The URL can be used to link to this page

08-24-81 PC Agenda C�� .,. ' GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION � AUGUST 24, 1981 ` `� (Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road) *7:00 P.M.'� AGENDA I . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1981 I1 . SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBIIC HEARING - REZONING APPLICANT: Earl Wilson, West Suburban Builders LOCATION: 6835 Sandburg Lane REQUEST: Change Zoning from Residential to R-2 (Two-Family) Residential III . REQUEST BY HOPKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR WAIVER OF PARK DEDiCATION REQUIREMENTS - PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MEADOWBROOK SCHOOL ADDITION IV. REPORT FROM DAVE THOMPSON ON APA (MINN. CHAPTER) SUBCOMMITTEE ON PLANNING EDUCATION � V. REPORT OPJ BZA MEETING - AUGUST 11 , 1981 - BILL FORSTER VI . REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 18, 1981 - HERB POLACHEK � VII . REPORT ON HRA MEETING - AUGUST il , 1981 - SUE EASTES VIII . SLIDE PRESENTATION BY HERB POLACHEK ON TRIP TO APA CONFERENCE IN BOSTON INFORMATION ITEM - LETTER FROM CITY ATTORNEY RE6ARDING LIABILITY OF COMMISSION MEMBERS • . � Minutes of the Golden Valley � � Planning Commission August to, 1981 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners: Eastes, Leppik, Moede, Polachek, Singer and Thompson. Commissioner Forster was absent. Also present, Alda Peikert, Assistant Planner. I . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 8, 1981 : It was moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Commissioner Eastes and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the July 27, 1981 Planning Commission Meeting. II . DISCUSSION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING BY CITY MANAGER: City Manager Jeff Sweet made a presentation and answered questiohs on tax • increment and tax exempt financing in general and on existing tax increment districts in the City of Golden Valley. 111 . REPORT ON SOUTH WIRTH PARKWAY PROJECT: Chairman Thompson distributed to Planning Commissioners, for their information, copies of the South Wirth Parkway Citizens Committee recommendation to the HRA and of Planning and Redevelopment Director Mike Miller's staff recommend- ation to the HRA on selection of a developer for the South Wirth Parkway Dev- elopment Project. IV. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 4, 1981 : Commissioner Leppik reported on the City Council meeting of August 4, 1981 . �. REPORT ON BOARD OF �ZONING APPEALS (8ZA) MEETINGS - JULY 14 and JULY 22, 1981 : In Commissioner Forster's absence, Chairman Thompson reported that he had discussed the July Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meetings with Commissioner Forster and that the July BZA agendas included no items of significance to the Planning Commission. VI . DISCUSSION OF MEETING TIME: It was moved by Commissioner Singer, seconded by Commissioner Eastes and carried unanimously to change the time for Planning Commission meetings from 7=30 to 7:00 • p.m. beginning with the next Planning Commission meeting. • Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting August 10, 1981 `Page 2 VII . CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING BY COMMISSIONER MOEDE: Commissioner Moede shared with the Planning Commission a presentation and series of posters she had prepared on tax increment financing. VII . TRAINING SESSION IN PLAN READING BY COMMISSIONER POLACHEK: Commissioner Polachek offered the Planning Commission instructions and answered questions on reading of plans and maps. The meeting was adjourned at 9�30 P.M. • • � • T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 19, 1981 FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING 6835 SANDBURG LANE West Suburban Builders, Inc. , has petitioned for rezoning of a lot at 6835 Sandburg Lane from the Residential to the Two Family (R-2) Residential Zoning District for purposes of building a double bungatow. The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) , on August 11 , 1981 , heard a petition for a waiver of the minimum lot width requirement for this lot. The new Two Family (R-2) Residential Zoning District Section of the �Zoning Code was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council with a minimum lot width requirement of 100 feet. However, the Ordinance was erroneously published with the 150 foot lot width requirement previously contained in the Residential Zoning District Section for duplex lots. The lot at 6835 Sandburg Lane is gg feet wide at the building setback line. The BZA approved a variance� of one foot from the intended 100 foot requirement subject to amendment of the Qrdinance and subject to rezoning to R-2. The minutes reflect BZA concern with assuring the Planning Commission that the Board had no intention of pre-empting Planning Commission and Council action on the rezoning request. • The City Councit , on August 18, 1981 , set a hearing date for a Zoni.hg Ordinance Amendment correcting the lot width requirement for the R-2 Zoning District. In anticipation of approval and publication of the amendment, it is appropriate to proceed with consideration of the rezoning petition. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission set September 14, 1981 as the date for an informal public hearing on the rezoning request. AP:kjm Attachments: 1 . Site Location Map 2. August 11 , 1981 BZA Minutes • -o, . . ��-i- qp'.4o m ' � ' � is��-'oo �.°�-�°, — 4� 'O — � n � � I � � }�.`.. `� A ��ov,� � C � O � Wy, � �'N� N w N,w S O N � • N O� '� V� `Q O y� �.I� I Y . � � C N � V � �" _ _ �. _ .1 N ao..� v+a �, - o o f I. ^' v �l �°> -c m ° ,c . • W�r� "'' � . �� a o�" • � � ` „ ^� •� � N m _�c 9i �oo • . � � N � � ° � 0 - - -- � - - _ -� - - - �- - io: ::: 109.ZG O -- - t45 _ _, � � � ^ � Z — �`=� ,,' .' a,.w_� .,.;sa�•, ;45 � iC,� m � r �.. f \ , � � _ 'S,; :' .:: J �� 0 �j'+ `J � - �Y fJ � .., ` . • �" � Ro:+e•• ��-�,;- � o� � ��` ::w t f ` ` � �� a � oao `� � � � � L � n ��--- -- ~Q w ; �`•� A � 4Jl�O° _ � G � � o �., _: � I--�J'.:c a: n ---- _, � .. 4 �. `> `, / �- p� 'J'i 3�i' �,� A t� — . -.. f N:'C»yG M• ,. 6. � N� ;"�, • W c°, .'4�,� i 4c q0 /� '4p �_ _ i��r�' V � r� ��G e _� � �i � .. ?6/ �es '` � � s.��' �, �� - — —�- -- . -o rv , • '� b F�� ' ` �L N ,O I.�•,B� /' .L W '_ — '.' I 1 l ' �� / ^ � G [f' � �.: C 3�;�� —"!it.ee•. 1 ? t \ • °:c" MJ°Da o �P�.. _t_' V 40��'�' � � o w :3„ 5 :� . �'.' 4.''�G.., 'o�4j c � � 765 j �'c 1 o �o. m y .� � •p�� __ � p .q.:. � � <�c �.�-�_ -. � �`. �/ �� e � �a. c� �i L. �., s - �'J J4 a0"K � Zr 3 ' -° 'A x m p - � � .� .NtsaB So'�. � ` '� �� •: .�'D a�.�r e� � W � r r 9.� � `� 3� 3.�. y � � a � ' �. � . r� � • N .J w ��^,,� � , Cq I.�:-- �..'2� •1i- -] �1� . ? ' ' S�p � �� ` \.Lb , -t: ! � 3 tiJJJ .: b'.:e., o 'J: :' �t._ o .•,;p -- {'!" s �x� �- � �� o LOtNSIANA S:�„ ,,�,, �vE. s` -�;�, �~Jr`B � - � 00 , ,_ - . ?- o ,y",'c �'" f: , `` 4.• ;;.Y� 6 � , s ' '�J ° .c„'t�; �. v ' a . ,� p C° ' ! ' �I. � .��o � � • .�e •� _:�° . a-. a � C1 z z 1 � ,`,^+ � ; O . m m r, r' o �� — �°° N ^� ° O ` p m W A CP Q; •c a, � ,- a �� F m � m � �,s, �,;�1 n, 2 �� lY• % T � ' "" ^` _- . . .yqEi � •/�� • ' `'` . . • :,�0 35�0; ��` `�� _ .. SJ`:.�.'�C YV' ;0°:J �ec :w( •'3. / ,^� .', � � .i / � .�',.. � _ Q • �6 C ''y'G4� ��'� �`'� � ' • �� sAh4��r�c � . � � , 6�: �_�,r�E o �.� gy :34� � , ° � 1. ,�4.C� D . :<�. , ^' r� . o. ��;. m - .�:� -c i • - .. {-��lS� L •� ' � . - ;`��`^i C. : L •t' G — ,, ___ �o �.{.. ` � .Q , � � • . � 4 i.'��.� � • c '-0 So • - :a. __ _. . Q � � ,U � ''�' ._. `_ o t ^ ,;,, . � , a � .-. �- , .:f1i �af2 E s. -�- � ��N �� .ti?5� ��E MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE • GOLDEN VALLEY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 4 AUGUST 11 , 1981 The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, August Il , 1981 , at 7:30 P.M. at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The following board members were present: Art Flannagan, Chairman William Forster Glen Christiansen Mike Setl Absent by prior arrangement, Mahlon Swedberg (no alternate available for this meeting) . The first order of business was approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held Tuesday, July 14, 1981 and a special meeting held Wednesday, July 22, 1981 , copies of which had previously been distributed to the board. Glen Christiansen moved to approve the minutes as written and presented. Second . by William Forster and upon vote carried. (Mike Sell was not in attendance at this time but arrived prior to consideration of the fourth item on the agenda. Sell had a previous commitment which was man- datory to attend and as there was a quorum Chairman Flannagan proceeded with the consideration of the appeals.) 81-8-32 (Ma 14) Residential 6835 Sandburg Lane lot west of 6825) West Suburban Builders (Earl Wilson) The petition is for waiver of Section 3.051 lot width for 51 ' off the required 150' lot width to a width of 99' as measured at the 35' setback line. The petiiion was in order. Present for the meeting was a son of Mr. Earl Wilson and another business representative. The secretary explained that the petition as filed was based on the prior residential zoning code. The present code now adopted and in effect permits two-family dwellings upon rezoning to R-2. A memo from Mike Miller described that an error occurred when the new zoning code was published wherein the previous requirements of 150' frontage and lot area of 18,750 sq. ft. was retained. The proposed ordinance when recommended for approval by staff and the Planning Com- • mission provided for a lot width of 100 ft. and 12,500 sq. ft. of area. An amend- ment will be -�repared for Council approval . Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 ' August �ll , 1981 � � • Glen Christiansen noted that there appears to be some interi� adjustment between filing for a variance on existing zoning requirements until new sections are adopted and implemented. Christiansen wanted to be sure that if this item was approved subject to rezoning to R-2 through the Planning Commission and City Council that the Planning Commission and Council be assured through these minutes that there was no intent to prempt any decision by the Planning Commission or Councit . William Forster, noting as a member of the Planning Commission, he did not feel this was a controversial item and he would clarify if necessary, the Board of Zoning Appeals actions. Glen Christiansen asked that the staff report by Mike Miller be included when this item is addressed by the Ptanning Commission. William Forster said if the zoning was approved for R-2 and the 100 ft. lot width was amended to the •present ordinance, only a 1 ft. variance would be required. The lot has 19, 141 sq. ft. of area which exceed even the previous requirement of 18,750 sq. ft. Noting all of the above and also that the lot is adjacent to industrial and insti- tutional (Sandburg School) William Forster moved to approve a waiver of 1 ft. off the required 100 ft, lot width when this width is amended to the Zonino Code and • subiect to rezoning to R-2 residentiat . Forster stated the purpose of moving to approve would provide for the p�oponent not to have to return to the Board for a • 1 ft. variance should the Zoning Code be amended and the rezoning be approved. Glen Christiansen seconded the motion and upon vote motion carried subject to the stated requirements . 81-8-33 (Ma 3) Residential 51 0 Lowry Terrace � William Bick The Petition is for waiver of Sections 3.07 (1) front setback for 5. 1 ' off the required 35' setback from Scott Avenue to a setback of 29.9' from Scott Avenue to the proposed garage and for 3. 12 (1) accessory buildings, for a garage not located wholly to the rear of the house. Mr. Bick was. present. The Chairman noted the required signatures had been obtained, no adjacent property owners were present. � Mr. Bick explained that he needed the proposed garage for his business and storage. The existing house had previously had a two-car tuck-under garage which was entered from the Scott Avenue side. Mr. Bick stated he had received approval and a permit to close and remodel the garage area and needed a garage now. • � � � T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 19, 1981 FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS - MEADOWBROOK SCHOOL ADDITION Hopkins School District No. 270 has requested a waiver of the City park dedication requirements contained in Section 440.80 (2) of the City Sub- division Regulations for Meadowbrook School Addition. The Planning Commission, on July 27, 1981 , recommended conditional approval of the preliminary plat for Meadowbrook School Addition, with one of the conditions being donation of land or cash in lieu thereof for park purposes as required in the Subdivision Regulations. The School District subsequently submitted a letter requesting waiver of this requirement. The City Council has scheduled a formal public hearing on the preliminary plat for September 1 , 1981 . This allows time for the Planning Commission to consider the waiver request at the August 24, 1981 Planning Commission meeting and to forward its recommendation to the City Council for the September 1 , 1981 hearing. • The School District justification for the waiver, as stated in the letter requesting the waiver, is based on the fact that the building and site are "property of the community" and a waiver would accordingly "serve the interest of the community." . Planning and Redevelopment Director Mike Miller had previously discussed with an attorney for the School District the possibility of waiving park dedication requirements in anticipation of donation of playground area to the City in conjunction with fur-ther subdivision of the Meadowbrook School site at a future date. However, the letter from the proponent specifically states that the School District contemplates no further subidivision of the School site and that the waiver request is "based on continued use of the land for public purposes as an elementary school and community playground area". The purpose of the plat is to separate from the Meadowbrook School site the otd District #275 School Administration building in order to sell the building and surrounding lot for private office use. In view of the fact that the particular lot proposed by the plat is to be transferred from public to private use, staff disagrees with justification of a waiver based on the community property and benefit approach used by the proponent. • � • Golden Valley Planning Commission August 19, 1981 Page 2 The parcel to be platted has been evaluated at $68,400 by the Senior Hennepin County Appraiser working in Golden Valley. The Subdivision Regulations require ten percent of the land area or the equivalent in cash. Therefore, park dedication fees for this plat would be $6,840. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request for a waiver of Section 440:80 (2) of the Subdivision Regulations and require payment of $6,840 in park dedication fees prior to final platting and prior to rezoning. � AP:kjm Attachments: l . Correspondence f rom Proponent 2. Site Location Map 3. Section 440:80 (2) of the City Subdivision Regulations . 4. July 27, 1981 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Evaluation by Appraiser • • ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES , 1001 HIGHWAY 7 � HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343 � •HOPKINS DR. E. JOHN YOUNG ` SCHOOL Director of DISTRICT Business Affairs August 7, 1981 Planning Department City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Minneapolis, MN 55427 ATTENTION: Alda Peikert Purpose of this letter is to request a waiver of the park dedication requirements of Section 440:80 (2) of the City Subdivision Regula- tions as related to the preliminary plat under consideration by the Planning Department. Subdivision of the Meadowbrook Elementary School site was requested in order to sell the District #275 Administration Building located on Glenwood Avenue. The balance of the school site will be retained for schoo7 purposes • as an operating elementary school unit of District #270. Plans are to continue operation �of the school , and no further subdivision of the site is contemplated. Since the building and site is the property of the community, our position is that a waiver of the regulation is in order and will serve the interest of the corrununity. Additionally, there will be no change in land use because of the subdivision or future sale of the Administration Building. The open space needed for elementary school play area will continue in the present use pattern for students as well as corr�nunity use. Request the Planning Corrmiission take action to grant a waiver of land or payment of cash, in lieu thereof, in this matter related to Meadowbrook School Addition based on continued use of the land for public purposes as an elementary school and community p7ayground area. E. JOHN YOUNG DIRECTOR OF BUSIN AFFAIRS � AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER E '�,:• �`' `��,�`',.�a. �,,, �'� � � Q C � 4 R : • i- r� '_.' " " i •� '� �• _ �. �, �—- �+ooe,��c -r- - -- . . � , ,,..,, .�..--� , ... � _. •,NJ 1` • �\' �.. ^ _��: - - �� C .: .s! � 4'W ij� ' `� 7�'�I i: �sy� -•♦ • ? s i�ls� �( � o i��, �' �' ''M •�� / �ODSTOCK AVE. . � i ` �.� yr � ;�y< ' D ` • �E .., -�t p�t � .'�-•��AF--,,, . - T , '°` ,.�_ ' � •'l3�): � ^� -"�V�f Ra; ('�• •� R,;, � • n !,�• � � �OD '- ,_: =.: � `= .,=•-M ��,,;; ,'.� <: • a` ! �f �7-, � , .1 - 4 D��N.;39�• '` �,�_. .:�1 .:,, ~ �1 �,9, :�� r., . . . � �� 1 ;±� �. :�� T,�� ' t2 -.:,�. �� _��,: = �.- r �� Y � _ . t� '� 2nd� " �.�• �C��.G�,�,►F- ::ADD.°- �� •Y�4Yrt K S b:74 � IA� lF.'11 'II.+i� 1 •f i� , { wV4 ��1��'.• I�\yII ��l � f ;� ►k�•i�` • v- ` ...�C"�. � ! - ..,4 � 5 �� •�•1t' . `0 iiF.:J'��, �— . . '�\�'1,�, � - _ IC_` • ' _ �' .a �5 � ,, y „ � ` � �tr�q. . �: t--- � c.4—�� , �yvr .,. ' s 2 .. ..• � � ` i ,t , , • e . • • . -att`-s _._r,q; �•r d°. �� '�� 1 tt�7`�w.Z_. _ ��•Iy� �� r�`Zo� �2�„t' �22,. R� ;j'� �=_��1y S.c .`�.r 1r v . �. .. �'•l ' � L� ��10 � �i = �� a °� r // � 1 . ' i ' l ?2 i:3] Tc 3�' �•37�3 ••`• ;� 4 �G� " .. . �i • ' v . C='• t p° .��j � . ''y� {�j�%��r ' �' 'a: � - -- \S - � \ +� I •p4N = rt!. • ��=/±' '�_ y � �t . f � ��O ��6 1`� '��,�� , 4�12, � `� �Y�,� �� ,� ,� ! � f f " 3.: �� 3 C N� ,�., �� i� �3�_ Y$� � �2��r �Z�� .�1"c'rr i 2�' e- �r ( �, � ��, � �r . t ��.. ^�e.�.�_ ..-c. a•r,..=.. . , � •,. ' �' �'1� ��`2'�_ .. �. •;�:+ !--� �r� '� •r� — 1 .".•r:. �j�,? � r - . 6 �\. `�� _ � � ... e ti ,o iS r w`' 'w �: - - � '- -+L�- ------ 2' {; � " q �`< ._�`s '' `� � /3` � .>, � y��'�,-� _ �,; •r��; •�.,. ` l �'':. �� .�. :i• — _ _ _ __ •_ _�.{_4_� _ '_ __ ' , _— —:�-: "�, Np, r061 a� ; � `>f'9�'' - �A•�--'e � ! , ��,, '� �,�, . �a� . ��•, . ,� � / r PR�LtMINARY .� , 7d3E g 1 ' u+• Pt�1T eF ,� 'J., . � ••�v1tADOw�BRovK l � j � ' /�:: ,q, � � fTION� ��i d,. o i _ $�i1��JL .��D �4 `= - �� ' - -- — C �' , __ w,o�ti r�y . �; ;: -, . �R�.,, .�-. � O�� , � � ; . . I l.�eeoe�aa�. 5cro:' :�s•r�c, Ne 6, f ' Av e i ,8, ,� ,•.'� (S; �� - - „_ •— s,� _�� , � � ;', rY��`., � , �"'t+: �„-�. : 'Lp . ..... �- ,�, � _: t> �= , �'�t: �E,. ., :. �..:'.,: � � �y •'� . '� /, � ef - : .,. . s,� -� ♦.a a� •wa �► � � � . . • . 1 1 . Ilt.s R[� .LB. • �4 - �j , � ' w � .. - ."/ � } � � , / � �.