.
Planning Cor�nission Meeting - March 26, 1984 -5-
�
Y. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 22, 1984
Commissioner Prazak provided the Planning Cor�nission with a report on the March
22, 1984 City Council meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
G. Wi iam Forster, C airman ary Prazak, Secretary
�
�
T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 3, 1984
. FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER
SUBJECT: SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN FOR PUD #28,
PONDWOOD OFFICE PARK, AMENDMENT N0. 2
The proponent, Mr. Stanley M. Chasney, one of the partners in Pondwood Associates,
owners of PUD #28, Pondwood Office Park, located at 4959, 4969 and 4979 Olson
Memorial Highway, requests approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for a PUD amend-
ment to allow conversion of one of the office condominium units to residential use
and addition of a three stall garage structure. The reason for the request is need
for combined residential and office use in one building to accommodate Mrs. Chasney,
who requires care due to Multiple Sclerosis.
Staff suggests that the Planning Commission set an informal public hearing date of
April 23, 1984 for consideration of the Preliminary Design Plan for PUD #28, Pondwood
Office Park, Amendment No. 2.
AP:kjm
Attachment: Site Location Map
�
•
R "
� '
�
� � �
; ' • � �
�
F �
� Z00 Q
�
€ Ste l!
� .... �800.79 Res. ...
( 1�3�
� ars
' ------�s-: ""'_' .:<'it5 .
� �_ � . '_� :o - :*� --
,= � i - t FLOYD 8. OLSON
� � ; � J
f St0/ 3rtl S�il �� � SOOI �+ _�Q C.D� l2�12 i0 �
Wo IIo ; - ------- ---�— -- 0[.Rll-/76l ---------* --_f^_
�� 'Z •' � a • . I - ' I 5 t9�9 �90� ----__ _ _ . _� 1�jo-
q I _'-__
: � � I ,ss� ;zs� -- ___z�J__ �_�
•. eo a�� �..,.,: �,.� \ � ;sej y•
-„o.- u wo � . � `\ \ �584/)
.
�z�� � „ (5�01 '' _ � � � o
� A i / '� \ '1..
� lo iti�. � .p � 9 ,�sasz: . (5848,' o,�
�� �� �0,�'� �� p 9 �; �
�. / o * �� r � .\ �; . , �
i k , ro �, � i .
.
� �
t. �/ �e� 115 � �� � \\ 'b
9 !�� , .- v � ,�. `� �:
:� �*� ss � ; `�,\i
� ►� 9
't .. b � � p ' . \` ,` � p.
�
: y°� b � � ``' :+��'�` (58�5)
� �
0�� • . � W , . .
`"c` �� 'l5 e �
.�e :" g `: ` o . �
,R � .�o �490, ------,:..f'--- -
lt 'S°�: �f � �a � s �
,n= +�+ •'� 1j5
'4 0 �. 2.12 D�b
.. ��. �: T E A
►' �M .°N
's � `; . �.• 13 ,`,l0•. ,
�� , �•
� '�e ��i�� ' .01
�:� 4�y;�p:12 .
, ,��pp , ,o k,�0.�
'1 � i i
'r�' � � .tczs� �
r — � ..... .._. .�_ � �
� �3� -- �� ---'— 0..
•IZG7.�4•• �i' ,�b. �1
�, � `��� ���.�
� � � � �,�„� �1h
;� ;K : ; __. _ ---
; _ - . � ''� h _
� � ---- - — --------- ---- --- - -- --- —- � - 2
i r ` i� —�
! - -��^ti
: � � `�' �
� 4 � eQ
,- Ae P�oTo=SG � jra2) h i�
t� o �
; i� � . � � . . N � i
f . �� . . � � � .. � ' �
� � �65/3j — �, .�
k '�' � � : �
T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 3, 1984
• FROM: MIKE MILLER, PLANNING AND REDEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 15 OF THE
CITY ZONING CODE
Attached the Planning Commission will find a letter from the Hausing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Golden Valley and also a letter and
proposed ordinance amendment from the HRA Attorney, Allen Barnard. HRA staff, as
outlined in the Attorney's letter, is proposing amendment to the City Zoning Code.
