The URL can be used to link to this page

11-24-80 PC Agenda Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 1980 (Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road) 7:30 p.m. A G E N D A I . Approval of the Minutes - October 27, 1980 - November 10, 1980 It . Set Date for Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: Vantage Properties, Inc. LOCATION: 700 Xenia Lane REQUEST: Rezone from "Light Industrial" to "Industrial" III . Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLtCANT: General Mills, Inc. LOCATION: 9200 Wayzata Blvd. REQUEST: Rezone from "Open Development" to "Industrial" IV. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: General Mills, Inc. LOCATION: 9200 Wayzata Blvd. REQUEST: Rezone from "Open Development" to "Business and Professional Office" V. Request for Waiver of the Platting Ordinance APPLICANT: Lee Hickey David Johnson LOCATION: 1628 - 32 - 36 York Avenue North REQUEST: Waiver of the Platting Ordinance VI . Report on the HRA Meeting - November 6, 1980 VII . Report on the City Council Meeting - November 3, 1980 Vlil . Recommendations for Use of Year VII Community Development Block Grants IX. Review of the Guidelines for Development, Golden Valley Open Space System. X. Review of the Golden Valley Housing Policy XI . Rezoning Requirement Memo. � , , , , t � Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 27, 1980 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 7:30 p.m. on October 27, 19�0, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chairperson Eastes called the meeting to ord+er at 7:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners : Eastes, Forster, Polachek, Sehlin, and Thompson. Commissioners Edstrom, Hughes , and Specktor were absent. Also present was Martin Farrell , Assistant City Planner, and Dixie Peterson, Secretary. I. Approval of the Minutes - September 22, 1980. It was moved by Sehlin, seconded by Thompson, to approve the minutes of the September 22, 198o meeting, subject to a change in the motion made by Commissioner Specktor, to read, "seconded by Sehlin", on page 9• The motion � was carried unanimously. Ii . Report from the Olson School Reuse Committee. Martin Farrell provided some background information regarding the O1son, School Reuse Committee. Stephen Litton, 1850 Kelly Drive, Chairman of the Olson School Reuse Committee was present to answer questions. It was moved by Sehlin, seconded by Polachek, and carried unanimously to accept the Olson School Reuse Comnittee's report. � III . Preliminary P�at Review - Fredsall 's Addition. APPLICANT: Dr. Roger Fredsall LOCATION: 520 South Westwood Drive REQUEST: Preliminary Ptat Approval . Martin Farrell presented the Staff report and recommended approvat of the Preliminary Plat as presented. Corrnnissioner Sehlin questione d whether the road was to be private or to be maintained by the City. Commissioner Eastes noted that at least two of the lots did not appear to meet the 12,000 sq. fQOt requirements for a single family residence. � Commissioner Pplachek stated tfiat in the past they have approved other Plats with smaller lat sizes. , T Page 2 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1980 • Roger Fredsall , 520 South Westwood Drive, the proponent, addressed the Cortmission. Dr. Fredsall stated that all questions of titles should be cleared and all questions of surveys should be resolved by December. Dr. Fredsall also replied to Cormnissioner Sehlin's question regarding whether the road would be private or not and stated that he would like to dedicate tfie _ road to the City as part of the final plat. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Sehlin, and carried unanimously tb approve the preliminary plat for Fredsall 's Addition. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: Q. Petroleum LOCATION: 8950 Olson Memorial Highway REQUEST: Rezone from "Residential" to "Commercial" Martin Farrell presented the Staff report and recommended approval of the rezoning petition. � Commissioner Sehlin questioned the number of variances that would be needed for the proposed addition of the convenient food mart. Martin Farrell enumerated the nece5sary variances, and said they would have to apply for a "Conditional Use" permit if the service station were to add an additional u�e �uch as a convenient food mart. The Ptanning Commission would then have the opportunity to address the matter again. Commissioner Thompson stated that anything that can be done to improve the ingress and egress would be a great safety factor. Mr. Kevin Ganyaw, tP1e proponent, 1784 Jackson, addressed the Commission. The informal pubtic hearing was then opened to the public. Mr. Liss, owner of the property to the West, and the National Camera Building, stated that he, agreed with the rezoning to "Commercial", but stated the,re was a problem with the large semi-trailer trucks parking on his property and causing damage to his