Loading...
10-25-82 PC Agenda GOLDEN VALLEY PLANtJ I NG COM111 SS I ON (Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road) October 25, 1982 7:00 P.M. AGENDA I . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTE�16ER 27, 1�82 II . SET DATE FOR lNFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPLICANT: Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Inc. LOCATION: 305 Pennsylvania Avenue South REQUEST: Change Zoning from Residential (single-family) to Business and Professional Office (6 � PO) III . SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARIPJG - REZONING APPLICANT: Gait E. Zirbes LOCATION: 5525, 5527, 5535 and 5537 Lindsay Street REQUEST: Change Zoning from Residential (single-family) to R-2 Residential (two-family dwelling) IV. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Almich Tire, Inc. LOCATION: 600 Decatur Avenue North REQUEST: Permission to operate a tire sales and auto repair facility within a Commercial Zoning District V. DI.STRIBUTION AND DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED REVISIONS OF CHAPTERS 12, 13, AND 1 , OF THE CITY ZONIPJG ORDIt�ANCE VI . DISCUSSION OF FINALIZATION OF THE 1982 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VII . REPORT ON BZA MEETING - OCTOBER 12, 1982 AGENDA p. 2 VIII . REPORT ON HRA MEETING - OCTOBER 12, 1982 IX. REPORT ON CITY COUPJCIL MEETINGS - OCTOBER 5, 1982 AND OCTOBER 19, 19 2 X. UPDATE REPORT ON VALLEY SQUARE � MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY P LANNING CONiMI SSI ON September 27, 1982 A regular meeting of the Planning Co�ission was held in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MAT. Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Leppik, Prazak, Singer and Thompson. Co�ission- ers Pola.chek and Tubman were not present at the beginning of the �eeting. Co� missioner Forster was absent. A lso present were Mike Miller, Planning and Redevelopment Coordinator, and Alda Peikert, Assistant Planner. I . Approval of Miuutes - September 13, 1982 It was moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Commissioner Singer and carried u nanimously to approve the minutes of the September 13, 1982 Planning Commission meeting as recorded. II. Set Date for Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit • APPLICANT: Almich Tire, Inc. L OCATION: 600 Decatur Avenue North REQUEST: Permission to operate a tire sales and auto repair facility within a Commercial Zoning District Chairman Thompson introduced this agenda item and noted the staff recommendation of an October 25, 1982 inf orma.l public hearing date. It was moved by Commissioner Singer, seconded by Commissioner Leppik and carried u nanimously to set an informal public hearing date of October 25, 1982 for con- s ideration of a conditional use permit for operation of a tire service and auto repair facility at 600 Decatur Avenue North in a Commercial Zoning District. III. Set Date for Informa.l Public flearing - P.U.D. 4�37 A, Brandon Terrace APPLICANT: Brad J. .Tones LOCATION: 528 Indiana Aveirue North REQUEST: Approval of Preliminary Design Plan f or P.U.D. ,�37-A, including 4 townhouses • Chairman Thompson announced that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda. Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 1982 Page 2 . IV. Report on HRA Meeting - September 13, 1982 P lanning and Redevelopment Coordinator Mike Miller provided the Planning Commission with a report on the September 13, 1982 HRA meeting. The Planning Commission was unable to send a representative to the September 13, 1982 HRt�, meeting due to the fact that the meeting was held the same date as the last P lanning Commission meeting. Mr. Miller reported on HRA selection of a devel- o per for the Ewald property and informed the Commission that the pro3ect would be considered by the Planning Commission as a PUD. Commissioner Tubman arrived at the meeting during Mr. Miller's report. Mr. M iller left the meeting followiug his report. Chairman Thompson explained procedure for the three informal public hea.rings to f ollow. V. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: Dale A. Clausnitzer L OCATION: Northeast corner of 23rd and Winnetka Avenues North REQUEST: Change zoning from Open Development to Business a nd Professional Office (B & PO) � Chairman Thompson introduced this agenda item and recognized the proponent, Mr. Dale Clausnitzer. There were no questions of staff, and Chairman Thompson called on the proponent to present his proposal. Mr. Clausnitzer introduced his architect, Mr. Randy Engel, who explained the proposal and answered questions f rom Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Prazak asked about screening of the parking lot on the south side across 23rd Avenue North f rom residential use. Mr. Engel responded that the developer intends to screen the parking on the south side with berming in addi- t ion to the trees shown on the proposed site plan. Chairman Thompson asked whether exterior building materials have been selected. Mr. Engel replied that the exterior f inish would be an aggregate with a y ellowish hue. Commissioner Leppik asked whether acreening of the subject site from the building to the north is planned. Mr. Engel replied that no screening is p lanned on the north. Commissioner Leppik questioned proviaion of 26 more parking s�aces than required and adequacy of the parking setback from the north property line. Assistant P lanner Alda Peikert explained that the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District Section of the Golden Valley Zoning Ordinance requires a parking ratio of one space for every 200 square f eet of gross floor area in the case of milti- • . _ , Planning Commission Miuutes of September 27, 1982 Page 3 • tenant buildings. This stipulation is not reflected in the staff report. Mr. E ngei properly used this ratio in f iguring the required number of parking spaces f or the proposed Midland Medical Center, and the number of parking spaces is exactly that required by Ordinance. Ms. Peikert confirmed that the north p arking lot setback also is exactly that required by Ordinance and that all set- backs meet Ordinance requirements. C hairman Thompson opened the informal public hearing for public input. There w as no one present who wished to speak on this agenda item. Chairman Thompson closed the public hearing. Chairman Thompson called for Planning Co�issioner discussion of the proposed rezoning, and Co�issioners concurred that the proposed Business and Professional Offices use of the subject site is appropriate and would serve as a buffer bet- ween the Light Induatrial use to the north and residential uses to the south and west. It was moved by Commissioner Singer, seconded by Commissioner Prazak and carried u na.nimously to recommend City Council approval of the request received from Mr. Dale A. Clausnitzer for rezoning of the vacant parcel of land on the northeast corner of Winnetka and 23rd Avenues North from the Open Development to the B usiness and Professional Offices Zoning Dfstrict for construction of a three s tory medical offices building to be known as Midland Medica.l Center. Commissioner Polachek arrived at the meeting. • V I. Informal Public Hearing - Condition Use Permit APPLICANT: Calvary Lutheran Church of Golden Valley LOCATION: 810 Rhode Island Avenue North REQUEST: Approval f or operation of a child day care f acility within an Institutional (I-1) Zoning D istrict Chairman Thompson introduced this agenda item and asked whether there were any questions for staff. Commissioner Leppik asked the reasons for requiring asphalt paving of parking lots. Assistant Planner Alda Peikert replied that reasons include maintenance, drainage and eroaion control. Chairma.n Thompson called on the proponents to present the proposal for Calvary C hild Care Center. Mr. Jim Ryman, Chairman of the Calvary Lutheran Church Child Care Committee, presented the proposal. Mr. Douglas McFarland, Church member in charge of coordinating this Conditional Use Permit application, added infor- mation on accomplishment of improvements to the sub3ect house required for day care use. Mr. McFarland passed around to Planning Commissioners photographs of completed improvements. Fo llowing these presentations, Chairman Thompaon • i nvited Co�issioner questions of the proponents. Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 1982 Page 4 � Chairman Thompson asked wether the proposed Calvarq Child Care Center would be f inancially feasible with ouly 20 children. Mr. Ryman replied that the Child Care Center would receive use of the building rent free from the Church, would receive free building maintenance f rom the Church maintenance staff, and would be provided yard maintena.nce bq students living in the other two houses on the s ite. C hairman Thompson asked whether any of the families served by Calvary Day Care Center would receive Title 20 Federal day care assistance. Ms. Deanna Hanson, director of the proposed day care facility, replied that Calvary Child Care Center has been assigned Title 20 slots but that no requests for assistance have been received to date. Commissioner Leppik asked whether use of the fireplace in the house is planned. Mr. Ryman replied that the fireplace would not be used. Commissioner Leppik asked whether there is sufficient indoor play space in the p roposed facility. Mr. Ryman replied that the indoor space meets both Minnesota Department of Public Welf are (DPW) Rule 3 requirements and Uniform Building Code requirements. Commissioner Singer asked whether Calvary Lutheran Church would have proposed s erving more children if more space were available. Mr. Ryman responded that the Church would prefer to serve a larger number of children but was advised by the State Licensing Consultant that the proposed location would accommodate no emore that 20 children. Commissioner Leppik asked how long Calvary Lutheran Church expects to operate the proposed day care facility at the aub�ect location. Mr. Ryman replied that the Church expects short range use of the proposed location f or approximately three to four years. The Church would like to expand into larger quarters if space becomes available. Commissioner Tubman asked whether the proposed day care facility would be ade- quate to accommodate participants in the Church pre-kindergarten program desiring child care for the remainder of the day. Mr. Ryman replied that the day care service would have to refuse pre-kindergarten participants if their demand for part time ca.re exceeds the limitation of 20 children in the day ca.re f acility. Commissioner Tubman asked whether the Church has already received a pplications for the day care facility. Mr. Ryman replied that the Church has 16 children tentatively signed up for day care at this time through announce- ments in the Church bulletin without any outside advertising. Chairman Thompson asked whether there is room in the Church building for a child day care facility. Mr. Ryman replied that the Church investigated possible use of the Church building for day care but that State Licensing Consultant Beverly Moran informed the Church that the best opportunity for establishment of a day care facility is in the house located at 810 Rhode Island Avenue North. Reasons f or eliminating use of Church building space include established week day use of � �:� Planning Commiasion Minutes of Septem�r 27, 1982 Page 5 � space for other purposes and failure of available Church spaces to meet State licensing requirements. Mrs. Georgia Lundquist, Director of the Calvary pre- kiadergarten program for nine years, e�lained that the available Church spaces do not meet State licensing requirements for access to the outdoors and for cloae proximity of bathrooms. Ms. Hanson added that Church space does not have outdoor play area required for day care use. C hairman Thompson opened the informal public hearing f or public input. Mr. Lee Anderson 8340 Wesley Drive, stated that as a member of Calvary Lutheran Church and a resident of Golden Valley he has observed the growth of Calvary Lutheran Church into provision of quality programs for community benefit. Mr. Anderson stated that he has a child enrolled in the Calvary pre-kindergarten p rogram and uses a private day care facility not of the quality he desires. Mr. Anderson desires the quality offered by the proposed Calvary Child Care Center and feels that the location in a house would provide a unique ho� ato�sphere. Mr. Anderson concluded tha.t the proposed Child Care Center would constitute a tremendous improvement to the property and would offer a quality of child care not matched elsewhere. Mrs. Dee Anderson, 8340 Wesley Drive, reported that she esamined 23 child care s ervices before selecting the facility in which she placed her three year old daughter. Mrs. Anderson said tha.t she is excited at the proapect of Calvary Child Care Center. eChairman Thompson closed the informal public hearing. C hairman Thompson reviewed staff report discussion of the ten factors listed in Section 20.03.G. of the City Zoning Code for consideration of a Conditional Use P ermit, noting that his sources at Aennepin County further document the need for d ay care facilities. Chairman Thompson concluded that in his opinion as well as that of staff there would be no adverse effects resulting f rom the proposed day c are facility. He added that there are, however, certain concerns of the City which are addressed in the staff report as conditions of approval. Commissioner Tubman questioned the suggested condition prohibiting preparation of ineals. Nis. Peikert explained that the City Sanitarian's report was based on u se of bag lunches and that additional kitchen improvements would be required f or meal preparation. Commissioner Tubman asked the proponents whether hot lunches would be brought in for the children at the proposed Day Care Center. Mr. Ryman replied that children would bring their own bag lunches and that no hot lunches would be brought in. Commissioner Leppik asked whether all children w ould have breakfaet prior to arrival or whether children might eat breakfast a lso at the day care facility. Ms. Hanson replied that some children might eat breakfast at the day care facility and would bring their own cereal and fruit. Commissioner Prazak asked whether the suggested condition specifying seminarian housing use of the other two houses would restrict use of the houses or whether there would be flexibility in the use of the houses. Ms. Peikert replied that any change in the use of the other two houses would require an application for � a mendment of the Conditional Use Permit and reconsideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. • . Planning Commission Miuutes of September 27, 1982 Page b � Commissioner Leppik asked about sizing of bathroom fixtures for children and the requirement for separate bathrooms for boys and girls. Ms. Peikert reported that the Uniform Building Code speaks to separate bathrooms for men and women but does aot address sizing of f ixtures. Mr. McFarland stated that the position of the Church is that the Uniform Building Code does not require separate b athrooms for boys and girls. Mr. McFarland handed out to Planning Commissioners pertinent sections of the Uniform Building Code and explained hia interpretation of the requirements. Mr. McFarland then introduced Ms. Zoe Iianson who spoke in s upport of the Church's position. Ms. Hanson, 10020 36th Place North, Plymouth, stated that she has been in the child care business f or 20 years and is a member of the Calvary Child Care Committee. N1s. Hanson reported that in her ezperience very few child care facilities have two bathrooms for separate use by boys and girls. In new buildings built for child care use there is frequently one bathroom only without doors for ease in monitoring and assisting emall children u sing the bathroom. Mr. McFarland concluded by listing child care facilities in the Twin Cities area contacted by the Church which do not provide separate bathroom facilities. Mr. McFarland gave Chairman Thompson a written list of these facilities without separate bathrooms. Commissioner Prazak questioned the suggested condition requiring paving of the p arking area and stated his opinion that it should not be required due to the t emporary na.ture of the use. Ms. Peikert pointed out that the proposed Child Care Center requires only seven parking stalls and suggested that the proponents explain intended use of the �ch more extensive parking lot proposed. Mr. Dayton Soby, President of Calvary Lutheran Church, stated that the Church does not hane long range plans for use of the sub3ect site. At the present time e Bor-Son Construction Co�any is willing to grade the property, bring in black dirt for the seeded area and prepare the proposed gravel parking lot at minimal cost to the Church. The Church wishes to take advantage of the opportunity to a dd parking which may eventually be used for Church parking on Sunda.y provided a w alkway to the Church can be constructed in the future. C hairman Thompson reviewed and invited Commissioner discussion of each of the 12 conditions of approval suggested in the staff report. Chairman Thompson asked the proponents to address suggested Condition No. 3 r equiring papment of delinquent taxes. Mr. Soby stated that the Church is willing to pay all delinquent taxes owed by the Church and that Mr. Dave Thatcher, Church Businesa Manager, informed him that the Church is in the pro- cess of obtaining tax exempt status on some parcels. Mr. Ryman requested that t he Church be allowed to move ahead with opening of the proposed Day Care Center a nd work out details of tax obligations later. Commissioner Leppik asked whether there would be a barrier preventing use of the basement by children as suggested in Condition No. 7 in the staff report. Mr. Rqman replied that there is a door on the basement with a lock placed above the reach of children. Commissioner Prazak suggested and the Planning Commission concurred with a change in wording of the condition to: "No basement use by children except in emergencies." The suggestion was made with tornado emergency s ituations in mind. • Planning Co�ission Mi�tes of September 27, 1982 Page 7 eCommissioner Leppik recommended that suggested Condition No. 9 requiring s eparate bathroom facilities for each aex be elimina.ted as she f eels separate bathrooms are unnecessary in a Day Care Center. Ms. Peikert suggested that i nterpretation of the Uniform Building Code is not the prerogative of the P lanning Commission or Church counsel and that the Church should obtain a writ- ten interpretation from the State Building Code Division if diasatisfied with the interpretation of the City Zaning and Inspection Department. Co�i.ssioner Polachek informed the Commission and the proponents that the Church's architect may submit to the State a request for waiver of the requirement. At the suggestion of Commissioners Prazak and Polachek, the Commission agreed to remove the stipulation of separate bathrooms from any Conditional Use Permit recommen- d ation and to leave interpretation and enforcement of the Uniform Building Code to the City Zoning and Inspection Department. Commissioner Prazak made a motion that suggested Condition No. 10 requiring bituminous surfacing of drive, parking and turnaround areas be changed to require bituminous surfacing of the accese drive only. Commissioner Singer s econded the motion and suggested adding Planning Coffinission reasoning for a llowing gravel, which is the temporary nature of the improvement. Commissioner Leppik stated that the Planning Co�ission is not assured of the temporary nature of the proposed parking area, and Commissioner Tubman agreed that the proposed parking lot could be in use for an indefinite period of time. Commissioner Leppik suggested that gravel would be appropriate if the Church proposed only the seven parking spaces required for the Day Care Center but that paving should be required for the proposed lot possibly serving the Church. � Commissioner Polachek asked whether paving is required by City Ordinance or regulation, and Ms. Peikert replied that she understood it to bQ a matter of p olicy. A vote was taken and the �tion to change the condition requiring p aving failed, with Commissioners Polachek, Prazak and Singer voting in favor aad Commissioners Leppik, Thompson and Tubman opposed. At the suggestion of Commissioner Singer, the Commission agreed to leave the paving condition in any recommendation for approval with the opposition of three Commissioners noted in the minutes. The Planning Co�ission discussed addition of a suggested new Condition No. 12 specifying completion of all required modifications and improvements to the building and site prior to opening of the Day Care Center. The Co�ission decided to leave out this stipulation due to questions concerning payment of delinquent taxea. It was moved by Commissioner Polachek, seconded by Co�issioner Leppik and carried unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit requeated by Calvary Lutheran Church for operation of a child day ca.re f acility at 810 Rhode Island Avenue North in an Institutional (I-1) Zoning District conditional upon the following: 1 . Use of the priacipal building located at 810 Rhode Island Avenue North for a child day care center to accommodate not more than 20 children on the premises at any one time. � Planning Co�ission Minutes of September 27, 1982 Page 8 • 2. Use of the accessory buildings at 822 and 830 Rhode Island Avenue North for seminarian housing. 