Specifically, to amend Chapter 15 Section 15.14 Subdivision 11 by adding the
paragraph as written by the HRA Attorney.
Essentially what this proposed amendment would do is permit the City or any of its
affiliated governmental bodies such as the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and
for the Gity of Golden Valley, to be an applicant for a PUD if it is intending to
acquire specific property either by purchase or by right of eminent domain. Further,
the amendment allows the City and/or HRA to make such PUD application only for preli-
minary design approval . The final step in the PUD process which is the general plan
may not be undertaken by the City until such time as it has gained title to the pro-
perty in question.
You will note in the letter from the HRA Attorney to the Planning and Redevelopment
Coordinator that he has examined the legalities of such an amendment to the Zoning
� Code. It is the Attorney's opinion that the City may make such amendment if it so
desires. The HRA Staff has determined that with respect to redevelopment areas this
proposed amendment would help expedite implementation of specific redevelopment plans
within the City of Golden Valley. This would mean that chances of the HRA and/or
City retaining ownership of property that is not generating taxes could be lessen in
time than otherwise provided for under the terms of the zoning code. Obviously in
any redevelopment project which is financed with the Tax Increment monies the longer
that a parcel of land is kept out of the tax roles means less income repaid the Tax
Increment Bonds that may be issued to financed this particular project. In this
situation the HRA would be the proponent at the outset. However, by the time general
plan roles around the HRA may have taken title to the property and may very well have
transferred title to the property to a specific developer chosen for the specific
project. In which case, under the general plan the proponent could very well be
another party; i .e. the developer chosen for this specific project and one who has
signed a development contract with the HRA.
The HRA staff is requesting that the Planning Commission discuss and consider this
proposed amendment. They are also requesting that the Planning Commission make a
favorable report and recommendation to the City Council with respect to whether or
not this amendment should go ahead to the hearing stage and finally be adopted by the
City Council . It is therefore, up to the Planning Commission to review and consider
the propriety and usefulness of such amendment to the City of Golden Valley.
MHM:kjm
�
� CHARLES S. BELLOtiS � . . � . � E.JOSEPH LeFavE III
JOH� R.CARROLL� �E S T 8c F LANA GAN � Paix�cs B. H£_\'\ESSY
JA N E� D. OLS O\ � . � GREGORI D. SOi LE
�RCAIBALD SPE�CER � ATTOR\ES'S AT LAti �
� CHRISTI�E R.SOLSo
• ROBERT '��.SXAR£ � �
ROBER7' L. CROSBS- 4040 IDS CEK7'ER ERIK ���. IBELE.
LEO':ARD �I.ADDI�GTO� ERICA C. S2REET
RosExT R.BAR2H �I_\'\EAPOLIS..'•ZI�'_CESOTA 55402 DierE '�1 HELL9��
TaM:�ts• L Pc-s7
\.NALTER GRnFF (622�� 339-7121 . .� .
ALLE\ D. BAR\sRD � �
� RSCHARD ?a.PESEFcO� � � �
(�p^ . OP COC'�'SE1
T�o„es n. ceRLSO� March �O� �7OY GEORGE :�7AL0`�'EY
FRA'_�A �'OGL� �
� � LE02�ARD ��. SI�SO\ET
.�ARIKL'S �i�.t�d\ Pt'27E:�,�Tn. . . .
. � NARD B. LE��IS
�TAMES C. DIRACLEE � � �
Rosa�xr J. Prurr�;
ROBERT L.*S£LLEF,�.�R. � � � .IA:ytES I. BEST ..
. . 11voa-teae...
SCOTT D. ELLF.R � . �
� CHARZES C. BERQL'IST � �
GEORG£ O. LZDCAE III ROBERT aI� FLANAGA\
� . ;169E-19>a� .