parking lots, and that he anticipates further problems with a food mart being placed on the property with the additional trucks that would be needed to service the mart. Mr. Donald Hoigard, 421 Hanson, stated the property was originally a residence and that the home was removed and replaced with a Shell station. He said the property should have been rezoned at that time. The informal public hearing was then closed to the public. Commissioner � Sehlin questioned the proponent on the problem with the semi-trailer traffic. a � Pa ge 3 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 1980 � The proportent' stated that he understood the problem, and that it should be alleviated wi'th the installation of the curb and gutter to clearly define the area for these trucks to enter and exit. At the present time there is not a clearly defined area for the traffic to enter and exit. It was moved by Forster, seconded by Thompson, and carried unanimously to approve the rezoning from "Residential" to "Commercial" for the Q. Petroleum property. -- V. Report on the HRA Meeting - October 14, 1980. Commissioner Thompson reported on the HRA meeting. VI . Report on the CitY Council Meetin s - September 29, 1980 October 6, 1980 October 20, ig80 Commissioner Thompson reported on the City Council meetings . VII . Planning Area One Citizen's Advisory Committee. Martin Farrell explained the function of the Planning Area One Citizen 's Advisory Cort�r►ittee, and suggested that the Planning Commission take an active role as far as making general recommendations as to 'how the Community • Development Block grant money should be spent for Year VII . Commissioner Sehlin volunteered to serve on the Planning Area One Citizen's Advi�ory Cort�ni ttee. Commissioner Thompson moved that the matter of recormnendations for the expenditure of Community Development Block grant funds be placed on the next agenda so that the members will have some time to prepare their recommendations , and to give those members who are absent this evening a chance for some input on this. The motio� was seconded by Sehlin and unanimously approved. At this time Chairperson Eastes informed the Commission about a course being offered by the University Extension on "Land Use Control". Any Commissioner interested in attending the meeting should contact Sue Eastes. VIII . Set Date for Informal Public Hearing - Rezoninq APPLICANT: General Mills, Inc. LOCATION: 9200 Wayzata Blvd. REQWEST: Rezone from "Open Development" to "Industrial" Martin Farrell explained that General Mi ) ls has again agreed to come before the Planning Commission, and requested that a date for an fnformal public • hearing be set. Chairperson Eastes asked for a comment from the City Attorney regarding her participation and that of Cortenissioner Forster in General Mills' items and � � ' Page 4 Minutes of the' Planning Commission Meeting October 27, lg$0 � whether this would be considered a conflict of interest. Martin Farrell replied that he has discussed this with the City Attorney on occasion and that there is not a conflict of interest , and if necessary, he could get written verification. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Polachek, and carried unanimously to set the informal public hearing to rezone from "Open Development" to "Industrial" for November 10. = IX. Set Date for Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: General Mills, Inc. LOCATION: 9200 Wayzata Blvd. REQUEST: Rezone from "Open Development" to "Business � Professional Office" It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Polachek, and carried unanimously to set the informal public hearing to rezone from "Open Development" to "Business and Professional Office" for November 10. X. Final Draft of Business � Professional Office and Conditional Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance. • Martin Farrell gave a brief explanation, and after some discussion, it was � moved by Thompson, seconded by Polachek, and unanimously carried to approve the final draft of the Business � Professional Office Section of the Zoning Ordinance. It was moved by Thompson and seconded by Forster, and carried unanimously to approve the new Conditional Use Section that will be amended to the Zoning Ordinance. XI . Open Space Report Chairperson Eastes read the letter from Mayor Thorsen and asked for any additional recommendations on the Guidelines for Development of Golden Valley Open Space System Report. It was then moved by Thompson, seconded by Sehlin, and carried unanimously to place this item on the next Planning Commission agenda. , Cortnnissioner Thompson pointed out that one of the Planning Commission recom- mendations has already been accomplished and that was the purchase of the Valley D,' ior open space parcel . � ' � + �I Page 5 I Minutes of the Planning Cortanission Meeting '�, October 27, 1980 . I I XII . I-394 Impact Study The I-394 Impact Study