3. Payment of delinquent taxes on all previous parcels within the plat of Valley Squa.re Addition allowing combination of previous lots into tax par- cels in conformance with the recorded plat of Valley Square Addition. 4. Completion of all improvements and modifications to the proposed child day c are building at 810 Rhode Island Avenue North required by the City Sanitarian in the July 23, 1982 Sanitarian's Inspection Report. 5. No preparation of ineals in the child day care facility at 810 Rhode Island Avenue North. 6. Completion of all improvements and modifications to the proposed child da.y c are building at 810 Rhode Island Avenue North required by the City Fire Marshal in the June 2, 1982 Fire Marshal's Inspection Report. 7 . No basement use by children except in emergencies. 8. Completion of all impronements and modifications to the site and to the child day care building at 810 Rhode Island Avenue North required by the City Building Inspector in the July 20, 1982 Building Inspection Report. 9 . Bituminous surfacing of all drive, parking and turnaround areas shown on � the August 30, 1982 site plan submitted with the application. 10. Seeding of all unpaved areas of Lot 2 Block 2 Valley Square Addition. 11. Failure to comply with one or �re of the above conditions of approval s hall be grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. VII. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: Cecelia Mary Constantine L OCATION: 8840 7th Avenue North REQUEST: Approval for operation of a dance studio in a Light Industrial Zoning District Chairman Thompaon introduced this agenda item and recognized the proponent, Ms. Mary Constantine. Co�issioner Tubman asked whether Ms. Constantine might use the proposed faci- lity for large ballroom dance clasaes. Ms. Constantine replied that she would consider teaching ballroom dance at the proposed dance studio location only to advanced students in small groups or in private lessons. Ms. Constantine explained that ballet requires special facilities including a flesible hardwood i Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 1982 Page 9 • f loor which she plans to install at the proposed dance studio location. B allroom dance, on the other hand, can be taught in numerous available school and ballroom locationa, and Ms. Constantine would prefer not to allow ballroom d ancing on the hardwood floor of her proposed dance studio. Ms. Constantine added that her proposed dance studio space would not accommodate over 50 people. Co�issioner Leppik asked Ms. Constantine whether she has plans for future use of numerous spaces on her floor plan marked as storage areas. Ms. Constantine replied that her request is for a dance and performing arts studio and that she w ould consider space requests from theater groups and vo3ce teachers. Chairma.n Thompson opened the iaformal public hearing for public input. There w as no one present who wished to speak on thia agenda item. . Chairman Thompson closed the informal publ3c hearing. Cha3rman Thompson reviewed discussion in the staff report of the ten factors listed in Section 20.03.G. of the City Zoning Code for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Co�ission then reviewed conditions of approval suggested in the staff report. Co�issioner Prazak suggested adding "on week da.ys" to suggested Condition No. 3 limiting the number of students p rior to 5:00 P.M. and suggested wording "limited to evenings and weekends" in Condition No. 5 concerning scheduling of special functions. It was moved by Commisaioner Leppik, aeconded by Commissioner Singer and carried unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit • requested by Ms. Mary Constantine for location of a dance studio at 8840 7th Avenue North in a Light Industrial Zoning District conditional on the following: 1. Student use of the front entrance only, with no student use of the back door to the loading dock area except as an emergency egit. 2. Use of parking spaces in the back of the building f or staff parking only. 3 . Scheduling of a maximum of 28 etudents in the dance studio at one time until after 5:00 P.M. on week days. 4. No scheduling of classes, lessons or functions after 10:00 P.M. 5 . Scheduling of recitals, performances and special functions limited to eve- nings and weekends. 6 . Conformance with City Building Code and Fire Safety regulations. 7 . Signage shall conform to the City Sign Regulations and meet the approval of the City Building Inspector. 8 . Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions of approval shall be grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. � , , Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 1982 Page 10 • V III. Report on City Council Meeting - September 21, 1982 Commissioner Singer provided the Planning Co�ission with a report on the September 21, 1982 City Council meeting. I%. Report on flennepin County Budget Allocation for Moving of Firing Range Chairman Thompson provided Planning Co�issioners with information copies of a p age of the Hennepin County budget allocating funds for �ving of the Hennepin County Firing Range located in Golden Valley. R. Discussion of October Meeting Schedule P lanning Commissioners concurred with the recommendation of Chairman Thompson that the Planning Commission cancel the first meeting in October due to the Columbus Day Holiday on the regular meeting date. The meeting was ad3ourned at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, • D avid Thompson, Chairman Margaret Leppik, Secretary � • T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCT. 20, 1982 FROM: MIKE MILLER, PLANNI�JG AND REDEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR SUBJECT: SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - MARK HURD AERIAL SURVEYS, INC. Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Inc. , 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South, is requesting an informal public hearing to consider rezoning a parcel of land that they own from Residential (singte family) to Business and Professional Office (B � PO) . The subject property lies adjacent to the existing Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Inc. facility to the north at 305 Pennsylvania Avenue South. I would suggest that the Planning Commission set Monday, November 22, 1982 as the date for this informal public hearing. • MHM:kjm • � T0: 60LDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSIOPJ DATE: OCT. 20, 1982 FROt1: MIKE MILLER, PLANNING AND REDEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR SUBJECT: SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - GAIL E. ZIRBES Gail E. Zirbes, Minneapolis, owner of two parcels of land (5525 � 5527 and 5535 � 5537 Lindsay Street) is requesting rezoning from Residential (single family) to R-2 Residential (two-family) so that two-family dwellings can be built on both parcels of�-land. The property in question is located on the south side of Lindsay Street approximately 150 feet west of the intersection of Lindsay and T.H. 100 and across the street from old Fire Station No. 2. I would suggest that the Planning Commission set Monday, November 8, 1g82 as the date for an informal public hearing on this matter. MHM:kjm • . • T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCT. Z0, 1982 FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - COWDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 600 DECATUR AVENUE NORTH - TIRE SERVICE ANU AUTOMOBILE REPAIR SERVICE The proponents, Mr. Dave Almich. and Mr. Jim Pauly of Almich Tire, Inc. , request a Conditional Use Permit for operation of a tire service and automobite repair service at 600 Decatur Avenue North in a Commercial Zoning District. The location is the former Allstate Insurance Building, presently vacant, located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Decatur Avenue with Golden Valtey Road and Highway 55• The proponents signed a lease agreement for use of the building and authorized removal of a contingency related to City approval of the Conditional Use Permit rather than lose the site to another party offering to purchase the property. Proposed use of the building and site includes two businesses, as exptained in the attached letter from the proponents and as indicated on the attached floor plan. The major portion of the building and site would be occupied by the Goodyear tire sales and service operation, which may be expanded into other areas of autorr�tive servicing in the future. The second business is • ABC Stamp Company, which involves final assembly and sales of rubber stamps and includes sales of other office supplies in addition to rubber stamps. The proponents report that 95 percent of their current business is by mail but that they hope to expand the walk in trade. The conditional use is the tire service and possible future automobile repair service, which corresponds: to the third conditional use listed in the Commercial Section of the Zoning Ordinance, "Auto repair shops, including tire and auto accessory repair and installation". The proponents propose two building additions as indicated on the attached site plan and floor plan. Each addition would house two service bays, and the current service bays located between the two additions would be used for storage of tires and equipment. The maximum number of ;service bays contemplated even with both additions is four. The proponents intend to construct first one addition and then the second at a later date as required for expansion of the business. Parking, drive and landscaped areas indicated on the proposed site plan match existing conditions except that striping of the east parking lot is altered to have parking spaces facing the east property line instead of south toward Highway 55. Setbacks to parking and drive remain the same as those currently in existence. • e Golden Valley Planning Commission October 20, ig82 Page 2 Existing setb.acks to parking and drive on the west and south are inadequate and constitute a nonconformity. Landscaped setbacks from the street right of way should be 35 feet but are only 20 feet from the Decatur Avenue right of way on the west and 7 feet from the Highway 55 right of way on the south. The existing nonconforming setbacks may remain if not altered. Existing set- backs to the building, parking and drive on the north and east exactly meet Zoning Ordinance requirements. The required building setback from adjoining Commercial properties is 20 feet, of which half must be landscaped. The building, including proposed new additions, is 20 feet from the north property line, and drive and parking are 10 feet from the north and east property lines. Parking provided meets Ordinance requirements for proposed uses. Ratios used to determine parking space requirements are those for retail space and for service stations. Service station requirements are four outside parking spaces for each service bay, one outside parking space for every three employees, and one outside parking space for every service truck or vehicle. Parking space requirements for the proposed operation are 16 for four service bays plus two spaces for six employees including two employees of ABC Stamp and three to four employees of the tire service. The proponents state that they will have no service vehicles on site. Parking requirements for the • retail floor area are figured at a ratio of one space for every 150 square feet of retail floor space. The floor plan indicates display area of 1184 square feet for the two businesses requiring an additional eight parking spaces. Total parking space required by Ordinance is 26 spaces, and the site plan indicates that 28 spaces are provided. Section 20.03.G. of the City Zoning Ordinance provides that in considering a Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning Commission shall make findings and recommendations to the City Council on ten items, which need not be given equal weight in the consideration. Examination of the proposed tire service and automobile repair service in view of each of the ten items fotlows: 1 . Demonstrated need for the proposed use. The proponents state in their application letter that they feel their proposed Goodyear tire store "will provide the Golden Valley community with a needed service". Staff suggests that need for automotive services will increase with anticipated redevelopment of the Valley Square Area. The adopted Valley Square Redevelopment Plan indicates that inclusion of autobotive repair services within the Valley Square Redevelopment Area is unlikely. Location of the proposed tire service and automobile repair service at the subject location on the edge of the Valley Square Redevelopment Area will provide a needed service to the area and community. • Golden Valley Planning Commission . October 20, 1982 Page 3 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The proposed Commercial use is consistent with the Golden Valley Compre- hensive Land Use Ptan map which designates long term land use for the subject location as Commercial . 3. Effect upon property values in the neighboring area. Land uses in the same block with the subject site and directly across the street are Commercial , with restaurants directly adjacent and across the street. Chester's is adjacent on the north, Perkins adjacent on the east, and the Red Lobster across Decatur Avenue to the west. The only other use in the same block is the Union 76 Station to the east. Uses to the north and northwest of 7th Avenue North are Light Industrial consisting of office warehouse buildings. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses and would not affect surrounding property values. 4. Effect of any anticipated traffic generation upon the current traffic • flow and congestion in the area. The proposed tire service and automobile repair service use of the subject site would generate relatively little traffic when compared to potential permitted Commercial uses of the property. Anticipated traffic generation would not affect current traffic flow and congestion in the area. 5. Effect of any increases in population and density upon surrounding land uses . There would be no increases in population or density. 6. Increase in noise levels to be caused by the proposed use. The proposed use would result in no increase in noise levels. 6. Increase in noise tevels to be caused by the proposed use. The proposed use would result in no increase in noise levels. 7. Any odors, dust, smoke, gas or vibration to be caused by the proposed use. The proposed use would not cause any odors, dust, smoke, gas or vibration. • Gotden Valley Planning Commission • October 20, 1982 Page 4 8. Any increase in flies, rats or other animals or vermin in the area to be caused by the proposed use. The proposed use would not result in any increase in flies, rats or other animals or vermin in the area. 9. Visual appearance of any proposed structure or use. The only alteration to the existing building and site proposed in the Conditional Use Permit application consists of the two building additions. Addition to the building requires approval of the Building Board of Review prior to issuance of a building permit. The proponents have been advised that the Building Board of Review will require that any additions match the existing structure in exterior appearance. At the time of consider- ation of the additions, the Building Board of Review will also review landscaping and require any upgrading necessary for conformance with the adopted City of Golden Valley Landscape Standards. Staff encouraged the proponents to consider additional landscaping even prior to requesting Building 8oard of Review approval of plans for proposed building additions. Staff suggests that to ensure proper maintenance and appearance of the site, the Conditional Use Permit specify no outside storage of products � or materials and storage of trash within an enclosed area. The Building Board of Review would further address these items at the time of consider- ation of plans for building additions. Appearance of the proposed tire store at the subject location highly visible from Highway 55 is expected to be acceptable both from the highway and from surrounding business locations. 10. Any other effect upon the general public health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents. Staff foresees no other effects on the general public health, safety and welfare. Review of the proposed tire service and automobile repair service use in view of the ten factors for examination of a Conditional Use Permit request indicates a favorable recommendation. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit requested by Almich Tire, Inc. , for operation of a tire service and auto- mobile repair service at 600 Decatur Avenue North in a Commercial Zoning District conditional on the following: l . Restriction of building uses other than the tire service and automobile repair service to Permitted Uses within the Commercial Zoning District Section of the City Zoning Ordinance and to uses which do not conflict � with the space and parking requirements for the tire service and auto- mobile repair service. Golden Valley Planning Commission , . October 20, 1982 Page 5 2. Building Board of Review approval prior to any alteration of or addition to the� building. 3. Building Board of Review approval of a landscaping plan prior to any alteration of or addition to the building. 4. Use of no rr�re than four service bays. 5. Conformance of signage with the City Sign Regulations and approval of the City Building Inspector. 6. No outside storage of products or materials. 7. Storage of trash within the building or within an enclosure which meets the specifications of the City Building inspector. 8. Conformance with City Building Code and Fire Safety regalations. 9. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions of approval shall be grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. i AP:kjm Attachments: 1 . Site Location Map 2. Application Letter 3. Site Plan 4. Building Floor Plan 5. Building Elevations • _ 1 � � � , 1 LIt�T Z00 � 0 200 400 �DI�TRII4L scale LIGHT INDUSTRIAL feet • Business '►? � �arehouse 2 3 � 2� °°z° I �n�r O N ea � ��eg°a � E Z � AYE, ps� N0.� .. ��S— z — — — — —— — �:�. �� � ._ 7.TH -- — — — — -- — e . t" " pb"6"' - o -�o ;��-�- — �se. �`T . � � . 200 6d /ft /70,ff9�'i..°S � B)� n I A►LLEY > � ' INQUST IAL PAR � �o�9'�a �Mf�RCIAL �Wg � B'o y � COMf�R�IpL � B�5 OMP+�RCI �.� W e � p;ck's Standard ;� �eO_ .c�a 4 � � 3 • ,,, 2 .. I o — � ` V � � C ap ♦^ tp N � ��+Red Lobster �N�Chester's o� . 3 Z� Union �° °"'�� ...54:�'� o.ac;r+: 3f� � 1— ; 2i" Perkins 76 2 c0 � , a � a3.as -- i e9o� `, �9�� V 6 ��a.�'� W o s� o. I d2c°5854" Q� ZZ�9�, N.�ol2'� � N 1. � . ..ti9 11 os' R=2389.0 — ��� i i � 46 P .o , _�- ' , y�'�p•S �C'�° �� �06�d`.!}°Ti• � OI v �� �� -- ��.:�_ '. �p6q�� -.�- �'�I �j �-- � ^P ^^ —�+�L�, � ' " � y 1O� � �` `o \ .S , 1 � _ '� ' i , i1�:1°•Z4'. �o ' ^ � --�� l � ce x ;�� � �. � _ , s V _, � , � ' � � ��-� ,j;� .- � •► �— - ° f�,eo�8•6=io) Y.�-- • o�s ` ��"�� , � 6° ° ���.�5 �5 � o •`5 � � A e9,` 1�°° � �0 n �`�: � ,eito)' : N Q o ��siae) o a � � �' • � ;8:tal� o � e �l192� n o ., .ti,'86oi1 � , �.e�.�.�e:j o • � . . 225 • o,, � io � � P �� �°'54�� e �. � � d�g ° � �— �O T.� �0 70 90 90 Q � : � o r i 6'46} e � r- �n W o .o� '� ' � R �, �: � • ; _ °'• • ', �%• • — � no � e9ze i esz;. S9i? �'�'• � ° � � 9e 90 G�.44� � �e• C ' �ALLY T AVE. s�^',,;o o ' , 5 �i �1 it i� 3tt '�•, ���q�oo1 i r j 8925 . a^17 �9/! dl09 B90/u ' . � �.• �• ° F — �E " � � s � : I - o ° '.�ti` h �- ..��e... .,: � 35; �1 � 142.15 •..' � -- — N P � m I : � �O � N 7Q • • Z 90� � . . � �._ _ / r� s • September 12th, 1982 To Whom �t May Concern: ' Attached herewith is our request for a business permit to operate the 600 Decatur Ave. N. building unden e�e& ABC St�p Co.ire Co., Inc. to include Golden Valley Tire Ce ABC Stamp Co. has been a going concern since 1946• It's operation i iles�as viding cusomers with rubber st n Pn•.�This ope�rati n sncomprised of onl�ost well as typesetting & jobbed pri � e�ployees, and should generate onl ts ser ed by mail &f deli ery traffic. ef the business is establised accoun T e Golden Valley Tire Center operation will�thnstall GoodY ar t reslunder an existing h rofessional The purpose of the business will he to sell an G�dyears image is a p Goodyear franchise. As most of you �aY �OW' , olved with heavy vehicle maintenance, approach to marketing tires and related accessories,�and therefore maintains sorroundings with high area appeal. As a result, we will not be in but only light repair relative to tire oriented service center• Within less than the Vehicles should be servicsd�11 enhance our effort to el minate an�e the=esult of S� • owners working day. Thi and to keep the lot area Lean�& ope atl ntwa i �quire13-4 e�Ployees. heavy maintenance. Thls ype . PAR_KING: this will be more than ample for the operation There are 28 available spaces for parking. proposed. EMPLOYEES Me are looking at �-b employees at this operation. ppPEARANCE al to this area. Me intend to It is our objective to operate a sto�e that will appe reflect professionaiiss, and attract customers accustomed to well eaintained and appealing sorroundings. ACCESS Yith the access off 8ecatur Ave. fro� H�y 55, there should be �o problem rith congest�unit ECONOMIC ADUANTAGES . Me feel that a Goodyear tire store t�sorr unding businesses Wi h newocustomersey @ers will with a needed service, and pravid of these custo ' directly be an advantage to the adjacent business people, since manY patronize thei� place of business �hile their vehicle is being service. Sincerely; auly 'etors Dav + �� �//�gC Stam mich Tire • � . . . . . �ss smn+ � .u•.., � ' n � � � • � . �I � • _ � � a � �� � g � t a� ,� �F e� � � � � � �.�...�..�.,. x � � i� � _ �.� � i + � � r � � � e � � , ` riAS� � � ',• �..q,. _ - - i _ ,:.� : � x u a^ � �. � 3.� x �p '-� �r � .1 Y o. ' y +* ��g_� r � �.: ..-�'S,'=� � d� � li � . "� �:'c' � � a �; A n '�i'.. {� m " f �„� �{e�e ��fi z "-��` `s,� �a. s �L` w {.3� i � Ra€+.u� —s .e r y �¢' �„-��. .Zi ��,.���s. L�'f+a�;� ��,�-.t. * �'� ..�.a,'. � �-�-_�� � : �''[�•.�,=.`'$ g�"�� �, 3�-� �- ..�' ��s� t R._ - - . '� ' ; .� p a "�a ' � � i , 8 '�'�3�-- t .-:. � �� � �..-e3 ,.-5� _..y�_.. 'YI ��.:' �„�.'�s�� : x' ,V • �� .�� t'" ��. ;�R s '_- ' .7 t�• +��-� �y�a��-'- �,ti•f••;�• ,. ,��' '�,,-� .s.,�A� ^���� "3'" %! . �r��, $ _ �.� #° ._ - n, � - � � + � � � � + . � � • � � � i � � � J = eE� � � M! � v 3 � � � � �0. • 6 . 2 Z 2 � .,� =,�-6� � EXISTIM6 S1lILDING Z.�-6« _�. � i i ' . -� --� � � �� -- ERVtCE Mr ' a� � F.O. F.D. �` tI� T IRIE ADDJTtON w�� L � ADDITIO�I I�+ ' � o .� n n io \\" CONC SLAB y" CONC SLAB �- � g= G � o I '` F.D. �RVICE �AY F.D. ' n p , � at , I � � � �.� ,� 1�,— , r- -� � , �. ,. r�cw L T� ' _ —�-.r--,k � � INVEMTORV iNVENTORY ;' IEN ! lTORAOE DTORA� H ��A� -- r� TIllE �FICE . 1 � • • � . ICE OOIJIiTE7t DI Y TZRE 01iPLAY E�T lNTRY 11iC �FICE --------- CUBTOER LOI�IBE FOYER F100R PL AN �----� d r-� ; � . � ., J � � n �l � W N M' v•� _ �e � " " 1 � i' 'r.w.. . � _�.• �' _ •'.�,' ' ( r � a � � � � � � � � N ' � . � � � 0 � v{ � � . � + I q � ( I � I g , � , �, � � I W , ! � � u ! � � I I � ► m � , ! C ; I , 4 �" � � f � I � g =� � ' i I ! i e � - ' ' � ' � W . „ ,�� p�,. � I Z . _,��'�r�... ; ►1k� I� _.� 'r � i �' a '.. , . Z o J O � J F m «,I � 9 � m k :� '' i � !; N N � � � K nn � W W � f � � "�'_� � j . I o� � �,. � .,, ---� .r '" � ' i .�". .�. � � � � � ' °�o + � � I W � ' il • Z ° jl . , � �� I ` � — o , • ' � ' � � ,c � . . _ � m � I � � Z p '° = I i � � z 0 •p _ � Q , ; I �f � i , e , a . ' �II Q > � .. � > W :�;�.��.�' —�1 � < ; W J � , � W u � �j .b W o u•- •- �� � � � � � � � .. 1 . .! F�• T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCT. 20, 1982 FROM: MIKE MILLER, PLANNIN6 � REDEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR SUBJECT: DISTRIBUTION AND DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED REVISIONS OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE Attached you will find a copy of proposed revisions to the following Chapters of the City Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 12 - Definitions Chapter 13 - Parking Regulations Chapter 14 - Administration Each of these revisions have been reviewed by City Staff and the City Attorney. As time permits over the period of the next two Planning Commission meetings, � the Commission should be able to complete their review of these revisions and pass their recommendation on to the City Council . ; • MHM:kjm � � . � ORDINA�dCE N0. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING .CODE (ZOtdING CODE DEFINITIONS) The City Council for the City of Golden Valley does ordain as follows: Section 1 . The Zoning Code is hereby amended by repealing and deleting in its present form and entirety all of Chapter 12 thereof and by enacting and substituting in lieu of the same the followi:ng: "CHAPTER 12. ZONING CODE DEFINITIONS SECTION 12.01 INTERPRETATION: For the purposes of this ordinance, the • following definitions shall be used in the interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance. Words used in the present tense shall include the future tense, the singular number shall include the plural , the plural the singular; the word "person" shall include a firm, association, organization, partnership, trust, company, or corporation; the words "used" or "occupied" include the words "intended, designed, or arranged to be used or occupied"; the word "shall" or "will" is mandatory; and the word "may" is permissive. Any other words used and not defined herein shall be construed as having the commonly accepted meaning as defined in a standard dictionary. SECTION 12.02. DEFINITIONS: ACCESSORY USE OR STRUCTURE: A use or structure subordinate to the principal use of the land or a building on the same lot and serving a purpose customarily incidential to the principal use or structure. AFFECTED PERSONS: Any or all persons who own property located within 500 feet of the subject premises under zoning review. ALLEY: A public or private way affording only secondary means of access to abutting property. APARTt4ENT: A room or suite of rooms in a multi-family or multi-use building arranged and intended as a place of residence for a single family or a group of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit. � e APA�]T BUILDING: Any building or portion thereof which is c3esigned, built, rented, leased, l,et or hi�d out to be occ�ied, or which is occupie•d as tize hare or rnsidenoe of three or more fami_lies living independently of eac� oti�er and cbi� their o�an c�oaking in the said build'ing, and shall ;nclude flats and apaz.tlnents. AUIONDBIIE SALE.S: An open or enclased area (building or structure) , other than a street, used for the display, sale, or rental, of new and used motor , vehicles in aperabl,e aonditioa�. AUl'OMOBIIE WRECICING: The dismantling or disassembling of ia.sed motor vehicles or trailers, or the st�rage, sale or d�ing of dismantl,ed, partially dismantled, absol�t�e or wrecked vehicles or their parts. BASEN�IT: Zhat portiaai of a building with at least three walls havi.ng at least one-half (1/2) or m�re of their floor-to-aeiling hei�t undergmtmd. BOARDING HOUSE: A building other than a hotel, where for co�npensation and by prearrangement for, definite periods, meala or lodging and meals are pivvi.ded for three (3) or more persons, but not exceeding t�en (10) � persons. BUILt�,BLE AREA: �fiat area of a lot which is exclusive of all yards and within which the principal building must be oonstructed. BUILDING: Any structure for the shelter, s�port or encl�ure of persons, anim-�l.s, chatt,els, or property of any kind, and when separated by divi.ding walls without openings, eadz portion of suc� buildi.ng, so separated, shall be deemed a separate buildi.ng. BUILDING, I�IGHT OF: Zhe vertical distanoe above "grade" as c7efined herein i�o the highest point of the c�ping of a flat roof, or to the c7eck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitdzed roof or hipped zroof. �he measureirent may be taken fran tl'ie hic,�est adjoini.ng sidewalk or grcund surfa�e within a five (5) foot horizontal distanve of the exterior wall of the building, when such si3ewalk or grotmd surfaoe is not more than ten (10) feet above grac7e. BUSII�S: Any occ�ation, e�lolm�ent or enterprise wherein merchandise is exhibited or sold, or which occ�ies time, attention, labor and matrerials, or wY�ere sexvic�es are offered for oa�n.sation. rAR WASH: A bui.ldi.ng andfor premises used principally for washing and cleaning aul�robil,es, using either manual or automatic pmducti� line methods. � e _2_ • C�TERY: Land used or intended to be used for the burial of the h�nan clead and dedicated as a "aemetezy" for such purposes. CHURC�i OR SYNAQ�C�JE: Zhe term includes tl� follaaing; c�urch, synagogue, rectozy, parish house or simi.lar building incidental to the principal use which is mai.ntained and aperated by an organized group for religious puzposes. C�,IlJIC: A plaoe used for the ca�, diagn�sis and treatment of sick, ailing, infirnn and injured persons and those who aYe in need of inedical or surgical attenticn, but who are not pr�vided with board or man, nor kept overni.ght � the prrnmi.ses. CLUB: A non-profit associati.on of persons who are bonafide members, paying rngular dues, and are organized for some �xc¢ron pur�ose, but not includi.ng a group organi.zed solely or primarily to rencl,er a serviee customarily carried on as a camrercial enterpri.se. O�NGREGATE HOUSING: Housing for the elderly anc�/or handicapped, providing at least orbe prepared meal per day in a oom�ron clining ro�n, and may also provide oertain medical and social servioes over and abov� what might be 3n a standard elc7erly apartment c�anplex. � O�NDOr'�NIUM: A form of individual awnership wi�in a multi-faQnily building, or office/busi.ness building, whic� entails joint responsibility for maintenanae and repai.rs. aDNVAT�'.SC�Tr, NURSIl�TG OR REBT HOME; Any building or group of bui.ldings providing personal assistan� or nursing care for those c3epenclent upon the servioes by reason of age or ghysical or mental impai.rnient but not for the tYeai�nt of oantagiouis diseases, addicts or mental il]ness. 4�NVEE[�TTIEaiTC� F+OOD ESTABLISHI�NT: A plac�e whe� food i� (groc�eries, meats, etc.) , be�rages, and other retail ite�u are sold along with hot or wld foods in or on disposabl,e �tainers in individual servings for a�nstan�tion on or off the premises. Such establishments � not include video gaaneS. ODOPERATIVE (HOUSING? : A multiple family c'�relling aaned and mai.ntained y iize residents. �e entire structure and real property is wnder c.a� own�rship as o�ntrasted to a c�ndominitan clwelling where individual units arn imder separat� individual aanership. OJURT: A spaoe, o�pen and �structed to the sky, located at or above grad+e 7�e�on a lot and boimded on three or more sides by walls of a building. e -3- � . • DAY CARE - HUNN�: A family c3nrelling in which foster care, supenrision and/or training for children, c�ut of their a�m Y�oR�, who are of scY�ool or pr�sdz�l age is provided during part of a day (less than 24 hazrs) with rx� o�vernic�t aocomriodations or facilities, a�i dzildren are delivered and rem�ved daily. The nunber to be cared for in one (1) day care hcme shall nat exceed ten {10) children, including the f�nily's aan children (in aceordance with M.S. 245.812 arr3 M.S. 462.357 ard all acts amerr3atory thereof). � DAY CARE - GROiJP NURSERY: A service provided to the public in which ten (10) � more children of school or pr�school age are cared for c�.iring established busi ness hours. No overnight facilities are provided. Zhe children are delivered arrl retrioved daily. DISTRICT: Any section of the City as sYr�wn cn the Official City Zoning M,ap of the City of Golden Valley, for which the reyulations governing the use of buildings and premises and the height ar�d area of buildings are uniform DWELI�ILNG: Any building, or part thereof, which is designed or used exclusively � for residential purposes of or�e or more hianan beings, either percnanently ar� transiently. DWELLII�TG, SIt�IGLE-FAMILY: A building designed for or occupied by cne family and containing one dwelling unit. DWELLI[�G, T4�-FAMILY: A building designed for or occl�pied b,� two fami lies and cantaining �twn daelling units. DWELI�ING, MULTIPLE: A building or portion thereof designed for or occupied by three or nnre families and oontaining three or ccnre dwelling units. DWELLIt3G GROt1P: A group of twn ar crore detached c3aellings located on a parcel o f land in one aanership arr3 having ariy yard or eourt in oormnn. DRNE-IN RESTAURAN'r: Any eating establisY�ment designed for the purchase of food or drink by persons in vehicles parked on the premises, including such facili- ties having a "drive-thru" wirr3vw and/or limited seating capacity. ELDERLY (SIIVIOR CITIZIN) HCxJSING: A miltiple c�aelling building with vpen occli- pancy limited to disabled or handicapped persons and/or persons over sixty (60) � -4- � � . r ' years of age. No irore than ten (10) percent of the occupants excludi.ng disabled e or handicapg�ed persons, may be persons under sixty (60) years of age (spouse of a person over sixty (60) years of age or caretakers, etc. ). ESSENTIAL SERVICFS: The creation, ocnstruction, alteration or �[aintenance of urr3erground or overhead c�as, electrical, oatnunication, steam or water distribu- t ion systems, including c�llection, supply or disposals syste� operated 1� public utilities, nunicipal or other gwernment agencies. FAMILY: One or m�re persons each related to the o�ther by blood, narriage, ar adoption, or a group of not m�re than five (5) persons nvt all so rel,ated, aair� tai.ning a oodnron household and usi.ng cacaron 000king and kitchen facilities. FLr00R ARF,A, GR06S: The sun of the gross harizontal areas of the f loor(s) of such building or buildings measured fran the exterior faces and exteriar ells o� from the center line of party �raLts separating two buildings. Basemerits, devated to st�raye, and space devoted to off-street parking shall not be ir�cluded. GARAGE, PRIVATE: An attached or detached accessoYy building designed or used for the stArage of m�tor-driven vehicles not m�re than two (2) of which are owned lx ather tl�an the oocupants of the main building. GARAGE, PUBLIC: Any building or portion of a building, except that herein . defined as a private garage, used for the str�rage of �rot�or vehicles, or where any such veYzi.cles are kept for ren�neration or hire; ir�luding the sale of gaso- � line, oil and accessories. GARAGE, REPAIR: Any facilities for the repair or maintenance of rmtor vehicles, but nat including factory assembly of such vehicles, aut�o wrecking establisY� ments or junk-yards. GRADE: The laaest point of elevation of the fi.nished surface of the grcund, pavirr�, or sidewalk within the area betwe� the building and the praperty line. For the purposes of this Zoning Code, "Grade" shall be measured fran the street s ide of a property to within five feet of the,building. GREE��1 HOUSE: A glass or simil,ar transparent, or translucent, structure used for the cultivation and pratection of plants which cannot be graan outside c'hxrin9 all seasons. The definition includes botti private ar�d o�m�rcial facilities provided they are properly located within the correct Zoning District. HOSPITAL: An institution providing health services primarily for inpatierit medical or surgical care of the sick or injured and including related facilities such as laboratories, autpatient departmer�t., training facilities, oeritral ser- vice facilities, and staff offices which are an integral part of the facility. HOTEL: A building in which lodging wi.th or without meals is provided and offered to transient guests ar�d which accomrodates more than ten (10) persan.s. INSTITUTION: A building oacupied �i a r�rprofit carporation or a rr�r�profit � establisYunent for pubLic use. -5- J � • JUNK YARD: A place where waste, discarded or salvaged materials are bought, s old, exchanged, st�ored, baled, packed, disassembled or handled; including autA wrecking yards, Y�ouse wrecking yan3s, and used �terial yards, but not including pawn shops, antique shops ar�d places for the sale, purchase, or storage of used furniture ar�d household equignent, used cars in c�perable oondition or salvaged materials incidental tA mar�ufacturing aperations. i�TEL: A place where animals (i.e. cbgs and cats) can be boarded, ar kept, ar�d which is operated as a profit making business or a r�orr-profit servive to the cc�uni.ty. LODGING HOUSE, ROOMING HOUSE: A building where lodging only is provided for ccmpensation for three 3) ar irore, but not exceeding ten (10) persans, in distinction to hotels � tA transients. LC1i': �br zoning purposes, as covered by this ordinance, a lot is a parcel of land intended for occupancy b� aze principal building and ariy acoessory buildings of at least sufficient size t,o meet mirLimun zoning r��;rements for use, ooverage ar� area, arid to provi.de such yards and other apen spaces as are herein required. S1,ich lot shall have frontage on an img�roved public street, and may oon.sist of: a. A single lot of record; b. A portion of a lot record; � c. A canbination of ccx�lete lats of record, or oo�Yplete lots of record arrl portions of lots of record, provided that it is rewrded as one lot; arrl d. a parcel of