�► ' ,-: , p , � � . , � �" ' 1 V e = `-� ly " .•.`.. ; � ,,,�� . �' _ . = � n :.. -' �_ �. . p � � a • . t l7'� � w}---�-- ;��A�_ ..�. �`' A°. , � sL fh '`'- ., �? I�I�/ ,�� • a �'Opp .. . �r. � �� I Z � !T7 i r L� �,: � +�. j ... �_ � .vr �+� _ 1�� .. � � �. � �`> � • . � ' • �S1 ��1�, r,.'�' �Ltr\� . � u.. _ { _ ' , ;z—: �- � �n . �w.,�iSCQ1.=�. ��. __(�� - ,.� :{ r •.. _� ---- � �.� � :a ; �v �� , 'p''• .\ 2�51' � t. � � . ,� �� 2 � � �Tl1R RQ • • "' . . ,Z ►a .t L�,1-. i�+► j� � OD � i � • O' ��'Q �� " � - � � •� �t � �' _ n� /� � .. � .�l+�= ��'1 0 �� +:. y` y - `+ -- � — - ,'��' f�1`r'1' i � --.--• Z ,. ^ � �vs� rt—rn—. .- --- /, Q r1��\ � `, 2O� � � E f z'. -,. ... i ,r ' Z . :t�'1'1 `�,l 7 �i"� ' r � 4 ` • �- - n . `;=. `' �/ `{ ` `rn ' ! _u_ � + � �F �� M`�_ ``�`\ E `�r\' �I^ . . � • NJf� �� r _Z�.�� __-.� Y n',l �{n.l� �;M � -�� .� _ �� , ��1 f�,�� Z " --.- � .,.�_��,. •;�,. . ;. .—�,: , ,'� ' ` � 4GiQ �Z� • � : � h�� b c�i�> > `�ll '��- .l = d`'•r �� 9 Y: ; �' � F� .�.,, ---- �� -- _ _— � ,� 1:.._ ..� s: '� . ! �Z 'qO � � ��1�1_ 1��`' �---^ �1 ,;-..`� COLONIA�..�°OR . � W � ��r ST � . - " � �t� 4. " <�_- � ' � . . -----=�-, : • � � '��/ Qrl�`s+ �J * °�,�1.. �� J '�_ �e�• al�, Q 1t�1 `�, ld� ��, F . ` .� �_ � ^.� ��R� _ F� �� ' - • . ' vn `� � ♦�. l -q7•��..•o'�� \ �° w 1�, LL�� :�L,�� 1�: ' r.r• � r��_ti�� w_��►s. i_�L�� `'�,2 � � � �� • �lE'»- U�r � ": �! �♦ �5 •,iG � �AYE. J b'OI!� De:wt 6K!�t t .�� M � , :�� • �w i • • �, . '�' • � r w. `� ..�: y. �� ' .� . J :• � l •l: ({\6'' '�q Jp ct. .w.�., • � •�. • � - I .. , ��.��`'-•""°TURNPIKE : : �.� ' j ' �� `,: C , 9\� '°%�i' e`d' :.' • _ �\_ `w��+" } Q t .�,;t. �i��'.o:i ° �1'- ��1,- n• a i ;��. �J ' t ;�/ , � %• � : , rt"' \�, .�o .e ,r� n.�. �♦-�j ... _4�� • � 6�0.�, 12�� -,.,,;�{,�j �`4�. '�f`�..I ,":7• 1 _ � _�� .. . •`_ ► � - \ J O� ,, � .r. � � � . � SeCt�on 44U:�U . Section 440:80 Public Sites and Open Spaces. (1) Drainaae Channels. Where a proposEd drainage channel is • located in whole or in part within a prop�sed subdivisiqn, the ,� subdivider shall dedicate adequate space for such purpo�e in such area within the subdivisions when the Village Council finds that the channel is reasonable necessary to the public , henith, safety and welfare. (2) Parks, Playarounds, Open Spacesz Storm Wate� Holdinn Areas' and Ponds. In all plats or su5divisions to be deveioped for residen- tial , corrmercial , industrial or other uses, or as a planned unit development which includ0s residential , cortmercial , industrial or other uses, o� any combination thereof, the Council may require a reasonable portion of such proposed subdivision to b� dedicated to the public for public use as parks, playgrounds, public open space or storm water holding areas or ponds, with a minimuri requirement that ten (10) percent of the gross area being subdivid:d be so ded- icated; provided however that the Council may in tne altErnative re- quire the subdivider to contribute an equivalent a*r�un: in cash �ased. on the f�ir market value cf the undeveloped land involved in the pro- posed subdivision, the cash funds realized therefrom to be placed in a special fund with the City Finance Director and used only for tP�e acquisition of other lands for parks, playgrounds, public open spaces, . � . storm water holding ponds, development of existing park an� playground sites and debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired ' for such public purposes.. In determining the reasonable portion of each such proposed subdivision to be thus dedicated, includir,g the minimum requirement as specified h�rein, there may be, taken int� � consideration the arount of open space, park, recreational or corrm�n areas and facitities s,�hich the subdivider has pravided�for the ex- clusive use o` the residents of th� subdivision for the Councit shall ' not be bound thereby in making its determination of th� portion it requires to be dedicated pursuant to the terms of this Secti�n. �'here eny such dedicated area is located in part or in who1= •�ithin a pro- posed subdivision the area for. the same shall be dasignated on the plat and shall not' be 'subdivided into lots. Section 440:90. Final Plat. � r. � ,. � • • ; . ; ;�inq. , . (a) When the Final Plat is submitted to the Vil ]aee �Council for the . ordering of a public hearing, th= subdivider shall f�rnish feur • (4) copi es of tl-�e pl�at, as approved by the P1 a�ni ng Gc-�ni ssi on to the Village Engineer and one (1) copy to each a�pr�?ria:e utility com�any involved. At that tim�, the su5divi�er shall also furnish the ��illage Attorney N�ith the Abstract of Title or Regi��tered Property Abstract. (b) Application for plat ap�roval by the Village Courn�il sF,all be deemed to be officially filed with the Village at the time of the first meeti�g of the Village Council when the plat is referred to the Villag� Council as outlined in