was presented to the Planning Cortmission for their information. Chairperson Eastes stated that the Council has asked the Planning Commission to attend the Novem6er 6 Council meeting, at which time there will be a - Public Hearing on I-394. - Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i Sue Eastes, Chairperson Dixie Peterson, Recording Secretary • • i f � Minutes of the Golden Valtey Planning Commission November 10, 1980 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on November 10, 1980 in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Due to a lack of a quorum, no official business was conducted and the meeting was cancelled. Those present were Commissioners: Forster, Hughes, Polachek, and Thompson. Commissioners Edstrom, Eastes, Specktor and Sehlin were absent. Also present was Martin Farrell , Assistant City Planner, and Gloria Rnderson. • � . ' November 17, 1980 T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Martin Farrell SUBJECT: Set Date for informal Public Hearing - Rezoning Vantage Company is requesting a rezoning of their property located at 700 Xenia Lane. The property is currently zoned "Light Industrial" and the request is to rezone to "Industrial". Attached is a map of the site. I recommend that the Planning Commission set December 8, 1980 as the date for the �nformal Public Hearing. � • isb.� � , t� �>+.6 Yt - ` � � I, i .. ' sj.9 .:/�t: � - :a: 5: a�. - , _ � ' . ' �RO$$RQ,�p ' � 5� :a i,�, 1 / � � •� _ __ � � ` _ .' S� � o ��8� � Q �� ' _ - '..` _ , _ i i �f� "' � V R � � � — I � '° � � � � _, ?I Q ' � �Zl� •-. � I � m I I .,' i /2 b - I � �� r ' �` � . '� � Q� o : • I I I ;;I,° � "' I S 2�" } a %' ^ o � _ c.I^ � •, a i ` � � o�,� � L�,1 � � ^��-� � a ,� E , � � , ... "' L I � � ' � �J._` r /►,�� z � � `J ( ` Y� I - � �` � °I� Y�N��G �.U�l�'Q��rCS �`,; � L ' . ; Clj'��'f� ZOiat�' �L �"L�.11.�►1� . , � 7�� ! ' �r. _20��►J�: " ,' �� eje. � 3: �-�. S ' � _ :�, �� s) �° ;1 C�3� � ° � =:� ,_:z��,_ � _9. � . ,�q�. s �� c�rwd . � � ��s3 ss, � � �f. �� ou - ' -+ _ __ F - T �. N, Y , � --- __ , , , �► � ' ► ;.' \�� + W � _ � �2) \�� . � i �'�) � \ i � I � 1y I \�� Y.• O ` P � U ' �� 'D� ` -�' I '�- ti I - �_ _ ,'°: ' 9I 1ti51 > � ; � • _ � J � �� — , � Y; ;, o ��,1 i h �. " t �\ '• ° � � '1 � I ;�1 ° �� ti � H � . QT� ;^ �., .�d o : N �. ; � r ��9 „ ��s. ,�e a ,� Z I •�n ��v� �s � '. 0 I `Vl , `�{.1 � `4� rJ �\\\�\`��\ •�' z i � J \�� ` \\ ' 7 e6 9 *,Q •,�• �� „ � � ,0 �� 6� \1 � `�\� � w - < � `� �'� �. � ' •'��5�c . ''6.,� s��'C31 �� i _' /ty�� ✓yQ � � .�> I :,, -- gso , � � . A , � ' 'e \ ' j,. � .�� ` . � � � : � �.``\\ � v ^ �1 � � �. � � `ry �� ` \`�`a 'L ,) � \ pOO�\ `� �r - .. ri `' /�JI� . C y. V' S/ �:.� • -- e� ��. ��p � __�°► .. � '` ° �,` �' . 'oc . �D �Y' �u - �ijb� , i � . _ .. �•, ��. :oq ? /,q} o:'' �. �, �c _� '� '•�t,, .� _ ` !-� � � �tio CZ1� �:�-: , ... ��., '� �� - . :,. - `� �a�� . . �sr �, �.,�a : ,� '�9ti�, �� 0� �� __ z. '��^.'�0 ��5' � (y��, �-�;a. c��gt ; � � �3'. .fi�1 �� '.,.''S , \ - .�• .�e , � November 5, 1980 T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Martin Farrell SUBJECT: Petition to Rezone - General Mills, Inc. = (9200 Wayzata Blvd.) BACKGROUND � ANALYSIS: The request which arTses on the part of General Mills, Inc. is to rezone approximately 30.3 acres of land currently zaned "Open Develop- ment" to an ''Industrial" zoning district. On September 22, 1980, General Mills came before the Planning Commission with the same request. At that time, the Planning Commission deferred action until the pro- ponent could provide the Planning Commission with a master plan for utilization of the subject property. Attached are copies of letters f rom General Mills, a copy of the minutes from the last Planning Commission meeting, and also a copy of the staff report for the original rezoning request. • RECOMMENQATION: The request is the same as the previous one submitted on September 22, 1980. I would like to suggest that the Planning Commission view this request from a strict land use point of view. I. also recommend that the Planning Commission give favorabte cvnsideration to this rezoning petition and recommend approval . � , i OlNERAL MILLB, INC. • EXECUTIVE O�FICES • 9200 Weyzate Bouievard • Minn�spolis,Minneaote �TANLEY V. TABOR �ee Pre�ident Gorporete Rsel Estete September 30, 1980 Chairperson Eastes and Members of the Golden Valley Planning Cotrnnission Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden ��alley Road Golden Valley, N�1 55427 Dear Cammissioners: As you are ati,rare, on September 22, 1980 the C�lden Valley Planning Co�ission voted to defer action on two General Mills, Inc. rezoning petitions, concerning its headquarters � facility, wltil a detailed master plan is produced by us. Flease be advised that General Mills, Inc. ha� no present intention to construct any buildings on the l�d covered by the rezoning petitions. Therefore, a detailed master plan, as you have requested, would be of no practical value to either the Golden Valley Planning Co�nission or to General Mills, Inc. Accordingly, we hereby ask that the Golden t�alley Planning Conanissican take action on the rezoning petitions as submitted by giving a positive or negative reconnnenda.tion to the Golden Valley City Cotmcil. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ,��.� l.� � �`�``-�.� svr:;m; y � . Mailing Addr�ss:P.O.8ox 1113.Minneepolis.Minn�sot� SS440 This is roeycltd p�ps*� ,� General Mills, l nc. ` General Offices Post Office Box 1113 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Real Estate Department October 28, 1980 Mr. Martin Farrell, Assistant Planner City of Golden Valley - 7800 Golden Valley Road - Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Marty: It is General Mills' intention to present to the Golden Valley Planning Co�nission on November 10, 1980 the reasons behind our rezaning requests. Mr. Stanley V. Tabor will be attending. Following is an outline of what will be covered: I. Rezoning South of Betty Crocker Drive A. Open Pevelopment to Industrial B. Reasoning: • 1. To conform to existing adjacent zoning and it would put service station into conformance - Housekeeping. II. Rezoning North of Betty Crocker Drive A. Open Develapment to Business and Professional Office B. Reasoning: 1. To conform with the City of Golden Valley's Comprehensive Plan which designates the area, except aroimd Bassett Greek, "L�mited Business". � 2. To give the world notice that sometime in the future it is likely General Mills will construct offices on the land. • a. (�II's space needs increase by about 11,000 sq. ft./yr. based on an increase of 50 e�loyees/yr. b. (�II's Building Growth: 1) 1957 - The Main and North Wings were canstructed, totaling 263,100 sq. ft. 2) 1965 - The West Wing was constructed, provid.ing an � additional 88,262 sq. ft. of office space. This ia roeycisd peper� Mr. Martin Farrell October 28, 1980 � Page 2 3) T968 - The East Wing, containing 70,600 sq. ft. of office space, was added. 4) 1980 - The West k'ing had six floors, totaling 120,000 sq: � ft. added on. c. Assurances that can be given to Golden Valley: 1) That (�1I will not construct anything to detract from our $35 Million investment. 2) That waste will not be committed on the property. 3) That in the case of any constructian C�1I kTill conform to zoning restrictions regarding such things as density, set- backs, height, etc. III. Why a Building Grawth Plan Does Not Exist A. Because the ways to look at and deal kzth space needs are constantl�� • changing with changes in upper management and its management style. 1. An ex�le - Previous manage�nt considered food operations at ' 9200 Wayzata Blvd. , with additional offices built behind 1tiTQ�. Then later it was decided to lease at Shelard Tower instead. Finally it was decided to add on to the �Vest lti'ing. I will be in touch with you later this week to check on any developments. Sincere�,y, ; j � : ; .� �,�� ` �. . Scott R. deLambert Real Estate Analyst SRdeL:rb i � � Page 2 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1980 � � Kit Nissum, Lindsay Street, questioned if the access road on Lindsay Street to T.H. 100 would be closed, as they were told at a meeting several years ago. Jeff Sweet replied that the State Highway department has asked that this access be closed because it is dangerous. The reason it has not been cTosed is because of the fire station. The City will pursue this and address the closing of the Lindsay Street access to T.H. 100 when the rezoning is discussed at the City Council meeting. Mr. Corcoran, 1015 N. Lilac Drive, questioned how many duplexes or single dwetlings are planned for the site. Martin Farrell replied that the City has no plans for developing the property, but simply rez�ning the property so that it can be sold. The property will maintain its residential character once the property has been sold. Jeff Sweet clarified that the City may not demolish the structure itself, but that it may sell the property and have the builder demolish the property. There being no further questions from the audience, it was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Sehlin, to approve the rezoning from "(I-4) lnstitutional" to "Residential" the property located on the northwest corner of Lindsay Street and the T.H. 100 frontage road, which previously housed the No. 2 Fire Station. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Specktor, seconded by Sehlin, that the Planning Cortxnission re- commend to the Council that they explore the possibility of closing the Lindsay • Street access to T.H. 100. Commissioner Hughes expressed concern that this may interfere with the neighborhood's access to T.H. 100 and asked how the neighbor- hood felt regarding this. Edstrom stated that these advantageous accesses to T.H. 100 are safety hazards and strongly urges that they be closed off. Motion carried unanimousTy. V. Informal Public Hearing - Reioning. APPLICANT: General Mills, Inc. LOCATION:•` 9200 Wayzata Blvd. REQUEST: Rezone from "Open Development" to "tndustrial" Martin Farrell presented the Staff report and recommended approval of the Reioning. Scott DeLambert represented General Mills, Inc. Cortenissioner Thompson questioned if General Mills has any plans for developing this property. Scott DeLambert replied that General Mil.ts has no plans at this time for developing the property. Cortanissioner Thompson also questioned plans for I-394 in regard to this property. Martin Farrell stated that a small portion of the property probably would be acquired, according to the latest MnDOT proposal . Commissioner Edstrom expressed concern that while t�ie property is zoned "Open � � ' page 3 ' Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1980 • Development" the City still has some control over the proposed use of the property. At various times General Mills has been asked to disclose what their plans are for that piece of land. Commissioner Edstrom stated he was reluctant to "clean up General Mills' housekeeping" without having the benefit of General Mills development intentions, even if they do not have any specific pla�s. Commissioner Thompson questioned the permitted uses that would be allowed on property zoned "Industrial". Martin Farrell responded to this. - Commissioner Specktor expressed concern for the natural areas on this site, which have been looked at by the Open Space Committee, and said they would be losing control over their responsibility of planning the best use of this property, if the rezoning is given now with no idea of the plans General Mills has for the property. Martin Farrell responded stating that only a small portion of the subject property was in the Open Space parcel and that the land was currently being used as industrial use. The hearing was then opened to the public. Donatd Ralph, 440 Decatur Avenue, stated he agrees that he woutd like to know the plan of General Mills before this is rezoned. He expressed his concern for the targe amount of traffic in the area that could be increased if this were rezoned. He also expressed concern for the amount of traffic that would be generated if ballfields were put on the property. Martin Farrell stated that • this petition did not involve the ballfields. There being no further questions or comments from the audience, the hearing was closed. It was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Specktor, to table Generat Mills request to rezone the 12.3 acre and 18 acre site from Open Development to Industrial . Roll call was taken: Edstrom, yes; Hughes, No; Polachek, Yes; Sehlin, Yes; Specktor, yes; Thompson, No. Motion carried. It was moved hy Eds�rom, seconded by Specktor, and carried unanimously, that the Planning Cortanission recommend the City Council request General Mills, Inc. to prepare a master plan for utilization of their property, before further consideration by the Planning Commission of General Mills request to rezone. Commissioner Thompson questioned if this request has ever been made to any other proponent, and whether they have the right to do this. Edstrom stated he feels this is reasonable, and recalls having asked the local hospital to provide similar plans. Specktor stated it is up to the Council to act on this recommendation. Martin Farrell responded that on one other occasion the Planning Commission deferred action on a rezoning for the Lundstrom rezoning from "Multiple Family" to "Business 6 Professional Office" until they provided a traffic analysis of the area. � � September 6, 1980 T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Martin Farrell SUBJECT: Petition to Rezone - Generat Mi11s, Inc. �9200 Wayzata Blvd.) ° BACKGROUND S ANALYSIS: The request arises on the part of General Mills, Inc. The request is for the rezoning of approximately 30.3 acres of land currently zoned "Open Development" to an "Industrial" zoning district. The address for both subject properties is 9200 Wayzata Blvd. and both sites are directly adjacent to the corporate headquarters of General Milis. Currently, approximately 12.3 acres located on the northeast corner of Wayzata Blvd. and County Road 18 are zoned "Open Development". For the purposes of this report, these 12.3 acres will be referred to as Parcel A. Also zoned "Open Development" are approximately 18 acres of land located directly south of Betty Crocker Drive between County Road 18 and the Brookview Golf Course. For the purposes of this report , these 18 acres will be referred to as Parcel B. • Parcel A does not have any structures built on it and General Mills does not have any plans for future construction on the site. There is a scenic pond and also a road that provides access to T.H. 12 situated on the site. The area is nicely landscaped and provides an aesthetic front yard for the main