land described b1r metes ar�d bouncls description, provided that in no case of division or canbination shall any lot or parcel be created which does nat m�et,the requirements of this ordinance. LOP FRONTRGE: The front of a lot sY�all be construed t�o be the portion nearest the street. Fbr the purpose of determining yard requirements on o�rner lots and through lots,all sides of a lat adjaoent to streets sY�a].1 be oonsidered fror� tage, and yards shall be provided as ir�dicated under YARDS in this Article. L(n LINFS: �he lines bounding a lot. LO►r MEASURII�VTS: a. DEPTH - The mean horizontal distance between the front (street) lirie arr3 the rear lat line. b. WIDPH of a lot is its aan mean width measured ar right angles (90 degrees) tA its mean depth. c. AREA of a lot shall be eatputed froan the area co�tained in a horizontal plane defined b,� the lot lines. • . -6- 1 � • ♦ • I,Cl� OF RDOORD: A lat which is part of a subdivision, the plat of whidz has been recorded in the Office of the R+egister of Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota, ar a lot described by metes ar�d bwrxis, the description of which has been re�orded in the Of£ice of the Register of Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesata. LOT, CORNER: A lat located at the iritersection of t�ao or m�re streets. LOr, INI'ERIOR: A lat other tY�an a o�rner lat with only �e frontage on a street other than an alley. LOr, THI2OLJGH: A lot other tYian a o�rner lot with frontage on rrore than one street other than an alley. Thxnugh lots with frontage on t3ao streets �y be referred to as DOUBLE F'1mNTAGE lots. Ldr CoVERAGE: That percentage of a lat which when vi�aed in its horizantal p lane, would be covered b� a struct�ure or structures, or any part thereof. MOTEL: A series of sleeping or living units for the lodging of transient guests, offered to the public for carpensatian, and with conveni.ent acoess to off-street parking spaces for the exclusive use of the guests or ocougants. MOTE[�, TOURIST COURT: A building or group of detached, s�i-detac�ed, o�r attached buildings aontaining guest roorns or �aellings, each of which has a s eparate outside entrance leading directly fr�n the outside of the building, with garage or parking space o�veniently located to each unit, and whidz is e designed, used or intended to be used primarily for the ac�dation of trarr sient guests traveling by autorcnbile. MOBILE H�: (Manufactured H�ries) Any trai.ler or s�ni-trai.ler which is designed, o�nstructed, and equi�ped for use as a h�unan c�aelling place, living abode, or living quarters, and oontaining the Seal of the Minnesota State Building Inspector. NC�T-C;ONE'ORt��I�TG BUII.,DII�TG OR STRUCNRE: Any building or structure lawfully oocupied by a use, or lawfully established, at the time of adoption of the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Golden Valley, or amerrlments thereto, which does not conform with the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Golden Valley. N�T-CONFORMING USE: A land use or premises legally existing and/or in use at the time of adr�ption of the 7oning Ordinance for the City of Golden Valley, or amerr]ments thereto, which does nat ca�ly with the use pravisions of the Zoning Ordinance for the District in whicYi the land use or premises is located. NURSING HCY� (RFST HCiKE): A building having ac�rodations where care is pro- vided for two ar m�re invalid, infirmed, ayed cc�nvalescent or physically disabled persons that are nat of the inuriediate family; but not including hospi tals, cli.nics, sanitariwms, or simi.lar institutions. OPEN SALES I,OrS: Any land used or oocupied for the purpose of buying and � selling r�.w or second-hand passenger cars ar�d/or trucks, motor sooaters, m�tor- cy�les, boats, trailers, aircraft and tron�anents and for the storing of same • prior tA sale. -7- �eOVI=PATIII� SURGICAL FACILITY: A place, o�ther than a tr�spital or clinic, �ere minor suryery is performed on hunar� by qualified surgeo�ns on an aut patient basis, arbd r�vt requiring a patient tro stay over night in such facility. PA�CIl�TG LfJ�: A parcel of land containing or�e or m�re unenclosed parking spaces wYnse use i.s principal to the lat as differentiated fram an acoessory use, as cn a r+esidential lot. PAI�fCIlJG R�: A struc�bure designed arid used far the stArage of nfltor vehicles at, belaa, ar�d/or above grade. PAIaCIIIIJGG SPACE: An improved surface area, enclosed or unenclosed, svfficient in size to st�re one (1) m�tor vehicle, t,ogether with a street cr alley and per- mitting inyress ar:d eyress of an autcembile. PRIl�ICIPAL USE: The purpose for which land or a building or structure thereon is deisg�d, arranged, int.ended or maintained or for which it is or nay be used or oocupied. PRINCIPAL BUILDING: A building in which is conducted the principal use of the lot an which it is situated. R�REATIONAL CAN�'Il�TG VEFIICLE: The wr�rds "recreational cai�ing vehicle" as used in this ordinance shall mean ariy of the follaaing: a. Travel trailer means a vehicular, portable structure built on a dzasis, O designed tA be used as a temporary c3aelling for travel, recreation, ar�d vacatian uses, ar�d permariently identified as a '�ravel Trailer" by the manufacturer of the trailer. b. Pickup coach means a structure desic�ned to be m�unted on a trudc dzasis f or use as a te��orary daelling for travel, recreation, and vacation. c. Nbtor hane means a portable, t�q�orazy claelling to be used far travel, recreation, and vacation, e�structed as an integral part of a self- propelled vehicle. d. Canping trailer means a folding structure, irounted oaz wheels and desigr�ed for travel, recreation and vacation use. R�CYCLIlJG CFNTER: Any area or structure, w'hether privately ar publicly c�aned arid vperated, that engages in recycling or reclamation of inetals, paper, o� other traterials including crushing, sY�redding, baling or c�tpacting naterials such as auto bodies, scrap metal, e�tc. RESTAURANT, "CLASS I": Any traditional type restaurant where food is served to a customer argi a�nsuQned by him while seated at a awnter or table, including cafeterias w'here food is selected by a customer while �ing through a servioe line arxl taken to a table for oosnstanpticn. RF�TAURAN'P, "CLA.SS II": Fast food type restaurants where customers orc7er and are � served at a oounter and take it to a table or eauritrer, or off the pr�nises where -8- � the food is oonsumed. A "class II" restaurant also ineludes "drive-in" � restaurants where sane or all caistomers c�onsiune their food in an autarobile regardless of Y�ow it is served, and further includes cany-out and delivery restaurants where food is prepared for cons�unption off the pre4nises only. SC�i00L, PR'IIHARY, SDCONDARY. CCLLEGE OR UIVIVERSITY: Any sc'hool having regular session with re9ularly emplvyed instructars teaching subjects which are furr- da¢nental ar�d essential for a geryeral acad�nic ec�ucation, imder the supervisiai of, aryd in aocordance with, the applicable statutes of the State of Minnesota. SERVICE-�STATION: (Gasoline Station) Any building or pr�nises used principally fo� the di.spensing, sale or offering for sale at retail of aut�onnUile fuels or oils or for the servicing of m�t�or vehicles. SZGN: A name, identification, description, di.splay, or illustration whidz is affixed to, or pointed, ar� represented directly or indirectly upon a Uuilding, structure or piece of land and which directs attention to an object, product, place, activity, institution, organization, idea or business. S�RY: 'Ilzat portion of a building inaluded between the upper surface of any f loor and the upper surface of the flo�r next above except that the tvpm4st str�ry sY�all be that portion of a buildin3 included 'between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof ab�ve. If the finished floor level directly ab�ve a basement, eeller or unused ui�derfloor space is imre than six (6) feet ab�ve grade as defined herein for m�re than 50 percent of the total perimeter or is m�re than twelve (12) feet above grade as defined herein at ariy 0 poirrt., such basement, oellar or unused underfloor space shall be o�nsidered as a story. S'IORY, HAL�': A space under a slqoing roof which has the line of intersection of roof decking and �rall face not m�re than three (3) feet above the tvp floor 1 evel, and in which space r�t rrore tY�an twa-thirds (2/3) of the f loor area is f inished off for use. A half-stAry containing independeirk apartsnent or living quarters shall be oounted as a full stnry. STREEI': The e.ntire width be�tweez property lines of a way or place dedicated, aoquired, or intended for the purpose of public use for vehicular traffic or aocess other tY�n an alley. STREET LINE: A dividing line between a lat, tract, or parcel of land and a a�r� tiguous street. STRUCIURE: Anything erected, the use of which requires m�re or l+ess pernar�ent location on the groun�d, or attached to sanething havirg a permarieerit locatiasi a'i t2'e ground. STRUCIURAL ALTERATIOIJS: Any d�ange in the supporting members of a 2�uilcling, suc�► as bearing walls or partitions, o�lu�is, bea� or girders, or any substaritial c]�ange in the roof or in the exterior walls. S�STANTIAL IN�RCyVEt�fI': Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a strue- ture, the oost of which exceeds 50 percent of the icarket value of the structure � -9- { h � (a) before the i�rov�nent or repair is started, or (b) if the stYVCture has been damaged, and is being restored, before the darcage occurred. 51�bst,antial i�r�vement is eo�nsidered to oecur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, fl�r, or other structural part of the building ar�rnences, whether or nat that alteration affects the e�cternal dimensions of the structure. The term does r�at i�clude either (1) any project for inprovemerit of a structure to c�onply with existing state or local health sanitary or safety oode specifications whic�► are solely necessary to assure safe living c�nditions or (2) any alteration of a structure listed oaz the National Register of Hist�oric Plaoes or State Inventory of Historic places. TaVI�iJSE: Sirigle family attached units in structur� housin� three (3) �' rrore dw�elling units, oontiguous to each other, on1Y bi' the share of o�ne oomtnn bearing �rall, such stsuctures to be of the taari ar' raa lmuse tYPes as eontrasted to nultiple dwelling apartment structures. No single structure shall contain in e xcess of eight (8) daelling units ard each c�aelli.ng unit shall have separate ar�d irxlividual front and rear entrances. USEABLE OPEN SPACE: A required open ground area or terrace area on a ].c�t whid� is graded, developed, landscaped arid er3uil�ped, and intended and �intained for either active or passive recreation, which is available and/or acoessible to, ar�d useable by all persons using or oecup�ing a building or preinises. Roofs, driveways and parking areas shall nat be re�arded as useable open sapce. USE: The purpose or activity for which the land or 'building therean is designated, arranged, or intended, or for which it is occupied, utilized or r.airr � tai.ned, arid shall include the performar�ce of such activity as defined b� the perforrnance stariards of this Orclinance. W�1RgI0USE: A place wYlere the stArage of naterials or equignerit is carried on within an enclosed building as a pri►�cipaL use, including parking and crating of materials ar�3/or products for later distribution. YP,RD: A required c� space uryobstructed by any structure or portion of a s tructure from the grouild u�aaYd provided, however, that fer�c�s and walls �y be permitted in a�xy yarri subject to height limitations as indicated herein. YP.RD, F1�NT: A yard extending betweez lat lines which intersect a street Line, the depth of which is the horizontal di.stance between the street right of�way line and a line on the lot which is at all points equal distance fron the parallel tA the street line. yp,Rp gFAFt; p,n opeii space, unoccupied exc�tpt for aceessory buildings, cn the same lot with a building between the rear lines of the buildings and the rear line of the lot for the full width of the lats. YP,RD SIDE: A yard ext�ding froan the rear line of the rec�uired front yard to tY�e rear lot line. `1F.'I'ERINARY CLINIC: A place for the care, dia�osis and treatment of sidc, ' ailiny or diseased animals which may include kennels for domestic pets, but �s � nat include areas for thQ boarding of farm ar�imals• -10- � • ZO�IING ADNaNISTRAZUR: The Zoning Ar�ninistrat�or is the a�prapriately designated official appointed by �e City Manager for the puYpose of ac�ministrating �d enforcing this Ordinanae." Section 2. This Ordinance shall ta.ke effect and be in force from and after the date of its passage and publication as required by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley this day of , 19 82. Rosemary Thorsen, Mayor . Attes t: John Murphy, City Cle rk Robert M. Skare, Esq. Ci ty Attorney 4040 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 � -11- E' • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINAATCE AMENDING THE ZONING OODE (CAAPTER 13 � OFF-STREET PP,RKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS) The City Council for the City of Golden Valley does ordain as follows: Section l. The Zoning Code for the City of Golden Valley is hereby amended by repealing and deleting in its present form and entirety Chapter 13 thereof and by enacting and substituting in lieu of the same the following: "Chapter 13. Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations • 13.01 Required Ratios. Where the number of required parking spaces is measured by the number of employees • or seating capacity, such employment or seating capacity shall be determined for peak employment or maximum capacity. 13.02 Adjacent Parking Areas. Where parking space cannot be reasonably provided on the same lot with the principal use, the Council may permit such space to be located on other off-street property in a similar or heavier zoning category, lccated within five hundred (500) feet of the permitted use, measured along lines of public access. 13.03 Loading Docks and Berths. In Commercial, Light Industrial, Industrial and Terminal Warehouse Zone Districts, trucfc berths and/or loading docks for loading and unloading of goods or wares shall be provided on the same lot or parcel for each building designed to be used for these purposes. Where truck berths are provided inside the building such area shall not be included in the total floor area used for determining the required number of such berths, nor for parking space requirements. � a 13.04 General Requirement. For any and all uses or L structures not specifically provided for, such parking ospace as the City Council shall determine to be necessary shall be required, considering all the park ing generating factors involved. 13.05. Change in Requirements. Whenever after the date of this Ordinance there is a change in the number of employees, or business visitors, or in the lawful use of the premises, or in any other unit of measurement specified in this ordinance; and whenever such change creates a need for an increase of more tban 15 percent of the number of off-street parking spaces as determined by the requirements of this Ordinance, the additional off-street parking facilities shall be provided within a reasonable time on the basis of tne adjusted needs, as determined by this Ordinance. 13.06. Mixed Uses. In the case of mixed uses, the parking facilities required sball be the sum of the requirements for the various individual uses, computed separately in accordance with this section. Parking facilities for one use shall not be considered as providing the required parking facilities for any other use. � 13. 07. Design Stanciards. (a) All off-street automobile parking facilities shall be designed with appropriate means of vehicular access to a street or alley and with maneuvering areas. (b) Detailed plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval of all curb cuts or driveway openings before a permit will be granted. (c) Al1 required parking areas shall be paved with asphalt or concrete surfacing, shall afford adequate drainage and shall have bumper guards where neec3ed. (d) Parking areas shall be used for parking only and no vehicular sales, dead storage, repair, dismantling or service of any kind shall be permitted in saial areas. (e) Where parking area artificial lighting is provided it shall be arranged to reflect away from any residences and also from any parking � street or highway. -2- fY (f) All required parking spaces shall be at • least 9 feet in widtb and at least 20 feet in depth. 13.06. Compliance with Current Controls. New buildings erected af ter the passage of this Ordinance, and old buildi�gs altered after the passage of this Ordinance, must comply with all applicable off-street parking requirements in effect at the time that said buildings are constructed or altered, as the case may be. 13.09. Landscaped Areas of No Parking. The minimum required landscaped areas, within which there shall be no parxing in Multiple Dwelling, Institutional, Business and Professional Office, Commercial, Light Industrial� and Terminal Warehouse Zoning Districts, shall be: (a) Front yard - 35 feet. (b) Side and Rear Yards - One-half (1/2) of the required buil�ing setback . " Section 2. This Ordinance snall take effect and be in • force from and after the date of its passage and publication as required by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley this day of , 1982. Rosemary Thorsen, Mayor Attest John Murphy, City Clerk Robert M. Skare, Esq. City Attorney 4040 IDS Center � Minneapolis, MN, 55402 � -3- A : ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE A.MENDING THE ZONING CODE (CIiAPTER 14 - ADMINISTRATION OF THE ZONING OODE) ' Tne City Council for the City of Golden Valley does oiaain as follows: Section l. Tae Zoning Code for tne City of Golden Valley is hereby amended by repealing and deleting in its present form ana entirety Chapter 14 thereof and oy enacting and substituting in lieu of the same the following: "Cnapter 14. Administration of tne Zoning Code. Section 14.01. Administration and Enforcement. The Director of Puoiic 1v'urks is nereny autnorized and directed to enforce all tne provisions of tne Zoning • Coae. He may delegate �nis authority to any ad�ninistrative official or support staff inember of tbe City, who snall be airectly unc7er the control and supervision of the Director of Public WorKS. Sucn staff snall have the fctlowing duties: A. To issue all permits and certificates ' required by tnis Code. B. To receive, process and forward all applications for various zoning requests as stipulated in tbis Ordinance. C. To cause any builciing, structure, land use, place or premises to be reviewed and examined and to report in writing the remedy of any condition found to exist therein in violation of any provision of tnis Code. � Section 14.02. Nonconforming Uses. A nonconforming use existing anoi in use at tne time of adoption of tbis Zoning Ordinance may continue to exist. However, a nonconforming use (inciuding buildings and/or structures) shall not be enlarged, expanded, extended, � � � .. __ . or otberwise altered in scope, cnaracter or in � physical dimensions. A nonconforming use snall not be � changed to another noncorforming use regardless of whetner sucb cnange w�uld be less nonccnforming. ' Any nonconforming use, building, or structure tnat is vacated, or that ceases to function or operate for six (6) consecutive months, shall not be allowed to be reestanlisned unless in full conformity with all . applicable provisions of tee Zoning Ordinances. No . nonconforming