Section 440:40 (;). On the same date that the Uillage Council places the application for platting on file it shall provide for a public hearing to be held � within thirty (30) days. Notice of public hearing on the Final Plat of the time and place thereof, shall 5e published at least once in the official Village newspaper at least ten� (10) days � prio� to the day of the hearing in accordance with Minnesota Stat- ,. utes 1965, 462.358, Subd. 3• Planning .Commission Meetinq of July 27, 1981 Pe9e 3 � � . M Poole also stated they have transmitters located all around the nine count tro area that provide the signals. This service se�ves approxi ely 6,000 page nd 15,000 people. Mr. Poole presented a map locating proposed radio communica ' s tower and unmanned eguipment building. He requesting to have this area re d from Industriat to the Radio Zoni istrict. Chairman Thompson opened the i mal hearing for pu�lic input. There was no one p�esent who wished to speak on item �n�" Chairman Thompson closed the informal public hearing. - . �` Chairman Thompson noted that the�fity Council on Ju 16, 1981 approved the waiver of the platting ordi�r.ance as recortxnended by the ning Commission subject to the proponenfE!� obtaining rezoning of the propose dio tower site to the Radio Zonin �strict. It was mo by Eastes, seconded by Singer and carried unanimously t�..recom the r ni,ng of 4680 Olson Memoriat Highway from Industrial to Radio for the prop r io tower site. IV. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT: APPLICANT: Independent School District �270 (Hopkins) , LOCATION: � 5400 Glenwood Avenue • REQUEST: Approval of Preliminary Plat of "Meadowbrook School Addition" Chairman Thompson introduced this item and opened the meeting to the Commissioners for discussion. Dr. John Young, Business Manager for the Hopkins School District, was present to make request. Stated that the School Board decided after the merger, about a year ago, that the Meadowbrook property specifically the Administration Building was surplus as far as the School property was concerned. The School Board then passed a motion to put the property up for sale. They discovered after they had gotten into this process that they had to go through a subdivision in order to sell off this piece of property that contained the Administration Building. At that time, they engaged the firm of Eagan, Field and Novak to drati•: the subdivision and submit to the City for approval . Also stated, that they are actively merchandising this property for sale and they have one prospect . The use would very likely be the same as it is now, a light office building. Chairman Thompson epened the informal public hearing for public input. Mr. Charles Clark, 5405 Glenwood Ave. was present and expressed concern with what would become of the property after the subdivision. Chairman Thompson closed the informal public hearing. • , Planning CortmissiAn Meeting of July 27, 1981 Page 4 � � • IV. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT: Con't �t was nbved bv Sinaer, seconded by Eastes and carried unanimously to approve the preliminary plat subject to: 1) Compliance with �ight-of-way requirements and recommendations of the Hennepin County Transportation Department. 2) Donation of land or payment of cash in lieu thereof for park purposes as required by Section 440:80 (2) of the City Subdivision Regulations. 3) Rezoning of the property from the Institutional to the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. V. INFORMAL� PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT: � PPLICANT: Dimitrios � Beverly Kottas `' ,,� � . LOCR�,ION: 1031 Pennsylvania Avenue .�Jorth REQUEST: ._ Approval of Preliminary Plat of �� "Kottas Addition" � - - Chairman Thompson introduced this item and opened the meeting for discussion • from the Commissioners. '`� 0 � . Mrs. Beverly Kottas, Proponent, T°042� Quebec Avenue, was present to make the request. Commissioner Eastes asked Mrs. Kottas whether she was aware of the following four reco-�:- mendations from the Planning D.i"rector regarding this preliminary plat. 1) That the Bassett Creek .Flood Control Commi�ssion reviews the plat; .,,� 2) Tha*. the MWWC force.main is properly located an� documented assurances that City sanitary sewer service can be provided�to both lots; �'ti= 3) That the flood �plain be clearly noted on the plat; an�},,� 4) That the pr,oponent inform the City of whether land will be onated for park and vpen spaces, or cash donated in lieu thereof. Mrs. Kotta,s'�stated that she was not aware of these reconmendations. e`' Chair Thompson opened the meeting for public input. There was no one p esent who shed to express their views on this item and the informal public hearin ,� was closed. • , _;�;=� -.. � _ • City of Golden Valley August 18, 1981 Mr. Lowell Odland, Director of Public Works Sub,ject: Proposed Meadowbrook School Addition, legal attached: In accordance with the policy of estimating the value of land involved in plats, platting waivers and P. U. D. 