office building. Under the current zoning, the only allowable uses would be "Any building, structure, improvement or premises may be erected, established, altered, enlarged, used, occupied or maintained in the Open Development District under the provisions of,• the Zoning Code for the purposes permitted in the Residential -Distric�, under the same restrictions applicable to the Residentiat District." Given the present zoning, General Mills would be severely restricted if they ever wanted to develop the property. All the land to the north, east and south is zoned industrial . The western border of the property is County Road 18. The Comprehensive Plan call for "Limited Business" for both parcels A and B. Therefore, the requested rezoning would remain consistant with the surrounding land uses, as well as the Compre- hensive Plan. Access to the site is provided by T.H. �2. According to the latest plans for I-394, part of the site will eventually be taken for public right-of-way. Bearing this in mind, the probability of any future development on Parcel A is increasingly unlikely. � � ; Page 2 ` September 8, 1980 Memo regarding Petition to Rezone - General Mills, Inc. . Parcel B consists of approximately 18 acres and is currently the location of a service station and maintenance building. Currently, the structure exists as a legal nonconforming use. Rezoning the property would make the station a conforming use of the land. All of the land to the south of Parcel B is zoned "Industrial" and the property to the north is under consideration to be rezoned to Business and Professional Office. The Comprehensive Plan designated the property as a "Limited Business" area. Therefore, rezoning Parcel B would remain � consistant with the surrounding land uses, as well as the Comprehensive Plan. Part of the site is used as a parking lot and access to the lot is from Betty Crocker Drive. Betty Crocker Drive is primarily used for ' travel to and from General Mills and traffic is not a problem. Approximately one half of Parcel B was part of Parcel �4 looked at by the Planning Commission in their Open Space Report. Attached is the section of the report that dealt with the site. Parcel �4 includes the east section of Parcel B and the property directly east of the existing office building. At the time the Open Space Report was written, the City had no interest in acquiring the property. RECOMMENDATION: � • The primary reason for General Mills, Inc. requesting an "industrial" rezoning is to create a consistant zoning district with all of their property south of Betty Crocker Drive under one zoning category. Parcel B is already used as an industrial use. General Mills has no plans to develop any structures on either of these two parcels in the near future. 1 think that their rezoning petition is a reasonable request and recommend that the Planning Commission give favorable consideration to their petition. � . / //f// r . � � : �� s ' �rs , .`:t�i.. 1 n �. �� j#s##i e . , . .,. �.� . . 1! rA: • ar.�s� . �s�. � I �•:.. • M►� � � J.;;�/,��;"�. ��;�::7;�. i � � •• ��,y��t j��,�:� �y�.-v J� � 1p-rt:' 1 . � .� �•,�.�::� :��,s M .,�. ��.�.�,i� �.�7;. ..�.J.� ,) � .� ;•%, y:= � s. — , _1 �. : �:�:�';�, �� ;;.��;�, �_ / �� ,. . j ��1�. � �• ; • g}.:�•cf,1 l� �:. �. +i�` / �►#�t� ' 'r;• 1�'�.� N�.t�j' .t�.�� '`� \ �'s��>��, .� ) �+:�f�:,a ��'�.i..i �r a�y.lk. ,�. �� *��.:t: y�s..:}'-:�� ],+�� d-�, +i#y� '� :.'r��j -s�.�.,, ,.1:��1..�;' ' s�11' sl �Y�s�. • ..1�1,�' d.�:i: • Y �J,::l :� ••• :3':�,� •�:.j>.. �.. �?�," .�,e.. ?��si' �i `'�:S i�,�;�r..r�.i� :.J�y:. /� '#+:s - ��?�-J+'".f:.�l.� �;�^'�'•.t.1 :;y • r;j •`•'d i- 1+•�� . ��R��+ ,�1:d.ff .)1'`'!+7;/:'�' �- .•J.).Y.�'� \ ��i� .�.j�' ' I,.�;i�••�' '�t•�/f�:J:'. �* .��~.!J .,� ,' .� ',� • �.?i,s• ��';�.��•.�}?:�� ° :.�� '-'t.;?�!,�. ��; , - .�.: �;,� � �;j.�,i;i ''ti- + , . ,�..�. ,��.alv.-= `� �'.•'�."..j��i^'�� .:;:, �_3 �.�,�r.j �,�'`f �. j� ,_y�.:�, .t r•,?�;. .�1' �'.. :_J_ •,. �. t r;�. ,�j • �,i, '' ;;•,--�•�rt l �r.} :�:..-"':�►. ::..,l.:.r �z�', , :)��''.1�-�':'�'+•.�}" �'�-j.�• ' � �� .�r„a a.:vl�J• '•��"�!+�d��.} �� F1��c �,: _1','j�.. . ^ V / ��i( a`F�5 •'�,�,'!' : ��j'f ��'�? " �:3•':.;Y.j•, ;��;•.%, ;.aL�;.�;� ' _ � • •�y -. , :y• , � � •�'.; '• • '` • ,,:",, }';-' • �`�-I;;��1-}'�a�.�` • ' 1,.�'� . :rj..'fp.''� '� .'.:,�.iS.t�..�� .'`t�` ,.��,'.,.f _�..,.:�j ti �„�'-,a',j' "� ` : p •�.K�.�.al�� 1 : . ,,�•:r � • � �i� ' 'tij• •� •'��'.�1 i��J�j i: ��>,j�,� �-:%'�'.��;�, : i. ,��;_�;`�yj;.�,.;.��_;,:�N', .;•. �-J_f-_, � I,� - -': .:-.t�;�,r_i.�, :y;: `�3.i�.; j. +f':,� '1..I;1_.�.� •' • . . �,.�, �-� r�fi,-;r .1�.�;. .�11.��.�•' ��• ' Y •; . ':'f;,i�:!"`i;,�;'.',r:.:1, Yj•�. .: • . �•'; C�• � .�;�:,j,;��..,.i..3•.� : �. .i ? • .J` +�: :� �i'.af.) ` � •�k,l�,�j�ti+�'•..y..?��.+�`��i�Qi,J ":�•:�� . r.: '• . .tl.�ri�.. �a � - -.�:..�;� ' ��.i••% ..y;��.� •;a':" � t t�.+. ')::j.,.. J. . ,•�• j-;+,1�; ., a�c�L /� .1..:� .s :��.;:��;-�: .