use, building and/or structure, sbal'1 be permitted to rebuild, or otherwise reestablisn itself, after haveing been destroyed or damages to a point wnere repair or replacement would exaeed 50 percent of the assessed value of tne uuiiding, structure, and/or property. Section 14.03. Zoning Map Changes and Ordinance 1�mendments. No change shall be made in tne boundary � line of any Zoning District, or in tbe premitted and/or conditional use or regulation for any Zoning District, except after an official public hearing and upon a two-thirds affirmative vote of tne City Council. Zoning boundary changes or Ordinance amendments may be initiated by tbe City Council, or by petition of affected persons and property owners witnin tne Community. Upon receipt of sucn a petition, tne matter shall be referred to tre Planning °� Commis5ion for review and recommendation. The Planning Commission shall conduct an informal gublic nearing within sixty 60 days of receiving said petition, and after notifying all property owners witbin 500 feet of the boundaries of the property involved. Following receipt of the Planning Commission's recomrr�endation, the City Council snall conduct an official public hearing witnin sixty (60) days and make a decision tnereon within ninety (90) days. Section 14.04. Board of Zoning Appeals. There is _ . hereby created a Board of 2oning Appeals which shall be organizeci, operated and nave certain powers, as follows: A. Organization. The City Council snall during tbe month of April of each calendar year appoint , a Board of 2oning Apopeals. Said Board of Zoning Appeals shall consist of five members including tne pezson wbo is tne Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commission on the date when the first of sucb appointment is n�ade. Tne Council snall also appoint two alternate members, either of whom � a � —2- 1 �- _ . (but not both) may serve in the absence of any e one of tbe original five appointed members. All members of the Board of 2oning Appeals shall � serve a one-year term. Said Board of Zoning� - � Appeals shall meet at least once every month if tnere are any peititons then pending for action before the Board. At sucn montnly meetings tbe Board snall conduct bearings witb respect to petititons then before • it, and prior to said meetings the Board shall �� give at least ten (10)_ days' written notice to petitioners and abutting property owners with respect to petitions that are to ce neard at such meetings. Witnin a reasonable time following a hearing, the Board shall make its written Order deciding the particular matter and snall serve a copy of tne same upon the petitioner by depositing the same in tae United 5tates mail, postage prepaid, to the Iast known address of the petitioner, as snown on tne petition. Any party may appear at sucn hearing, whether in person or by agent or attorney. Tne Board sha11 keeF a written record of all of <Q its proceedings, including minutes of its a�eetings, its finding� and tne action taKen on each matter neara by it including its final Order. The Board snall adopt such further rules for tne conduct of its proceedings as it shall deem necessary, including rules governing tbe exact date of its meetings, the date by which petitions must be filed to appear on tne agenda of any part3cular meeting, provisions for the conduct of the meeting including tne matter of giving of oaths to witnesses at the hearings, the manner in wbicn evidence mignt be presented at the hearings and provisions for the filing of • written briefs by tne petitioner or other interested parties. B. Powers. Tne Board of Zoning Appeals shall have the following powers with respect to the Zoning Ordinancess . l. To decide appeals where it is alleged tnat an error t�as deen made in any Order, sequirement, decision or determination and/or interpretation made by a City � . -3- �- administrative officer in the eforcement and administration of t�e Zoning Ordinances. � 2. To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of tne Ordinances in • - instances where their striet enforcement would cause undue hardsnip because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to gtant such variances only when it is demonstrated ' tnat such actions will �e in keeping with • the spirit and intent of the Ozdinances. Tne Board of Zoning Appeals may not permit as a variance any use tnat is not permitted under the Ordinances for propErty in tne zone where the affected person's land is located. The Board may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure . � compliance and protect adjacent properties. 3. To hear appeals filed with the Board pursuant to M.S.A. 462. 359 (4j . C. Proce�ure. Appeals to the Board of Zoning Appeals may ne taKen by an affected person upon filing of a petition form witn the City Zoning Administrator. Such p?titions snall be neard at t�e next regular montnly meeting of tne Board of Zoning Ap�eals, provided tnat sucn� petitions must be received by the Division of Zoning and Inspection no later tnan ten (10) working days prior to thp meeting date for which a hearing could be scneduled. Failure to follow tbis procedure shall result in a delay of the hearing until the next regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Eacn petition snall be comprised of a Registered Land Survey locating all progerty lines, buildings, and streets along with a completed petition form, provided by the City, and a filing fee as prescribed in Section 14.08 ' - of this Zoning 'Ordinance. Tne petition form snall be completed in sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate tbe variance applied for or tne administrative act being appealed therefor, and shall set forth tne reasons and justification cited by the petitioner as grounds for granting • the petition. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall give written notice of the time, place of hearing and nature of the appeal to all adjacent (abutting) property �� . -4- �-�- --- � .� _ . � owners and shall make its Order with respect to said appeal witnin seventy (70) days from tne date of the hearing thereon. Within thirty (30) days of the final written Order of tne Board� of Zoning Appeals any petitioner feeling aggrieved by the decision of tne Board may file a written appeal with the City Zoning Ordinance Administrator, tnereby appealing tne decision of � the Board of Zoning Appeals to the City Council. Tnerefore tne City Council snall, within thirty ' (30) days from the date of filing of such appeal, ' make its findings and determination with respect to the appeal and serve a written report thereof upon tne appellant by United States mail. If no appeal is taken by tne petitioner from the decision of tt�e Board of Zoning Appeals in tbe manner bereinabove provided, tben the decision of tne Hoard of Zoning Appeals shall be final. In those cases where the effect of tne decision of tne Board of Zoning Appeals is to grant a variance, the permission or license to perform tne action authorized tt�ereby shall lapse after the expiration of one year following the date of service by mail of tne Order granting tbe • variance, unless construction or other action is � commenced within said one-year period in accordance witn the plans for wnict� such variance eaas approved, or unless otbetwise specified in tne Order granting the variance. Section 14.05. Violations. Tne owner, or occupant or lessee of a building or premises wno sfiall violate any provision of tne Zoning Code, occupant, or lessee of any building or premises in or upon whicb a violation of any provision of the Zoning Code fias been committed or shall exit; or the owner, occupant or lessee of any building or premises upon wnich a violation of any provision of the Zoning Code is permitted to exist ot be maintained; or any architect, builder, contractor, ' subcontractor or artisan who assists in the violation , of any provision of the Zoning Code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each and every day that such violation continues snall ne a separate offense. Any such person who having been served with an Order to remove any sucn violation, sball fail to comply with ' said Order witbin ten (10) days after sucn service, or snall continue to violate any provision of the regulation made under authority of this Ordinance in tne respect named in sucn Order, shall, upon conviction, also be subject to a fine of not to exceed e Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars. -5- Section 14.06. Interpretation. In interpreting and � applying the provisions of the Zoning Code tney shall be held to be the minimum re�uirements for tne promotion of the public safety, health, convenience, comfort, prosperity and general welfare. It is not the intention of tne Zoning Code to interfere wite or abrogate or annul any easements between parties; provided, nowever, that where tne Zoning Code imposes a greater restriction upon the use of building or premises or upon height of building or require larger - open spaces that are imposed or required by other � ordinances, rules, regulations, or permits, or by easements, covenants or agreements, tne provisions of tne Zoning Code �hall govern. Section 14.07. Separability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of the Zoning Code is for any ceason held to de unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect t�e validity of tne remaining portions of the Zoning Ordinances. Section 14.08. Fees. A. Rezoning Fees. The fee for all rezoning requests snall ce $200.00. B. Planned Unit Development Fees. � l. Preliminary Uesign Plan - $100.00 2. General Plan of Development - $150.00 C. P'lat Fees. Tne fee snall be $50. 00 plus $2.00 for eacn lot up to a maximum of $200.00. D. Waiver of tne Platting Ordinance Fees. Tne fee shall be $50.00 for a parcel or description and eacn additional parcel or description shall be $25.00 wben such waiver involves residentially zoned property. haivers requested in any otaer Zoning District sball be $75.00 for a parcel or description and $35.00 for each additional parcel or description. E. Easement Vacation Fees. Tne fee shall ne $100.00. F. Conditional Use Permit Fees. Tne fee shall be $150.00. G. Board of Zoning Appeals Fees. The fee shall be $45.00 per parcel or description for . . . -6- single-family and two-family residentisl. Al1 otber appeals in other Zoning Districts sball be � $150.00. H. Alley Vacation Fees. Tne fee shall be $50.00. I. Planned Unit Development Amendment Fees. The fee shall be $75.00. " ' Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in f�rce from and after tne date of its passage and publication as required by law. Passed by tne City Counci�l of tne City of Golden Valley this day of , 1982 Rosemary Thorsen, Mayor • Attest: Jonn .�9urphy, City Clerk Robert M. Skare, Esq. City At�.orney . 4040 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 � • -7- � T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCT. 20, 1g82 . ' FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF GOLDEN VALLEY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Metropolitan Council on February 25, 1982 completed review of the City of Golden Ualley's updated Comprehensive Plan by passing a resolution adopting the report of the Metropolitan Council Physical Development Committee. Copies of the notification letter, the review report and the resolution are attached. The main point of the review report is that no plan modifications a re req u i red. The �1etropolitan Land Planning Act requires City adoption of the Comprehensive Plan within nine months after completion of Netropolitan Council review, which means that the Golden Valley City Council has until November 25, 1982 to adopt the Comprehensive Plan. The officially adopted Comprehensive Plan should incorporate minor revisions and additions made in the form of letter commitments as a result of review by neighboring communities, Hennepin County, the two affected school districts and Met`ropolitan Council staff. These revisions and additions include the following: Land Use Element � ' � 1 . Addition of a statement to the effect that the implementation phase of comprehensive planning will include amendment of the City Zoning Ordinance to include provision for solar access protection, Transportation Element 2. Reclassification of Medicine Lake Road (County Road 70) from a collector to a minor arterial to bring the classification into conformance with that of both Hennepin County and the City of New Hope. 3. Addition of year 2000 projected traffic volumes for Medicine Lake Road (County Road 70) and Duluth Street (County Road 66) from Douglas Drive (County Road 102) to Highway 100, as suggested by the Hennepin County Department of Transportation. 4. Adjustment of year 2000 projected traffic volumes for county roads within the City, including County Road 18, County Road 156 (Winnetka Avenue) , County Road 102 (Douglas Drive North) , County Road 66 (Duluth Street) and County Road 40 (Glenwood Avenue) , to correspond to those used by the County. Adjustments to traffic forecasts for County Road 18 were also coordinated with the City of Plymouth. 5. Addition to discussion of I-394 of a statement to the effect that whereas the City position is not in conflict with the metropolitan system plan, the Ctty recognizes that the City position on design conflicts with the Metropolitan Council recortgnendation on design and is eware that final � design will be determined by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and that implementation will be dependent on approval by the Federal Highway Administration and availability of funds. Golden Valley Planning Commission October 20, 1982 � Page 2 � 6. Addition of a statement that comprehensive plan implementation will include incorporation into the City Zoning Ordinance of the Minnesota Department of Transportation rules on obstructions to air navigation. Sewer Element 7. Addition of allocation of increased 1990 sewage flow to the two metro- politan interceptors serving the City. 8. Addition of assurance that there will be no additional sewer flow in the service area of a section of constrained pipe, as the service area is fully developed. 9. Additions in response to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission review in order to fulfill requirements for a comprehensive sewer policy plan outlined in t�e Water Quality Management Policy Plan. Parks Element 10. Addition of a statement that the City will continue to monitor plans to establish a regional trail between Theodore Wirth and Medicine Lake Regional Parks and will make efforts to coordinate the City trail system �. with any regional system developed. Community Facilities Element 11 . Removal of Westview Elementary School from the Community Facilities map on page F-4 of the Comprehensive Plan, an error pointed out by the Hopkins School District. Capital Improvement Pro�ram Element 12. Updating of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to reflect the most current City CIP extending through the year 1985• In response to recent suggestions for redevelopment of the area both west and east of Turner's Crossroad north of Highway 12, staff inquired into feasibility of adding a study area to the Comprehensive Plan prior to adoption. Metro- politan Council staff advises that addition of a study area to the Golden Valley Comprehensive Land Use Plan map and to narrative in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan would be allowable under provisions of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Metropolitan Council staff suggests that the cover letter transmitting the Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council describe the additions and note that the additions are "for local purposes". � Golden Valley Planning Cort�nission October 20, 1g82 � Page 3 • Attached are a map outllning the proposed new study area for addition to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan map on p. L-3 of the Comprehensive Plan and proposed draft revisions of the narrative on pp.. L-7 through L-9 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed revisions to the text separate out Valley Square and Golden Hills as study areas for redevelopment. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend City Council adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan with incorporation of additions and revisions resulting from the review process and with the addition of the Golden Hil )s Study Area to the Golden Valley Comprehensive Land Use Plan map and Land Use Element text. AP:kjm , Attachments: l . Golden Hills Study Area Map 2. Revised Land Use Element Text 3• March 12, 1g82 Letter from Metropolitan Council Chairman Charles R. Weaver • e • , � z •+ " � . .. � ( , � °�E � $( e � - � �� . e � .° �-� •� � , . a : � � . ` v • �;•��. � � -� � ���, ',�,��! « • ^a. •y � c�. �`�� e � � ..... � _�.Q.'... s� - -•-• .«. � •• � t."_ L � a p S�; t � - j°':'a .. ..�a, ° �c° . ' ~ „�'11c a~ • • t eF� • i 0 I d�. 's. °_ —C• e _ � T t •a s • 4 "' — ' , . " •°,. �« , 'y _� . t �� _ ;� e • d: E�� +r• : • � . Mf �+�� s i' • = e � � �"�+ i � a •YJ '� � ;'N• � a j � • � _ , �F�j •a - � = �: .� t �«�' ��O '� �t • ^, .t a i w .0�- �1�'1 �.+� SL� . � •� I� ti 3 � '� ' °'� . )' I°� ^ ro � . --ar _� . 3 �.t "• • • �b • -•-• �< t � �, , e � .• "� I Q 4' '< . .. -a�- � �!a � ' �� � • I • r�` A� ,jti� ' Q r -�ltfz•s� _ e �y�, '. � .. �i ,r _ _ a_ _ ei"� � � � � y � — ��- --v.�an- • __ �' _ �� � � �� , �� � H p� � L � � p� ig ' � � / ,>. � gi� B� � ... � _ �. 8 i z � � , . �.. � � O J � � .orr e � . � •;�7 ��uw . � a� w� � ° '�..r � g • . �:� 1 _ d �� � i'% i � i . r� � � 1` ;`��� .. V �� � ' �� � s . _ g, i � � __� �, �� g •. . ,� �.,�' . Ff�4y�� � . ,.+�" �O� I A ` �\� ry � —ar �r '� _ ! beq�' ,\�\ , :a\ . s �� i�=� ., - _ �� •�, '. � a� � • �• . 'V �_ ..t • o �� J �0 •t� • , � s � "+ • : e+ .,. •e� ° a � ; �v� � : O`. E �t�.. .J[OIfN �.. � O t � .�/0 � iYl� y � �..!h..:.. � • ��� . r � The diversity of housi�g types that can be created in a single � project, the creatfon of interconnected open space, and the • inclusion of many cortmunity services has created a newly accepted lifestyle. Although the P.U.D. concept offers the best opportunity for good inncvative design, it is still up to the City to insist • that it receive good design handled with intelligence, sensitivity and due regard for the community around it. A - surtenary of some of the advantages that the P.U.D. offers are as follows: - The P.U.D. 