's, I hereby submit the following opinion: Based on my experience and recent appraisal of the subject, it is my opinion that a fair and reasonable value for the sub,ject as of this date is $68,1+00. • SIXTY-EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS Respectfully submitted, � � `2�/i=:�-, \ ROBERT H. HANSCOM � Senior Appraiser RHH:sn • �. Civic Center,7800 Golden Valley Rd.,Golden Valley Minnesota,55427, (612) 545-3781 � . B£ST Sc FLA_\'AGA=� ATTOR�ES'S AT LA�� . NARD B. LE�':IS I F{�-.!�T.R7 .i T�..�.^7: CAARItS �. BELLON S 4040 ID` C�E�7ER �' ]{r�h7�.R7� j_ �!:;,.... *H • �' C IiARLL� � �?I. ^ Jox� R CARFOLL Mi\XEAPOLIS.�IIX\ESOTA 55�103 r.,, :,,.- aTA.�iES D O:.�o� <<aTT 7-� ' .9RCHISALD SPF�CFR i612 :�39-71_] GEUHCA. �� ,T. • .._ ]�] ROBERT�I �7:!.F.l. E�•1USEiY}> �.�.?::�'� ]?i R073ERT L Crtiv�rr PwzRi�-r Y. ?'.<•�•, �. LF.O�ARD '�S.iUD��:�;'�� RoPE�zr F..f3:r:i or r�.. ._., ..":,�TEH �r:r,, August 14, 19 81 ��_��, ,:.. _ , . . i.r-.�>:}... ; .� _., ALLE� D F1?.R��N:. Ricsa�xn A.3'F71 Tt�c�•� Txo.+iws D Cwn:.�.� .Ja•.' . T-: . , �,.. , � FRA�h ��G�=I �SeRI7t7'S �5�.\AT S'1 7 i 7 '.. Jw+tb� C.Dnz.a,i, . ko»:.� _ !. i�.�. ., ,_. :In�tEr A I-iol:':,. t[ts, � : Mr. Jeff Sweet City Manager City of Golden Valley 78GC Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 Dear Jeff: As we discussed following the staff ineeting this morning, enclosed please find our opinion on the matter of individual liability and indemnification of inembers of advisory boards and commissions of the eity. If Mr. Thompson, or any of the other members of the • commission, have any further questions please tell them to feel free to contact me. Very trLyl rs -'� �/� .� . ,` ! Robert M. Skare RM.S;s 1 �David Thompson, Chairman Golden Valley Planning Commission Enc. • BEST 8C FLANAGAN � � AT?ORNEY6 AT LAW ` 4040 I D S CENTER - 1►'jINNEAPOLIS�i►'jINNESOTA 55402 . • ` MEMORANDUM TO: Advisory Boards and Commissions FROM: City Attorney DATE: October 5, 1977 RE: Individual Liability and Indemnification of Members of Advisory Boards and Commissions. I. Ger,eral Rules of LiabiliLy or Yublic Officials. A. Distinction Between Discretionary and Ministerial Acts. Even though the distinction between the performance of immune governmental functions (such as providing police and fire protection) and nonimmune proprietary functions (such as operating a water works) • has been abolished in Minnesota, so that liability now exists as to both, a distinction still remains concerning the performance by a public official of "discretionary" acts and the performance of "ministerial" acts. Public officials are not legally responsible for their discretion- ' ary acts, whereas there is no similar immunity for performance of ministerial functions. Thus when an elected public official exer- cises his judgment or c3iscretion in voting on a particular matter he is never liable to another person for damages unless he is guilty of some willful wrong. There is liability, however, when the law dictates that an act is to be performed ("ministered") in a pre- scribed manner, without the exercise of judgment, and the official • carelessly or purposely performs the act incorrectly thereby providing • the proximate cause of an injury to another person. In general it can be stated that hardly ever do elected public officials, and even less often do advisory board members, engage in ministerial functions. Virtually all of the acts of advisory board and commission members will fall within the discretionary category, and therefore are per se immune from attack which would result in personal liability to the individual board or commission member. The exceptions are noted in paragraphs B and C below. B. Willful Malfeasance. In the performance of discretionary acts about the only real area of potential trouble for advisory board and commission members would be that of willful malfeasance. There is liability for affirma- tive acts of misconduct and for deliberate acts beyond the scope of � a public officials authority. This is to say that if it can be pro- ven that an advisory board or commission member willfully and knowingly -- and not merely carelessly or negligently -- acted out- side his authority or in such other manner as to cause harm to another individual having business� with or before that board or commission then there probably will be personal liabilit}�. As an example, if . a member of the Building Board of Review were to go to a building site and order the contractor to take certain action, and the contractor believing the board member had such authority acted in reliance on the order to his ultimate detriment and damage, the board member who had no