�.� � .,..�.��`�-��' .'�,•:�: ;:.`��.._ � . .f� .. — q . � l2 •3 �4C�ES �.a,�n►,,,;,',.� ?�: O J � M � O � � H — • � C�a�rr Zo�tt��,� o��l ti�L°�►� 'Rec��t�c.� `Z�t�►►nlc� � lt�l'Dt)S'�'�t�•Ir a � ' � OPEN SPACE REPORT • � Oecember 13. 1979 Pige 3 • RECOMMENDATiON: The area aiong Bassett Creek has a very high vatue�s a passive nsturat area. In view of the present stewardship of the land. it is felt that publfc acquisition wouad be unnecessary. However, the Pianning ConrRission does stt'ongly recortn�end that this property be included in a long-range Master Plan by �eneral Mtlis, Inc. along with Parcel �'2. �aRCE� �4 . d�d �+t �►( '8�'�'r`( C�OC�E� 1�i • n lyinp :outh of Parcel 13 ind e�st of the 6ener�i Miitc Mome Officts, this stte is � low. relatively flai tr�ct of iand. Again, no t�dication hes bce- recet�red by the City Officers as to the future developmenL status of tf�is property. � PROPFRTY �I�INERS�lIP: Generai Nilis� Inc. . ACREAGE: 43.31 AtCESSESSIBILITY (PL): doone Avenue Mofth • 6etty Crocker Drive T.N. 12 (vest bcur+d l�ne) • PRESEtJT 20NING: I�dustrial SURROUNOIN6 tANO USE: North • Open Developn�ent _ . South - Pub11c Mi�hway (Siate) E�st - Inttitutional Yest • Open Oeveiopn�ent, Industrial RECOMhtENDATiON: 6eneral Mills. Inc. has •gain indlcated thai for the time being it intends to �etain thts ,�ite as a passive neturat area. As with the previous two sites, the Plann�ng CoMnission does not feei the need for public acquisition. Hawever, when consid�ring the possible future development of this site, it be- comes even more imperative that the City Council request the development of a Master Pian by General Mills, Inc. in order to better judge future land use impact. , 'AAC— g__ � 1 lyinp sast of Vinnetka Avenue and touth of the Vatle D'or ta+nhouse devtiopaient, this site i� tocated between dedic�ted land to the eo�th�nd Ctty orn+;d iand to the south. The are� M c the potentiil to �erve the �ro�k- view It�creation area •s • ��utr�i axtsnston. The �tte 1� heaviiy MooQed wit+� iow t��rain and t�ol�ted ponds. � 1 q� � `i�� _ �A�-L� IJ. _ ti�.°..��--�� l(s�, � ��r. .��,�,a��=_�, �; ~� ' � �� '� -' •�• � �`-,�.I � � :��T-'.. \� - < ��y <-/� �s.-J,�,_.��.� �� :� � �.�. ' ! � ` i� ■ ( � _ '� i 1 :��i`- ---� # ��. _ � i �I�• �� - - �� .��1 ■ _ �� I� ��'� �T� ` . ��- � �� ,. ��, � - �� `'-'� ,� �,,��-� , � i � �� r u � � � �! i� �� '� � _ �� • ' I � �f�'� 1� � _�'��,��'� ��, ,� _ �� I ��i'q�;� �iR� � ��:g�� - • �'�� — ■ ° •;' s� � .�1�� _�4±� � ��, �` ! '� �;� ,_ � ; _ �.��.�� ii�y 3 _ '�k'. �'i',�� y.ri� ' � � �\`�''�''.:.a .7TlS�f� '�_ � L_ _ '� - �R��4� � y _ . �-��i�:�I 0� —"_ — � \ � ��1 � �� /II1 � ' _ ' '_ � .� 1�Y� :311 � 1 �� '1� � { •L 4_ `� � '� 4',� - ��' — : � +-� i�� '� -''�l� �� - �. ��. � , , ""°"` _ � � �� Y ''-'� r �,�•�;''� I� �'�`��' ,.. �� _ �:� ��:�N _ _+,� �� _ �� U" ! +- - •'i;� - , !i� er•�. � � �� '��.. ��- �� `.B!►� _ '�n� � ,�L � '�� `�� - �� — • �1 � � � � :'� _ ��1_ � _ ��_ ^' ` ' _ F _ � 3`��' � xT� ° r � �� - e � :� � '.� -� .� � - ��. . �•4� _- �<�: � r,��_ � 1 � f� y'��.IIR �� ' '� j �� `I� � �r.�.:� � . - - - �!��1►' ��-�\ -��g[� ��1 w ,� t fi� ��!J�� •.'"', '�\: -_� —`—`r—� ,�;1 .� y,. � � I[ i�'7�—IL� � ��, , .(�—L_� '�� i _ �� ` � '� �!��`�'— -��l.l�'�'_ - - ��' � � � { � ��w ��'� �r :�� . � ��•�� t �� i,, - �1�,i�v;� _� ��. � � � --. �' +�_ ,� f� �� ' .�u„� 1 � ;a;;+u i� � . � ' � �L _��s�iy�-n'r��C�, �_��. � 'w�' ,q '�'� J�'�..� ��}- �(�,,,w�-.�`.D�+��.`.,�i+trrf� ��1=.L'�' .�. �' ��_1T r��i �_-..,��-- ,It _ > �ut�i - - � °�'!- �� !' � - r.�'�=�p i� � n��"""S�`�"g��h�\ 'j ,� ^ _�-� �t i� ii K � �` 2 ' ��'�.� � - ,� _ � t �'' `��i�� tf �' _ ��-,.�� t��- -`"��- -��-+� ; "� � ~ _ �:ii�ld� `��_ - �i�l�'I �� a �1►�' _ —�'� - _ ��,�, . � �� - '�� - � '��- � ; �� ji � � �. ,; � �'�,.� _ �� ,�� . ":��:'.'�;1%�I�;:, � ��-- �i+t�S=S�� .�` _ � � � �� , � � I!IIIIIII� , ;�.�, i,,,s� �,�� i��i ii;i��i�i i i i i i�i� ;,��;�c�, .� � November 5, 1980 T0: 6olden Valley Planning Commission � FROM: Martin Farrell SUBJECT: Petition to Rezone - General Mills, Inc. � (9200 Wayzata Blvd. ) BACKGROUND S ANALYSIS: The request, which arises- on the part of General Mills, Inc. , is to rezone approximately 39 acres of land currently zoned "Open Develop- ment" to a "Business and Professional Office" zoning district. This request also came before the Planning Commission on September 22 , 1980. Action on this request was also deferred because General Mills , Inc. did not supply the Planning Commission with a master pian for future development. Attached are a copy of the minutes from that Planning Commission meeting, a copy of the origtnal staff report, and a letter from John Brenna, the Director of Parks and Recreation, regarding the future use of the subject property. • RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission give favorable considera- tion to the rezoning request and further recommends approval of the rezoning request. SPECIAL NOTE: Before the Planning Co�nmission begins discussion on this rezoning petition, there are tw� facts that should be made clear: 1 . The proposed rezoning request shall be viewed based on the existing Business � Professional Office zoning district . Ballfields ar� not a conditional use in this zoning district. Therefore, if the property is rezoned, the use of the ball- fields on the site would not be allowed. 