's clustered houses create cormnon areas of open land that can run through the entire project instead of being concentrated in a few small parks or recreation areas. - The P.U.D. gives the land planner and architect a much more important role, so that the resulting development is more likely to be well planned and designed. - The P.U.D. requires a better organized, better financed developer, which is a definite advantage both to the City and to the resident of the P.U.D. itself. - In addition to the above, the mixed-use P.U.D. offers an excellent opportunity for developing transitional �� areas, providing for integration of such land uses as medium density residential , light commercial , business and professional office, and/or light industrial . Commercial Zoning District The commercial Iand use areas of the City� serve as service �odes providing shopping and business opportunities for residents. These nodes (commercial strips and centers) are accessible by automobile, bicycle and foot and if located appropriately, these Districts can offer the City an important identifying land use for enhancing community identity and dignity. In Golden Valley, the cortmerical nodes and strips are located along major transportation arterials and tntersections. They comprise approximately 5% of the City's total land area and can be found at three principal locations: a) Va� ley Square Located west and east of Winnetka Avenue North, and north of T.H. 55, this node serves Gotden Valley as its primary Central Business District (downtown) . This area is currently under- going intensive study relative to an intensive redevelopment � and revitalization effort. ' L-7 OMIT ity has established a Valley Square Commission to adv � the Cit cil on future redevetopment and revita • on � of this a�ea. et feasibility study a and use study have been tompleted by c ants, as the development of a concept plan for the are ional studies are also being completed which d provide the Square Commission ' and the City w ditional professional expert t, hope- fully provide the City wTth direction relative to velopment activities Tn the area. b) Spring Gate Shopping Mall Located at the intersection of T.H. 100 and Duluth Street primarily serves the northeastern section of Golden Valtey. . c) Golden Hills Shoppin9 Cente� Located north of T.H. 12� west of T.H. 100, and east of Turner's Crossroad, this neighborhood convenience center serves the �esidential neighborhood immediately to the north. This shopping ADD center is part of the Golden Hills Study Area under consideration foo- redeveloprr�nt. Industrial Zoning District Industrial land uses (light and heavy) provlde the City with job opportunities, as well as a strong tax revenue base. These industrial :� lands compcise approximately 18� of the total tand in Golden Valley and lie primarily adJacent to railroad and major thoroughfare corridors. This provides efficient access to industrial sites often engaged in product manufacturing and product transport. The Land Use Plan �ecognizes five (5) gerteral areas to be targeted for industrial development. All five of these areas are presently committed in part to industrial use and it is antictpated that the remaining vacant land designated on the plan as industrial will be so developed. Inasmuch as Golden Valley is very close to being fully developed, future indust�ial development of any significant size will undoubtedty require � redevelopment of existing land use to provide the land area needed for any sizeable industrial development. It should also be noted that since the City �s nearly futly developed, it shall be the continuing policy of the City of Golden Valley to stress quatity land use devetopment that witl bene�it the Community as a whole. Institutional Zoning District (Public and QuasT-Public Land Uses) tnstitutionally zoned land in Golden Valley consists of land uses devoted to such services as education, recreation, health care and �etigion. In Golden Valley, these uses are located on a scattered site basis. � � L-8 Some of the more significant areas zoned Instltutional include: B�ookview Municipal Golf Course � Regional and Neighborhood Parks � . Church Property ' Hospital and Clinic Properties County Property (developed and undeveloped) State Property (developed and undeveloped) City Property (developed and undeveloped) School Properties (private and public) Institutional land use in Golden Valley comprises approximately 17 percent of the City's total land area. ADD Study Areas a) Valley Square Study Area The Valley Square Study Area covers area northeast a�d northwest of the intersection of Winnetka Avenue with Highway 55, including commercial shopping centers on both sides of Winnetka Avenue and the Civic Center on the east side of Winnetka. The City established a Valley Square Commission to advise the City Council on future redevelopment and revitalization of this area. '• The Commission completed its report in August 19II2, and the City Councii adopted a Redevelopment Plan for the Valley Square Area in September 1982. The Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is proceeding with implementation of the Valley Square Redevelopment Plan. . b) Golden Hills Study Area The Golden H� lls Study Area includes area northeast and northwest of the intersection of Turner's Crossroad and Highway 12. To the east of Turner's Crossroad, the Study Area inciudes the Golden Hills Shopping Center and the Mayfair Manor Apartments. To the west of Turner's Crossroad, the Study Area includes Commerciat and Light " Industrial properties fronting on the Highway 12 service road and an Industrial area northwest of the service road and railroad line - extending to Laurel Avenue on the north and Colorado Avenue on the west. The Study Area was designated due to signs of deterioration within the area and potential for redevelopment in conjunction with anticipated upgrading of Highway 12 to I-3g4. : �-9 � �°�$$�� � � �►o °G � � � � March 12, 1982 � w, � =.•� �r �.�. .c Jeff Sweet, Manager ��.,�. r�`� City of Golden Valley ''w�� �,•��'�" Civic Center 7800 Golden Val ley Road 300 MeLro Square Btiil.9ing Golden Vd112 MN 55427 S:1in1. P:iul, Miiinc�ota 55101 y' Telep:ione 612/291•G359 RE: City of Golden Valley � Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8593-2 Dear Mr. Sweet: At its meeting on February 25, 1982, the Metropolitan Council considered the Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan. This consideration was based on a report of the Physical Development Committee, Referral Report No. 82-01. A copy of this report, which was adopted as presented, is attached. The Council adopted Resolution No. 82-45 which provides for adoption of this report and the recommendations contained on pages 13 and 14 of the report. These recommendations are as follows: � , The Land Planning Act requires that City of Golden Valley adopt its Comprehensive Plan within nine months of the completion of the Metropolitan Council 's review of the Plan. The Council should be formally advised when such action has occurred. If there are substantial changes made in the Plan before adoption, please note these when you notify the Council of the Plan's adoption. Sincerely, � METROPOLITAN COUNCIL � ."C � Charles R. Weaver Chairman CRW:vv Attachment cc: Affected School Districts Ad3acent Cortmunities Hennepin County • Alda Peikert, City of Golden Valley O1 i ver Byrum, C ity of Mi nneapo 1 i s Ray Odde, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission • � " fred Tanzers Regional Coordinator, Mn/DOT � Mary Youle, CPD Representative, HUD Barbara Senness, Metropolitan Council Staff A��Agoncy Cr�•:u�d ru C�ord�ua�.�Uir.I'1:►nniuti unQ D�evol��+mvut c�[th�•'I'r.�u L'�uaK+A1c�r.�����lit:us Ar.:�l:.�uipri�►ng: Aaokn Couaty Q Cnn�r Cuunty O Dnkn�n Cowity.i Ilauncpiu l:uun�y J li:unKry C:auuty O Sc:utt Cuw�ty�)11':►sli�ug�on County . ... . �� For Release: 4:00 p.m., 2/25/82 Business Item: g_2 � METROPOLITANCOUNCIL 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 REPORT OF THE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE e erra epor . - T0: Metropolitan Council SUBJECT: Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan Revew Metr�politan Council District No. 10 � Metr�politan Council Referral File No. 8593-2 On February 25, 1982, the Physical Development Committee considered the attached report on the corr�rehensive plan of the City of Roseville. The recortmendations were adopted as follows: That the City of Golden Valley be advised that: A. This report constitutes the Council 's official review required under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. � B. No plan modifications are required as authorized in Minnesota Statutes Section 473.175, Subd. 1. C. The plan conforms to metropolitan system plans as follows : 1. The plan is in conformity with metropolitan system plans for parks and airports. _ 2. The plan is in conformity with metropolitan system plans for transportation. However, at such time as a final design is approved for I-394 by District 5 of the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the city should amend its plan accordingly. 3. The plan is in conformity with metropolitan system plans for sewers. While the plan meets the sanitary sewer requirements of � the Land Planning Act, it does not meet those of a comprehensive sewer plan. Before submitting the sewer element of its plan to the Metropolitan Waste Control Comniission, the city should address the additional comnents raised by the Cortmission. D. The plan appears generally compatible with plans of ad�acent governmental units and affected school districts. � . . - 1 - E. The plan relates to other adopted Development Guide chapters as fol lows: 1. The plan is consistent with the Metropolitan Development • Framework, the Protection �en Space, Water Resources, Solid Waste and Housing chapters of the Development Guide. 2. Consistent with the definition of a-capital improvement program as contained in Minnesota Statutes 473.853, Subd. 4, Golden Valley should add the following to its CIP: All pro3ects or improvements planned for the five-year prospective period, including cost, need and the financial impact of each pro,�ect on the city. To improve its capital improvement program, the city should include a schedule of the annual principal and interest payments on existing outstanding indebtedness (aggregated by type af debt if the city wishes), and on debt proposed in the capital improvement program. At such time as the city amends its capital improvement program, it should send a copy to the Metropolitan Council for review and comnent. � Respectfully submitted, � Marcia Bennett Chairperson � MB:im Attach. . � � �• • . . � . , 1 • t .� � METROPOLITANCOUNCIL � � 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 ; e _ ; January 19, 1982 " e Revised February 17, 1982 �; MEMORANDUM TQ: Physical Development Cortmittee � .; FROM: Barbara Senness; Local Planni�g Assistance � SUBJECT: 6olden Yalley Cort�prehensive Plan Review . � Metropolitan Council District No. 10 Metropolitan Councit Referral File No. 8593-2 : � . ; I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY i � A. Abstract and Issues � . � 6olden Ya11ey is �n fully developed suburban comnunity with a balanced � mix of residential, comnercial, industrial and park/recreation land . uses. The plan proposes to maintain existing residential development , and support continued redevelopment in the downtown area. . � � The review makes several suggestions for additions to the city's : '_� capital inq�rovement program. • . B. Authority for Review � Golden YalTey's comprehensive plan has been prepared and is being � reviewed pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Minnesota � � Statutes Section 473.i75 and Sections 413.851 to 473.872. The plan consists of one document, the City of Golden Valley's con�prehensive plan, and two sets of additional materials regarding • land use, housing, implementation and sewers dated November 30, 1981, ' and transportation, sewers, parks. airparts and the capitalimprove- • ment program dated February 12, 1982. : ; This review is being conducted in accordance with the Council 's local � plan and school program review procedures (see particularly Sections ° ; 2.7 through 2.19). 6enerally, the Council 's responsibility is to review nnd adopt findings and determinations with regard to the local � plan's: � 1. Conformity with metropolitan system plans; : 2. Co�atibility Mith plans of ad�acent local governmental units; � � 3. Apparent consistency with other adopted Metropolitan Development � . 6uide chapters. . t e � ; _..._._..� . �__._� ._____._..._�_�.�_.�_^��.�_^...�._n.�.__. . . . .. . 6 . . . . . . . � The Council may provide advisory conments with regard to other $ aspects such as technicaT adequacy. completeness and its internal ; consistency. �' � As part of the review, the Council: E "may require a 1oca1 governmental unit to modify a con�rehensive � plan or part th�reof which may have a substantial impact on or ' contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans.° i : The Council n�ust complete its review of the local comprehensive plan � wfthin 120 days following the issuance of the order to commence plan ; review. The review of the Golden Valley plan was comnenced on - November 2, 1981, which rr�ans the review period ends March 2, 1982. II. OESCRIPTION OF GOLDEN YALLEY � � 6olden Valley is a fully developed inner-ring suburb in Hennepin County. - Cities bordering Golden Yalley include New Hope, Crystal and Robbinsdale on the nortfi, St. Louis Park on the south, Minneapolis on the east, and Plymouth and St. Lauis Park on the west. Golden Valley is served by two , school districts: Hopkins (270) and Robbinsdale (281). III. DESCRIPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Golden Valtey plan does not anticipate rr�ch ehange in the existing - land use pattem to 1990. Based on the condition of existing develop- ment, the city does not anticipate any significant redevelopment during the next decade other than in the downtown area. � The plan proposes to preserve and maintain the existing housing stock, . ahile encouraging a sufficient variety of housing types and designs to allow all people a housing choice. In addition, the plan describes th.e activities being undertaken regarding the Valley Square redevelopment area. This area serves as the city's Central Business District. Numerous changes have already taken place in the area and continued redevelopment and revitalization are planned. IV. ANALYSIS A. Conformity rrith Metropolitan Svstem Plans 1. Transportation (Ann Braden) Golden Valley is served by four metropolitan highways. TH 12, a principal arterial, is a four•lane divided expressway with partial access control. Interchanges are located at Theodore � Wirth Parkway, TH 1� and CSAH 18. Signalized intersections are located nt Turner's Crossroads, Florida, Louisiana and Winnetka � Avenues. TH 12 forms the. southern border along most of the • city. By 1990, improvements are planned that would upgrade TH 12 to I-394 for the portion that is east of I-494. The Minnesota . Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT� is completing the final t � Environmental Impact Statement, and is preparing layouts based on a design recomnended by the Metropolitan Council in June 1981. � - 2 - � -----�------�--.---�--- -.. • ;--�---�-: , . -�.-�--�.�_.._-�-.,..._._._ _ . . _ _. .. .. .... _._ . .:_ ._. ... . , .. _ ... •� . : . . . . � i s ' � TH 55 is a four-larte intermediate arterial with partially �� controlled access. Interchanges are located at TH 100 and � CSAH 18. " -� TH 100 and CSAFI 18 are both four-tane intermediate arterials .� which run north-south through 6olden Va11ey. Interchanges with j TH �00 occur �tt TH 12, 6lenwood Avenue, TH 55 and Duluth Street. = Interchanges along CSAH 18 are located at TH 12, 6etty Crocker ; Drive, TH 55, Piymouth Avenue and Medicine Lake Road. � � The 6olden Valley plan uses the Council's TAZ data, current . �raffic voiumes and year 2000 traffic forecasts. In �ddition, 6olden Valley's functional classification of roads is consistent . • with the Council 's classifiction. Although the 6olden Valley plan had shown Medicine Lake Road as a collector, the city _ � fias revised the p.lan classifying this roadway as a minor i arterial. This is consistent with the Council 's classification as we11 as that of ad�acent comnunities. : The Findings and Recommendatio�s section of the Golden Valley ; plan proposes in�rovements and minor changes to three metro- : politan roadways and several local streets. The design recommen- ; dation for upgrading TH 12 (I-394) is not consistent with that ' recortmended by the Council in June 1981. The city has indicated . that it will �ote this inconsistency in its plan. �� The recortmendations to close uncontrolled access along TH 55 and - TH 100 should improve the traffic flow along these roads and • improve safety. Closing uncontrolled access would be supportive • of the Council 's transportation policies. Golden Valley is served by both MTC bus service and by the � Medicine Lake Bus Line. The plan points out that fiaving two . autonomous services hinders the continuity of service in the city. The plan suggests that the services be better coordinated or that the MTC consider providing full transit coverage. The - city would also like additional bus routes to employment and shopping centers. � 2. Sewers (Karl Burandt) , . 6olden Valley is totally within the 1990 Urban 5ervice Area and • has sanitary sewer provided to the entire city. (Because no new � on-site systems are allawed, the city did not need to address . administration of on-site systems.) Policy 30 of the Council's Water Quality Management Policy Plan � states: ' "...the sewer pollcy plan referred to in the Metropolitan Land Planning Act should comply with requirements of a ; con�rehensive sewer plan..." �� � " Procedure 10 of the Council 's policy plan describes the content required far local sewer plans. The sewer policy plan of the • - 3 - ---..._._.-�......���._._....._�.r,. . .. � . . �- � - �..,_.,...._..�.....,,�.....�...�_��,_...__, . - - �- . -•� , . - .� � Metropolitan Land Planning Act can be quite general. Procedure ' 10 requirert�ents for a "comprehensive sewer plan" are nwch more ; extensive and detailed. In reviewing �lden Valley's plan, it � . �`: was found that the plan meets the basic sanitary sewer require- ! ments of the Land Planning Act, and the vast ma�ority of the � content requirements of Procedure 10. , . Four metropolitan interceptors run through Golden Valley. Two � are force niains that serve Plymouth and New Hape and provide no ' service for 6olden Va11ey. Interceptor 1-GY-461 is a gravity ! sewer that serves the southeast area of the city and ultimately - discharges into�Minneapolis Interceptor 1-MN-320. This inter- . ceptor also serves approximately the northern one-half of St. Louis Park. Interceptor 1-GV-460 is a gravity sewer serving ' the ma3ority of 6olden Yalley. This interceptor also indirectly : � serves an area of 250 homes in Robbinsdale. 6olden Va11ey receives its metropolitan sewer service through the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Council 's revised : system statement for Golden Ya11ey pro�ected a 1990 total sewer � f1a�r of 3.16 mgd. 6olden Va1Tey's pro�ection is a nearly �� identical 3.72mg d. The city has indicated that its additional � fio�r ta 1990 would be distributed as follows: 192 mgd to Interceptor 1-GV-460 and .048 mgd to Ynterceptor 1-GY-461. Ynterceptor 1-6V-461 in 6olden Va11ey consists in part of 10,716 � feet of gravity sewer which is presently overloaded. Altf�ough � this is the case, the pipe seems to function adequately without � � flooding or backups. According to a 1976 Waste Control � . Comnission report, the 1976 flow from Golden Valley and St. Louis • Park was 0.12 mgd and 2.58 mgd respectively. In Golden Yalley the interceptor provides service to a residential neighborhood. • 6olden Yalley's land use plan shows no land use changes for this neighborhocd. However, planned roadway improvements in the tH 12 . corridor will irt�pact this area and may result in future changes to the neighborhood. If land use changes are proposed, Golden Yalley should be aware that no metropolitan system changes are � progranmed to pravide additional capacity in the constrained � section of 1-GV-461. However, the remainder of the metroplitan ' . sewer system serving 6olden Valley has sufficient unused . • capacity at present to allow for the city's pro�ected flow increase to be distributed or concentrated in any pipe other than � the constrained 10,716-foot section. � 3. Parks (Arne Steffered) A portion of Theodore Wirth Regional Park and a regional trail {running east-west through the city) are lacated in Golden : Yalley. The city has properly recognized the regional park and the regional trail. 