authority to issue such an order could be held responsible. • -2- However the courts have always held that where an action is taken by • a public official in good faith and within the scope of his authority, involving the exercise of judgment on the part of said public official in voting on or determining a certain matter, there can be no liability. C. Legislative and Administrative Immunity for Conduct During Hearings and Other Proceedings of the Commission. Generally speaking, members of elected municipal bodies are free to speak their thoughts at public meetings without subjecting themselves� to possible liability for slar_der, or for lib�l where their thoughts are reduced to writing. The same is true for members of advisory bodies and commissions. None of such persons, however, have an unrestricted or absolute right or privilege to make dero_qa- tory statements about others during such public proceedings. Rather they have been protected by the courts from legal responsibility , when their comments meet the following test: a. The statements are made in good faith and without malice. b. The statements relate to a pending matter within the scope of the board or commission's authority. c. The remarks are made at the right time during the actual proceedings so as to be pertinent to the exact matter at that moment being discussed. II. Indemnification. A member of an advisory board or commission can of course be named as a defendant in a lawsuit regardless of whether the allega- tions against him are groun�less. Generally when this type of thing occurs the commission or board member will not be sued individually • -3- but will rather be joined as a co-defendant along with other board • and commission members and with the city itself. In the case of a claim of libel or slander the individual board or commission member might be named as the sole defendant. In either type of case there is no automatic right of indemnification by the city for the individual board or commission member. As a corollary, the city has no absolute obligation to defend the individual board or commission member against the claims being made, or to indemnify such individual board or commission member for any judgment rendered against him. Rather the law is that the Council has the right, in its discretion, to defend and indemnify• any of its elective or appointed officials and employees where the Council determines that the acts complained of were performed in the course and within the scope of a person's duties and in good faith. • Often the cost of defending one 's self can be even more burdensor.ie than the prospect of the damages which might be assessed even if a court found in favor of the claimant. In the "groundless claim" situation however the Council could normally be expected to provide defense for the board or commission member because of the prima facie lack of evidence that the matter invo�ved actinq outside authority or acting not in good faith. By definition if the claim appears to be groundless then the advisory board or commission member must have been acting within the scope of their prescribed duties and in good faith. Even in those situations where there are grounds for a claim, • -4- . � � y • and a claim is ultimately proven and a judgment entered a�ainst the • city and/or advisory officials, the Council may determine that the acts for which liability were found were nevertheless performed in good faith and in the proper exercise and scope of one's prescribed duties and authority. If these elements of acting within the scope of one's authority and good faith cannot be found however then the individual board or commission member may find himself standing the cost of his own defense and individually responsible for a judgment rendered against him without having a right to indemnification by the city. III. Summary. An advisory board or commission member will generally have no liability to third parties for his judgment expressed either in the • �iscussion of or voting upon a particular issue before that board or commission so long as the exercise of such discretion is made in 1) good faith, 2) respecting a matter proper for consideration, and 3) without transgressing the guideline limits for libel or slander as set forth above. Furtherinore, to the extent that such exercise of discretion relates to matters which are properly within the scope of authority of a particular board or commission and are performed with- out malice, the Council has the leqal riqht and ability to determine that it will defend and indemnify the particular board or commission member against claims by third parties seeking damages for the alleged conduct of such members. It would be reasonable to expect that the Council would provide such defense and indemnification where it finds these essential elements to be present. • -5-