Mr. Mike Miller
City Planner
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Va11ey Road
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427
Dear Mike:
I enclose the background memorandum I promised on the pro-
posed amendment to the PUD Ordinance. If you think I should
change it in any way, do not hesitate to call me.
� Very truly yours,
Allen D. Barnard
ADB:cc
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Lowell Odland, Acting City Manager
Dir. Jeff Sweet, Director, HRA
Ms. Alda Peikert, Ass't. City Planner
Robert M. Skare, Esq.
•
- ' ' BES'!' 8t FLANAOAN
AiTOrtxstrs wt t.�►�►
�O�o IDS C�sw
�1��tt�swro�.ts.Mtx�ssdiw t►:s��
•
MtMORANOUM
TO: Mike Mi11er, City Planner
F11pM: Office of the City Attorney
OATE: March 30, 1984
qE: Proposed Amendment to the PUD Ordinance
The Cit_y and HRA staffs have recoanized a troublesome problem
which has recently arisen in connection with a portion of the Valley
Square Redevelopment project. The problem results from the nature
of the tax increment financing device. Once the HRA acquires
property for sale or lease to a developer for a partieular develop-
ment, no tax increment will be generated from that property until
the development is sizbstantially completed. Since the processes
of acquisition and construction take a considerable amount of time,
it becomes very uneconomic for the HRA or the developer to hold the
land after purchasing it while the necessary rezoning or PUD process
goes forward. The necessity for either the HRA or the developer to
be the owner while the rezoning or PUD process goes forward is
• created by the provision of the PUD Ordinance, Section 15:14, sub-
division 11, which requires that only the owner of the land may
apply for PUD approval.
The applicable State statute, specifically �462 . 357, sub-
division 4 , provides that the "governing body" or, in the case of
Golden Valley, the City Council may initiate a rezoning. However,
our PUD procedure, which is in effect a rezoning, when approved, is
more restrictive; it requires that only the owner of the affected
property may apply for a PUD permit. The net effect of this is to
delay the development process. While the HRA is engaged in acquiring
the property, the developer must sit id�y by and �►�ait until either
the HRA acquires title to all the property and, as owner, applies for
a PUD permit, or the developer must wait until it obtains title to
all the property before the PUD permit application process can begin.
The staff proposes the attached amendment to the PUD Ordinance,
which would permit the City to act as a petitioner or applicant for
a PUD permit if it or an affiliated governmental body, such as the
HRA, intends to acquire the property. Note that the attached pro-
posal only permits the City to carry the PUD permit process through
the preliminary design stage until such time as it is the owner.
The purpose for this limitation is to limit the ability of the City
to effectively rezone property with the great detail included in a
PUD permit until such time as it actually owns the property. To
• permit the process to go beyond the preliminary design stage would
have the effect of greatly restricting a landowner' s use of his
property when he didn't even apply for the change.
Memorandum to Mike Miller, City Planner
March 30, 1984
• Page Two �
The realit�.es of development in the Va11ey Square area re-
quire that the City make some change so that a long holding period
is not necessitated before construction can begin. Accordingly, we
request that you consider approval of the attached amendment to the
PUD Ordinance.
ADB:cc
Attachment
•
�
ORDINANCE NO.
• AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE
(Permitting the City to act as
Petitioner under the PUD Ordinance)
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley does ordain
,
as follows:
Section l. The Zoning Code is amended in Section 15: 14,
subdivision 11, by adding the following paragraph thereto:
"However, the City may act as a petitioner on its own
motion and make application for a PUD if it or an
affiliated governmental body such as the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Golden
Valley intends to purchase or take the land involved
by eminent domain; provided, further, however, that
General Plan approval may not be given to an
application for a PUD by the City until such time as
it or an affiliated governmental body has obtained
title to the land involved in the PUD application. "
For purposes of this subdivision 11, the intention
• of the City or an affiliated governmental body shall
be evidenced by passage of a resolution or motion by
the governmental body authorizing acquisition of the
land involved.
Section 2 . This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council this day of , 1984 .
Mary E. Anderson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
Robert M. Skare
City Attorney
• 4040 IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402