4. Airports ((�auncey Case) : � � The nearest metropolitan aviation facility to the City of Golden � �' � Yalley is Crystal Airport. No portion of the city is within the � 4 - . �---- ---�--.._._.._. . . ., .— :---�— . —�---_,.....�.,-- .....�____.. .�_,.__.... r . _.-. ..�_�-. .. . .�r . �. • . . -•.; , • . �� . � -� � airport's lnnd use safety tones, airspace zones or aircraft �,� traffic pattern. i� The city is within the Region's general airspace which should be � =1 protected fran obstructions to ajr navigation. v' �_� 6. Compatibilit,y with.Ad3acent 6overnmental Units' P1ans a � .� 6olden Valley has certified that it circulated its comprehensive plan ` to ad�acent and affected units in accordance with the provisions of the Land Planning Act. In addit�ion, the Council has not9fied these and other governmental units potentially affected by the plan that a '� � plan review 1s underway. : , The city received letters from all its ad3acent units and several other affected units. Copies of these letters are available for � � review. The ma3ori�y of u�its and agencies responding found the ptan to be con�atible Nith their own plans. In instances where � substantive conments were made, the city either clarified or �� corrected the matters of concern. . , � The Council received cortments from the Metropolitan Waste Control ; Comnission and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) . .i Copies of these comnents are contained in Attachment 3. _ �� The Waste Control Cortmission cited several items the city wi11 need � . � to supply before it submlts the sewer policy ptan portion of the '� comprehensive plan to the Commission. � :� ; Although Mn/DOT's letter raises a number of concerns, the city has � subsequently addressed each of these concerns. � - . .C. Consistency with Other Guide Chaaters 1. Metropolitan Deve]opment Framework (Vic Ward and Barbara Senness) � ;" a. Forecasts _ . : 1 The 6olden Valley plan uses the Council's forecasts. With ; the exception of employment, the forecasts appear to be sound ; based on 1980 data. The en�loyment forecast appears to be ; low. • DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWQRK FORECASTS FOR 60LDEN VALLEY 3 Forecasts : 1980 Estimates 1980 _ 1�90 2000 ; Population 22,775 (census) 24,000 23,500 23,000 . Households 7,481 7,600 8,400 ' 8,500 � ; Employment 29,300* 27,000 30,000 32,000 ' *First quarter 1980 covered en�loyment, Minnesota Department of Economic Security. ' .i� .; ' 5a — — ; . � . . •�t---- �e+-„�.---� ,T--�.....r,..�........-�.-..�-Y�..�T,..�......�,.,�,�•_ �.-.. :_..-.�-e..-�.�-.; . . . " ' �' . .�... .'' '• ' ' .. • ' �• . ' . � -. , ' � � �i � _ . a � The 1980 employment.estimate used in the table above is , .covered employment for the first quarter. This means it is a ; ; low est�mate. Covered enq�loyment is approximately 95 j � percent of total employment and the first quarter is usually � •, the Towest quarter of the year. i '� b. Lan_d_Use_ � Consistent with the requirerr�nts of the Land Planning Act, � 6olden Valley has identified existing and planned land uses ; for the cfty, giving� the location, intensity and extent of � ' all uses specifi�d in the Taw with the exception of agricul- � tural use which does not exist in Golden Valley. 6ecause so ' 1ittYe land�remairis undeveloped (roughly 200 acres), the city ; has not pro�ected how many acres will be developed between � 1980 and 1990. The sector analysis figures used to compute ; _ regional l�nd demand fior the Development Framework pro3ected that 417 acres would be needed for development in Golden t Valley during the same period. , i c. Implementation , ' The Land Planning Act requires that cities prepare � irt�lementation programs consistent with their plans. In ' keeping with its implementation ob�ectives, the city has for � the past year been in the process of revising and updating : � 1ts zoning ordinance. The city also plans to brinq its � • subdivision regutations into compliance with current � _ legislation and the comprehe�sive plan. � , d. Policy Areas � The Development Framework designates 6olden Va11ey as a Fu11y � Oeveloped Area. Council policies for the Fully Developed ' Area emphasize preserving and maintaining the existing ' resources of housing, employment and services. The Golden Valley plan is consistent with these policies. f:olden Valley is approximately 97 percent developed. All of : its urban service systems are in place. The plan notes the � inq�ortance of maintaining existing development and � redeveloping properties as necessary. The only ma3or . .redevelopment effort anticipated is a continuation of the downtown redevelopment pro�ect. Continued scattered site ' redevelopment is also likely. . 2. Investment Framework (I�rm Werner) � The 6olden Valley plan contains a capital improvement program for � the years 1980 to 1985. The program daes not include Housing " and Redevelopment Authority, special assessment or enterpcise � fund irr�rovements. . Some pro�ects are well-defined including a statement of need and � � the estimated cost. Other descriptions do not state pro�ects or � the need for them, only an anaunt of money to be spent. The : - 6 - . •.�^�...�rr, .� , ..- ».-. ..�-—- �...s•'M'_�.-..-.•�-►,�.-.�a-�.�ew�..;�-..... , �..�,�.�.� -.. ��r...�..�... ._ ., _.�.. . ...._.._ � . .. .� . .i • , .� planned year of improvement and the funding source are shown for � t all improvements. The financial fn�act that each improvement :j � �M111 have o� the city is not shown. , -j A report of the State Auditor shows that the city had �8,385,160 �i _ . - in outstanding indebtedness at Oecerr�er 31, 1980. No information �' on current debt or the estimated repayment schedule of pro�ected :� debt was inciuded in the comprehensive plan. � 3. Environmental Protection (Marcel Jouseau) . � �s' 6olden Ya11ey has only a few very sma11 parcels of land �� available for development. The city has submitted a statement �� that there are no significant areas of wetland, shoreland, � � woodland or steep slopes in vacant areas. SThe city has addressed the management of runoff quality and , quantity consistent with Council policies. 6olden Valley, in � concert with other menibers of the Bassett Creek Flood Control � Conmission, is managing the floodplain and is enforcing a flood � control ordinance. , . z ; 4. Housing (Guy Peterso�) ; : Golden Valley's con�prehensive plan contains a housing element ; which can be a resource and guide for residential development : � decisions during this decade. The document examines the city's : � current�housing situation through a data sunmary and analysis, and offers limited numerical pro�ections regarding the city's ! � anticipated growth through 1990. It offers a series of housing ; policies and ob3ectives, and indicates the housing activities by i which they can be achieved. .t The housing inventory provided in Golden Valley's plan � adequately profiles the comnunity's housing stock. It offers . data regarding the number, type, tenure, cost, conditivn and age � of the city's dwelling units as Me11 as an assessment of the ' number of households with housing assistance needs and those -• currently receiving public assistance with their housing costs. � The plan's discussion of residential land availability reveals � that 97 percent of the city is developed and that 60 percent of � ' its land is devoted to housing. The data 9nventory points out " ; that some scattered small single-family lots remain available throughout the city; and identifies the handful of sites �� remaining in the city for possible multifamily development. 1 : Golden Va11ey is a connanity dominated by single-family, owner- i occuAied housing units of above average value. Eighty-three � percent of the city's 7,500 housing units are single-family ° dwellings. Curre�tly more thnn 4,600 units, over one-half of its ' stock, is over 20 years old but only 2.6 percent is in need of �; rehabilitation. � ;� ; i — 7 — , � � . �. . . • - . .. •. . _-------�---'_- , , . -. . . . �.� a �...4.,....�.�..._.---�--- # � :i j 7 � The housing pro3ections offered in the 6olden Yalley plan do _ not provide a very specific indication of the number of new , , ; . . housing units by type anticipated in the city thraugh 1990. Its ; forecas� of an increase of 800 households during the decade is � consistent with that of the Council 's, but other than indicating � by way of its policies and ob�ectives the need for greater diversity and more multifamily units, the plan d�s not attempt ; to assess how many or what type of units will be developed in the city. ' The housing element begins with the statement of one broad ; housing goal--the provision of housing opportunities for citizens of �11 ages and incames through the promotion of diversity and • high quality in its residential areas. �To support this general , goal, it proposes a series of housing ob�ectives and policies • dealing with a nurr�er of housing issues. To promote the preservation and improverr�nt of its housing � stock, the plan's policies call for promotion of residential = rehabilitation and redevelopment when and where it is deemed � necessary, and the utilization of Comnunity Oevelopment 61ock + 6rant (CBDGj funds for such residential revitalization ; activities. The policies promote adoption of the Housing Quality ' Standards of the Section 8 program as the city's determinant of � habitability, and indicate that °eminant domain" will be used to � condemn and clear housing which can not economically be renovated. : - �� The policies cite the city's encouragement of design and � planning innovation and building and residential land use � � development and of diversity in new housing construction. The o • c9ty's Planned Unit Development ordinance is to continue to provide flexibility in site design and density as an alternative development approach. It is the policy of the city to promote � multifamily housing as a means of providing housing variety and consumer choice. � To provide equal housing opportunity and affordable options for � households of low- and moderate-income, 6olden Va11ey's policies `= support the use of all available tools--programs, funds and � planning techniques. Its policies call for the obtaining of all ! available funds to assist in providing affardable, diverse � housing opportunities. They indicate the city's recognition of Regional fair share housing responsibilities for both low- and � ; aioderate-income and modest-cost housing opportunities, and state � the cortmunity's intentio� to work toward achievement of such. ' 6olden Valley's housing plan identifies with some reservation � the city's ten-year numerical goal for the provision of 1ow- and ; moderate-incane housing as a range of 200 to 500 such oppor- . tunities through 1990. It is quite apparant, as pointed out in : the p1an, that the addition or rehabilitation of 500 units for � �low- and moderate-income households in Golden Va11ey during this . decade may we11 be an unachievable ob3ective. ! " �: . The city is remi�ded, however, that what the Council is looking � for in local comprehensive plans is a cortmitment of the part of : � ' - 8 - '-�.•-K-....-...-...�,...,...,....�r._. ._..-,.....---�r....---�^ , _ --�..�.�...--.�-•__-..---. . --- • � -• -^-�- •� - fw.�,�. c� ����.....4r.�av.�—._._.�.a�....ri�.¢a.r:..rYiv..s-�.�.�•���+wd�a.�:v9 w:.��¢Ys+`.,...:.�:S:9s�...car"a3iLr',.:�mrt��i+�.:....«c..:.r:c3�,:..u�r:.r�a'.;.,,Y„ � . .j �.c�'.......,...t!c:.v,h�ef+.ti.lb� .F . 9 ' � • � , • � .� i ��� the community to its fair share housing responsibilities, in this �� case at least 200 low-and moderate-income opportunities, and a �� . ;practical strategy to provide these opportunities given the _ � for in local comprehensive plans is a commitment of the part of t the co�imunity to its fair sh�re housing responsibilities, in this � , case at least 200 1ow-and moderate-incon� opportunities, and a � practical strategy to provide these opportunities given the ; avail�ability of a. sufficient number of tools. The lack of a -; . great d�al of undeveloped residential land in the city should not �] preclude tFie use of the city's existing housing stock, some 1,200 ,S units, or future redeve?opment, as the avenue by which it can t� achieve its fair• share goal. � i :; The plan discusses Regional fair share modest-cost market rate � housing responsibility but does not provide a numerical : ob�ective.. The city may want to consider incorporation of this � - numerical goal of 211 if additions or changes are made to the � plan. � ) To acconq�lish 1ts housfing ob�ectives and affordable housing ; goals, the plan proposes the use of several programs, fiscal ! devices and official controls. Land use regulation is one area �� � i� which the city's actions will irtipact the cost of new housing. a ' The plan indicates that lot sizes have been reduced to 10,000 � square feet for single-family units and 12,500 for duplexes. Both reductions are important; however, the city's single-family �Q lot size st�11 significantly exceeds the Council 's land use } advisory standard of 6,000 to 8,OQ0 square feet. With regard to ; multifamily densities, Golden Valley's per acre maximum of 18 � units and the mid 30's through PUD are consistent with the advisory standard. The elimination of all minimum floor area � requirements as well as permission for the construction of single- � family units without garages are both positive actions. The plan � also recortmends exploration of clustering and zero lot line development approaches. , . � In terms af housing assistance programs, the city will continue � to tie responsive to proposals for the development of new � construction assisted housing, and though developable sites for � such housing are scarce, the plan ident9fies all undeveloped land � in the city. A tax-incremPnt district and plan for revitalizing i its central business district includes construction of an elderly � high rise for which Section 202 funding will be sought. � However, the chief tool available to the city to provide low- and ; moderate-income housing opportunities will have to be existing ; housing programs such as Section 8 Existing and Moderate 7 Rehabilitation or its successor. The plan indicates. quite � correctly that. the city's Housing and Redevelopment Authority - j (HRA) rtp�st use its influence to promote existing housing programs 4 • and encourage owner and tenant participation. , �� , With regard to maintenance of the housing stock, CDBG and � ' ' Minnesota Housing Fi�ance Agency housing rehabilitation monies � will be used for grants and loans. The city will define and i � 1 - 9 - , � ; --------------- --------------------- ----._._..�..:.�_.�....__ .; - j , � � � + target thQSe areas.most in need of rehabilitation, and wi11 : � determine the number of units that can expected to be � � � rehab.ilitated .during the decade. It will also explore various . ` approaches to providing incentives for neighborhood and home } improvements. 3 ' 5. Solid Waste (8arbara Senness) � 6olden Va11ey has indicated that the city has adopted an � ordinance governing the collection and disposal of solid waste ? within its boundaries, per the statutory requirements under the S 1916 So1id Waste� Act (Minnesota Statutes Section 473.811). . Y. FINOINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS " A. General Findings } 1. The City of Golden Valley's comprehensive plan has been -� submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review under Section 473.175 and Sections 473.851 to 473.872 of the Minnesota � statutes. 2. The City of Golden Yalley is located in Hennepin County in ; Council Oistrict 10. It is bordered by the cities of New Hope, � Crystal, Robbinsdale, St. Louis Park, Minneapalis and Plymouth. ; ; � 3. In accordance with the Council 's Local Plan and School Program � Rev9ew Procedures, Sect9on II.2.2c., Golden Valley received � ' written conments from all notified local units and districts ; - prior to consideration of the plan by the Council. The city made � numerous changes to the plan based on these comments. � 4. In an October 15, 1981, letter to Hennepi� County, Golden Valley � has indicated the implementation phase of its planning process �� . will address the protection and development of access to direct � sunlight for solar energy systems as required in Section 473.859 . of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, as amended. 8. Conformity with Metropolitan System Plans ; 1. Transportation a. The Golden Valley plan is thorough and consistent with � (Metropolitan Council transportation policies and plans. b. The city's recomnendation to close uncontrolled access along � TH 55 and TH 100 is conmendable. � 3 � c. The 6olden Valley plan shows a design for I-394 which is inconsistent with current regional expectations. The city " has indicated it will amend its plan to recognize that the , final design of the proposed I-394 1s determined by District 5 of the Minnesota Oepartment of Transportation. ` t � ; ' - 10 - ._,,..,�,.,�......_,.,�,..,�._ _ --- , .- ,--._--�-..-..�_ _.. .-. -- •�..��� .,-....-.-.,._._ . . ._a_ . ... _��_....�.. . . - - 4:.:t�-r.�•..sfc�=—_`�_ __«•_.r.. d� - °,���:_� � . . . . _1� J . � - �-�i+ir+.r'�.L:w w-.i:;:."1s�:a:r:.i.':us.:r'W���3Y'r Y.K{+ia�.'Y�iiS+�..7��':::r...l+:,.'''vtr;:.S�.+�.:::E+!.�[ 7= .1 .� � A' 2. Sewers �; a. The sewer element of the city's comprehensive plan meets the • '� � content requirements of a sewer policy plan, and the vast .� ma3arity of those of a comprehensive sewer p1an. -; b. Golden Valley's 1990 flow pro�ection (3.72 mgd) 1s nearly � identical to the Council 's pro�ection in the Water Quality .,, Management Policy Plan. .� c. Two interceptors provide service to Golden Valley. Part of � �Interceptor 1-GV-461 (10,716 linear feet) is currently .� overloaded, although it �seems to function adequately. In the future, this constrained section may be capable of handling � minor increases in flow. However, Golden Valley has �� - indicated that there will be no additional flows from the � service area of the constrained pipe. � � 3. Parks .� � a. The Golden Valley plan is in confor9ty with the Regional .� Recreation Open Space System. � 4. Airports } a O . a. Crystal Airport is a minor role airport in the metropolitan i airports system and its role will not be upgraded. There- , fore, no future impacts upon Golden Valley are anticipated as ` a result of airport operations. ; . b. The Golden Valley plan addresses the control of general � airspace obstructions, and therefore is consistent with the ; Aviation chapter of the Metropolitan �velopment Guide. i .; C. Compatibility with Other Governmental U�its' Plans ., �` 1. Ad�acent, and affected governmental units have been notified that Golden Valley's comprehensive plan is being reviewed by the � Metropolitan Council. t � 2. Golden Valley's plan appears corr�atible with the plans of �: ad�acertt governmental units and the I�pkins (270) and Robbinsdale ' (281) school districts. � j 3. The Metrapolitan Waste Control Comnission noted that the city ; needs to add several items to its sewer policy plan. The � Conmission's conments are contained in Attachment 3. � I 4. Although the Minnesota Department of Transportation raised several concerns about Golden Valley's plan, the city �� subsequently addressed these concerns. . � . ; : a ; � - 11 - i , _ "' `—_:: ' -____ __ _ '__ .,�e�n'��-""=»��:�.ar��.i.�",�.tY.�itfl•�::�:Li'- _ ' v"6rv%L..�b:•airF.�:.��::'v'ssi�s:..�'_ _ _'� -_ .n.;uL;t�•+.:�i-= -9'- er:i:L:o 1 � _. � . , 4 � t a 't D. Consistency.With Other Guide Chapters ; � �. � 1. Metropolitan Development Framework . � a. 6olden Yalley's land use plan identifies the location, � intensity and e�tent of residential, commercial, industrial, � public and recreation land uses, both on maps and in the text ; of the p1an. i b. 6iven the small amount and scattered location of remaining � undeveloped land in Golden Valley, the city's unspecified � � land demand�between 1980 and 1990 does not pose inconsis- ; tenc9es with Councit land demand figures. The actual amount � of remaining buildable land reported in the plan is less than � + Council land demand estimates. � � c. Golden Valley is revising its zoning and subdivision ! ordinan�es in keeping with the comprehensive plan. Revisions � to th� aoning ordinance .will be completed within the first � six months of 1982, while revisions to the subdivision ; ordinance will be completed by the end of 1982. � d. The Oevelopment Framework classifies 6olden Valley as a Fully , �veloped Area. The Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan � addresses and is consistent with this policy area ; classification. With the exception of continued ; � redevelopment in the downtown, the city does not anticipate • ! any ma�or redevelopment during the planning period. ! � 2. Investment Framework , = a. The comprehensive plan contains some of the data that the � (�tropolitan Land Planning Act requires in a capital = improvement program (CIP). The program should include the estimated costs, the need and the financial impact that each ; improvement wi11 have on the city. Funding sources, project ► definition and need have been well prepared for some ` improvements. �� b. Golden Valley's CIP covers the years 1980 to 1984. The city should be advised that the Land Planning Act requires that � local CIPs be revised every two years, and that such a � revision should be undertaken in 1982. i E c. The capital improvement program should include a schedule of ; annual debt service payments on the existing outstanding � indebtedness and on the debt proposed in the CIP. This � information is necessary far the city council and the : citizens to properly evaluate future revenue needs of the ' city. It is also necessary for financial planning purposes ' . of the overlapping �urisdictions. � 3. Environmental Protection � i ` a. Golden Valley has no significant natural features to protect � in presently vacant land. i - 12 - i �-.-.-.�.t—.- _ . ._ �..-_...-..r.__.._..__..._�....._ ._r...._._ ..._--�-----------____...._� ._... ._. , ._„ . ..s.b:�wi.^. _ — �' _ -�:.R.e�r�r:$11:3+�'��' �y' �'rz—�'��..i.`�'�i:�vhS."1++.:'j.:.YS=�'�irR`�s'.S�A�:�S..'.i�:�a'u�ciire�c:'.ii:a.��w�tt:9Yt:::l+i�wrTq�Sw�itifi%.�s��� ' � . . . , _. . i.i�L.H'�w•!.R_.�uM�•{c:h. �' . • . .�_.'.. •• ._ .y-- ' ' 1 � � .i � Q b. The city is addressing stormwater management and floodplain t management, consistent with Council policies. � � 4. Housing ; � f � The housing elen�ent of Golden Va11ey's comprehensive plan � - satisfactorily addresses tfie hpusing plan content requirements of } a housing inventary and analysis, pro�ections, policies and ; in�plementat9on pragram. The housing element is consistent with ttie Housing chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. s 5. So 1 id Waste ' � � . � uolden Valley's plan indicates how solid waste collection and � disposal are controlled by the city and is consistent with the Council 's Sol:td WaSte Management Plan. � i YI. RECOMMENDATIONS I R That the City of Golden Yalley be advised that: � � ; A. This report constitutes the Council 's official review required under E � the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. � B. No plan modifications are required as authorized in Minnesota ; • Statutes Section 413.115, Subd. l. ' O C. The plan conforms to metropolitan system plans as follows: , . 1. The plan is in conformity with metropolitan system plans for parks and airports. 2. The plan is in conformity with metropolitan system plans for � transportation. However, at such time as a final design is � approved for I-394 by District 5 of the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the city should amend its plan accordingly. � 3. The plan is in conformity with metropolitan system plans for sewers. While the plan meets the sanitary sewer requirements of �he Land P'ianning Act, i� �oes not meet those of a comprehensive sewer p1an. Before submitting the sewer element of its plan to . tfie Metropolitan Waste Control Comniission, the city should - address the additional cortments raised by the Comnission. D. The plan appears generally compatible with plans of ad3acent governmental uni�ts and affected school districts. E. The plan relates to other adopted Development Guide chapters as follows: � !. The plan is consistent with the Metropolitan Development Frame- work, the Protection Open Sp�ce, "Water Resources, Soiid Waste and � _ Housing chapters of the Development Guide,. - 13 - .--....... ... . . -„�.......-......,...,._-....._...�.. �...�.�,'_�_._.....� . ._..._ . ._. , . , ....____.:_._._-___---_ _ _ .�.._-.,_.. —_ � . - --�."._._........ .. i ; , . - � . � . i 1 � ; 2. Consistent with the definition of a capital irt�rovement program : as contained in Minnesota Statutes 473.853, Subd. 4, Golden � ; Valley should add the following to its CIP: A11 pro�ects or . ; improvements planned for the fi.ve-year prospective period, � . including cost, need and the financial irr�act of each pro�ect on : the city. To improve its capital improvement program, the city i � � should include a schedule of the annual principal and interest � payments on ex.fisting outstanding indebtedness (aggregated by type of debt 1f the city wisFies), and o� debt proposed in the capital � improvement program. At such time as the city amends its capital � in�provement program, it should send a copy to the Metropolitan � C�uncil for review and cortment. : < YII. ADVISORY COMMENTS ON LOCAL PARK SYSTEM - i • _ ; Golden� Valley has done a very good �ob of analyztr�g its 1oca1 park needs � . and has developed its park.system accordingly. 8ased on the national i _ standards of 10 acres/1,000 population, the �ity has more than enough � local park land to meet resident needs. E • � + i H070P3 � . O ! ; ; � I i i i I I ' � � i : . . � . � i ; - 14 - ! --A..,� ._,..,�.,..��.. . .. . _ .------ �._. ___..._ ..._. _..� _ _. . ..., . . � - . . . .___. ..,.._ - , ' � :L.,, _ ar:..a,a- �att: :T;n„ 7�: .q. :t• ' ' �i:r.�' .�,. � L �icT(OPQLlTA� ATTACHMENT 3 � U''���£ Admin. ROUTING COf1T201 P R. ,_,�„Q � commi»>on� H. R. ..._�, ..'L..'Y�1":�:.1 CS/PIO � � �� .� November 20, 1981 �Q� � 1981 - .� `o►your tnformaUon � Take apFrpprfate actton �r` ' Ptease reply Mr. Charl es Weaver, Chai rman Ptepa►e reply for Chmn sIg Metropolitan Council � 300 Metro Square Building � : �� St. Paul , MN 55101 � ; Re: Comprehensive Plan for the City of Golden Valley � . Metropolitan Council Referral File Num6er 8593-2 ! � ; � Qear Mr. Weaver: , � '3 i •+ i The. Metropolitan �Waste Control Cortmission has reviewed the sub�ect plan j a�ainst the requi.rements for a comprehensive sewer policy plan as out- a � lined in the Water Quality Management Policy Plan. The following . comnents and recortmendations are offered by the Cortmission: i � � , 1) The sewer map as included in the plan is not large enough to j , be useful. An updated map usfing a larger scale should be �; provided showing tf�e specific location, siae, capacity and i , direction of flow of existing.and proposed trunk sewers, lift stations and forcemains. Tf�e plan should also include a table ;� on the design capacity versus ultimate needs for each drainage ; area of the local trunk sea►er system. Pro3ected wastewater � flows showing the estimated current and ultimate flows for each : connection point to our metropolitan interceptors should be � � included. ' � 2) The plan should pro�ect tf�e number of sewer connections and/or ',• � residential equivalent connections to 6e made 6y year for the � ; next five years. i � � � 3) The plan should indicate the maximum rates of infiltration/ � ; inflow (I/I) that is permitted on new construction of sanitary f ! sewers. i ' � j 4) The City of Golden Valley was identified 6y the Cortmission's ; . � 201 study as having potentially excessive I/I. As such, the s ' � City is eligible for federal and state fundi�ng to further ' � investigate the local sanitary sewer system in regards to I/I. ! � The plan should indicate the status of tfiis program. , , � ! 5) The CQmnission would appreciate a copy of any agreements that ` the City may have with anotf�er comnunity for intercommunity � � sewer service. For the proper coordination of intercommunity � fTows, it is necessary that the plan include a map indicating ; - : existing and potential intercommunity service areas for the � � City of Golden Valley and adjoining cortmunities. In addition, ;� � a table should be provided wf�ich indicates tfie number of exist- � � ' ing and future sewer connections 6y service area along with �� ����, � capacity needs by year for the next five years. � 7iH6ROBERTI7REEV JRIf1T PRUL R1f15S101 . 612,M2•A4�3 ' •\ _ . , ' :. ,� . . .. . _ •n - _ - [7z-:.': _ _ _ _ _- 1 - � ,• . ; - a ; ; .? � t �� Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman ; Metropolitan Council - .i November 20, 1981 i Page Two ; ' � It is requested that if a meeting is scE�eduled with the City of Golden ? Valley to discuss the sewer element of tF�e comprehensive plan, that the Co�nission be notified of ti�e date, time and place. ; Very truly yours, � �%� � George W. Lusher � Chief Administrator � � GWI:EJB:hw : i cc: Lawell Thompson, MC Barb Moeller, MC ; Jeff Sweet, City Manager, Golden Va11ey � i f i ; s a ; � ' .} ; ; • � •, i j �u _ . . . . . _ . . ---,----------.--._ . .� _ __� _ _ _ _ .J_ � "_ _ _ " _yi13� �NJ .t�,... � j. .p. Ci�. y. . . �q������ � . . . . J .• . • 4Ii _ _" �.�ir'tlYrafrw.'�ivi��.�a• � : � � j + _.�_. ..j � .t � tr�NNESO�'4 .? e O Z I Q Minnesota Department of Transportation .� ; 'f �QO'� Transportation Buiiding, St. Paul, MN 55155 .� �TF� + OCtObet 16� 19 81 ptie�� 29 6-160 7 i ROUTIMG ; Admtn� '' ; Charles Weaver �. R. ', • Chairman � .. H. R. '---' I, Metropolitan Council cslPio�J '� � Suite 300 - Metro Square Buildinq �� Seventh and Robert Streets OCT 20 1981 � St. Paul, M3nnesota 55101 ; For your information , ; Ia reply refer to2 7O2 Take appropriate action � } Review of Local Comprehensive Plan P��e rep1y � • for the City of Golden Valley �ePare reply tor Chmn sig�l-- : Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8593-2 + Dear Mr. Weaver: , : The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Golden Valley has been eval- uated in terms of Mn/DOT's plans, policies and proqrams. The, fol- ; � � lowing comments are the result of that evaluation. ' ; 1. County Road 70 (Medicine Lake Road) has been ignored in the � Transportation Element in terms of deficiencies and needsl. � The intensity of population map on paqe T-18 shows the ar�a ; south of Medicine Lake Road to have the highest intensity! of a population for .the year 2000. Ironically, this area has a fairly high year 2000 �aployment intensity as shown on the • page T-19 map. Current development is taking place along ; Medicine Lake Road both in New Hope and Golden Valley whi h � � generates additional traffic on an already inadequate fac lity. : The intersections with County Road 156 (Winnetka Avenue) �nd � County Road 102 (Douqlas Drive) lack in intersection capatity ' which could be improved with left turn lanes, free riqht turn � � Ianes, channelization, etc. The traffic movement on Medicine i � Lake Road is predomiaateZy eastbound in the A.M. to Douglas � Drive, then southbound on Douqlas Drive to Duluth Street �nd ' then eastbound on Dulnth Street. The reverse obviously h�p- ; pens in the P.M. � ; In terms of transit to meet the above mentioned travel de- � • 'sires, there is none in existence or proposed. The same is � also true for bikeways. , ' 2. The urban trails map on paqe P-12 indicates Medicine Lake Road to be part of the trail sy�tem as a street. This seems ; e inconsistent with the bikeway needs and proposals, and the An Equal Opporha�Pty Emp/oyer '�� � . ...._-�------ � + � . . � , : � October 16, 1981 i Charles Weaver ; Page Two . � i � . f Iack of imgrovements proposed for Medicine Lake Road. The , present facility is unsafe for such usage. The bridge over � the Minaeapolis Northfield and Southern Railroad presents a aiajor restriction which shouid be widened or replaced with an at grade intersection. � The impact of aot improving Med3cine Lake Road is to shift the , traffic further sQUth to T.H. 55 and perhaps even to T.H. 12. �The closing of Plymouth Avenue to Winnetka has also probably ' resulted in a traffic shift of those residents eastbound to- � wards the Minneapolis area. , The Departmeat requests that the results of this referral includinq disposition of comments received, be forwarded to my office for in- � clusion in our files. � Sincerely, ` ��(�'� Fred P. Tanze� - . Reqional Planning Coordinator . cc: City of Golden Valley � 8. Rlossner - Hennepin County W. M. Crawford . M. 8. Linzie C. J. Hoffstadt � � ; . . - � - -- - - - - - �.c�.,,r_ 'a• _�,ad:.�,- - - 'i$�°- - `''� - =�':�a,�,,:e��=..e..:��:i�c�.yc�.:.;�o:'...• .:. .. .-�. .. ,. , �.• •. _ a_ .'.Jr" — __ � . �-st�-:r_e��«.�"�'.'.r�+er�.�,�i»:n� '•�' • : .•� . . t i . t 1 ; � s- � °!j,'. 9� � 7 � i•; City of Golden Valley s , 1 • .j � October 15, 198T " : , • M�. Robert Isaacson, Planning Supervisor . . Office of Planning and Development � C-2353 Gove�nment Center � Minneapolis. MN 55487 �� RE: Hennepin County Review of City of Golden Valiey Con�rehenstve Plan . Dear Mr. Isaacson: . The City of Golden Vatley wishes to thank you for your prompt review of the • � Golden Valley Comprehenstve Plan, transmitted to the County June 30, 1981 for review and comment unde� provisions of the 1976 Metropolitan Land Pla�ning Act. � In response to comnents from Mr. James Wold, Hennepin County Departme�t of Transportation Planning and Programmtng, the City of Golden Valley has made � the following �evisions to the Transportatton Plan element of the Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan: : 1. Goiden Valley has �eclassifTed County Road 70 (Medicine Lake Road) from � a collector to a minor arterial to b�ing the classification tnto confor- mance with that of both Hennepin Cou�ty and the CTty of New Hope. , 2. The Ctty of Golden Valley has added year 2000 proJected traffic volumes . of 1k,000 ADT fo� County Road 70 (Medicine Lake Road) and 22,000 ADT for , - County Road 66 (Duluth Street) from County Road 102 (Douglas Drive) to : Highway 100. as suggested by the Hennepin County Department of Transportation. " . 3. The City of Golden Valley has adJusted year 2000 p�ojected traffic volumes for County Road 18, County Road 156 (Winnetka Avenue), County Road 102 (Douglas Drive North), County Road 66 (Duluth Street) and County Road b0 _ (Glenwood Avenue) to cor�espond to those used by the County. • . �-� . Civic Center,7800 Golden Valley Rd.,Golden Valley Minnesota,55427,(612) 545-3781 _�:,, . . . . . . ... . •r - - - - — - - - - - -. :...�....:.� - u..__._....<.s_..� , � G � '� Mr. Robert Isaacsan � pag@ Z � � RE: Hennepin County Revtew of City of Golden Valley Comp�ehensive Plan t - i ` Mr. Wold questioned inclusion tn the Golden Valley CIP of traffic signals at i the County Road�l5b (Wlnnetka Avenue)/tOth Avenue North tntersection and the # County Road 102 (Douglas Drive)/Golden Valley Road Intersection, for whTch he : stated the County has �either conducted studies nor scheduled proJects. The . ={ Ctty of Golden Va11ey recogntzes the need for traffic studies prior to scheduling = of traffic �sTgnal installation.and wtshes to assure the County Department of ; T�ansportatton that the City does �ot propose to tnstall signals until warranted . by traffic counts. The City Engtneering Department explains scheduling of the � two signal installation p�oJects as follows: ' 1 . County Road 15b �Winnetka Avenue)/lOth Avenue North. , ; � : The City completed construction and opened lOth Avenue North east of Winnetka : in September 1981• The City will be taking trafftc counts at thts inter- _ sectton and will �equest County tnstallation of signals at such time as � t�affic warrants. A need for signalizatton �s expected by the 1982 date _ cited in the Golden Valley CIP. ; ; 2. County Road 102 (Douglas DrTve)/Golden Vatley Road. � The City of Golden Valley Engineer has ve�ified that studies and plans for ' signaltzation of thTs Intersection, dating back 5 to 10 yea�s, are on file, . 6ut the City previously lacked funds to tmplement the signalizatton plans o proposed by the County. : Mr. Luther Nelson, Oirector of the HennepTn County Department of Environment • and Energy, stated in hi�s �eview menrorandum that the Golden Valley Comprehensive - Plan presents no confitcts �ttth Department of Emitronment and Energy ptanning, but painted out fo� the City's infofmation that the Plan lacks a solar access protection elament. The City of Golden Valley plans to artrend the City Zoning • Ordinance to include provision for solar access protectTon as a part of the lr�lementation phase of the comprehenstve planning process. Thank you again for your consideration of the Golden Valtey Comprehensive Plan. � Sincerely, Atda Peikert , : Assistant Planne� : AP:kJm � : Enc. . 1. August 4, 1981 Memorandum from James M. Wold, Dept. of Transportation . : Planning and Progrartaning 2. August i2, i98i Memorandum from James M. Wold, Dept. of Transportatton ' Planning and ProgrammTng : 3.. August 3, 1981 Memorandum from Luther Nelson, Director, Dept. of Environment � _ and Energy � �1 . METROPOLITAN COUNCIL � Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 RESOLUTION N0. 82-45 R�SOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL FINDINGS FOR REVIEW OF THE CITY OF 60LDEN VALLEY COMPREHENSIYE PLAN � WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Coun�il is authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 473.145, to prepare and adopt a comprehensive ' developme�t guide for the Metropolitan Area and the Council has adopted such a development guide; and � WHEREAS, the Metropolitan 'Cauncil is authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 5ection 473.175 and 473.851 through 473.866, the Metro- � politan Land Planning� Act, to review the comprehensive plans of local govenmental units to determine their compatibility witb each other, conformity with metropolitan system plans, and. apparent consistency wi�th the adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley has submitted its comprehensiye plan to the Metropolitan Council for review pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175; and � � � WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has studied and reviewed the Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan and has determined whether the Plan is in conformity with the metropolitan system plans, compatible with local coinprehensive plans and schaol capital improvement programs, and apparently consistent with other adopted chapters of the Metropolltan Development Guide. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:� THAT the Metropolitan Council adopt the attached Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan review report, Referral Report No. 82-01, and the recomnendations found on pages 13 and 14 of the report as �its review of � the Golden .Yalley Contprehensive Plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, s�ctlan a�3.175. . , � ' . � Adopted this 25th day of February ,, lgg2, . ' —=— METROPOLITAN COl1NCIL � ' • BY ��/ By . • har es . eaver, ug e . ranc ett, —' � Chairman _ . Ex tive Secretary �