2. If, and when, the proposed Business � Professional Office zoning distri�t is adopted by the City Council , a ballfield would be a comditional use. General Mills would then be forced to corr� back to the Planning Commission for a conditional use permit. Therefore, the use of ballfields on the site should not be a topic of conversation at this time. � � . City of Golden ValOey Me�norand�en To t Marty Farrel) From s Oi�ector of Parks and Recreation Date a September 12, 1980 Subject : General Mills Athletic Ccxnplex At present, General Milts has stated that they would deed a portion of their prope�ty for pafk purpases for an athletic complex and an ertq�toyee �etreation area that would be located on the corn�r of Highway #55 and Highway #18. Until such time as a zoning cha�ge can be accort�plished, and � a public hearing car�leted, we are in a status quo m�de. .�� „ s____ _ ' , J hn L. Bre a D Park and Recreation Department JLB/9 � �, Civic Center,7800 Goiden Vailey Rd.,Golden Valley Minnesota,55427, (612) 545-3781 .'� , Page 4 � . Minutes of the Planning Cortmission Meeting � September 22, 1980 � VI . Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: General Mills , Inc. LOCATION: 9200 Wayzata Blvd. REQUEST: Rezone from "Open Development" to "Business � Professional Office" Martin Farrell presented the staff report and recortxnended approval of the - rezoning. Commissioner Thompson questioned who is to develop the baseball fields , the City or General Mills? Scott DeLambert replied that four baseball diamonds , a volley ball court, and a track are proposed, and will be paid for by General Milis. The City of Golden Valley would maintain these on a lease situation that would most likely be set up for ten years., At this time the hearing was opened to the public: Don Ralph, 440 Decatur, commented that they have just one road for getting in and out of the area and was concerned with additional traffic being generated. Marilyn Gorden, 2101 Marquis Road, referred to the area being in a flood plain and commented that a low income housing project was built across from County Road 18 in a flood plain. � Kath Kozar 9147 Hi hwa 55, questioned if the ball y , g y park were to go in what , other access would there be. Pat Freund, 9145 w. Highway 55, questioned what General Mills plans were for the foot traffic that would be generated by the ballfields. Woutd people be walking across the condominium property to reach the ballfields? Martin Farrell suggested that the Planning Commission was losing sight of the situation. The bal.}fields are a concept. Items being addressed now would be addressed whe� it comes in as a conditional use. The question at hand is whether or not the property should be rezoned to "Business � Professional Office." Annette Kronin, 9145 Highway 55, questioned why General Milts has made several inquiries into buying condominium land if they have no plans for the area. Leo Mullen, lives on the property bordering the 3g acres, and stated he has enjoyed the wooden area and the good times in the past as a neighbor to General Mills and hopes they do not end now. Cflmmissioner Hughes stated he agrees that open areas are nice but that owners have the right to develop their own la�d, but he would like to have a specific development in mind before 39 acres of land are rezoned. It was moved by Hughes, seconded by Sehlin, to deny the rezoning from "Open � Development" to "Business � Professional Office", a 39 acre site of land located directly north of Betty Crocker Drive, based on the fact that it has been submitted without a specific proposal for development. , . Page 5 , • Minutes of the Planning Cortanission hleeting September 22, 1980 � Commissioner Specktor asked if Commissioner Hughes would withdraw his motion so that this rezoning request could also be tabled, and request a master plan for this rezoning, as well as the previous rezoning request by General Mills. Commissioner Hughes stated he would not withdraw his motion. Conmissioner � Edstrom stated he supported Cortanissioner Hughes motion. Commissioner Thampson made a substitute motion that the Planning Commission defer action on the rezoning and request that General Mills provide their _- development plans for this property. The motion was seconded by Specktor. The motion was carried. Commissioner Hughes voted against the motion. VII . Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: H. I . Enterprises LOCATION: Southwest corner of Winnetka b T.H. 12 REQUEST: Rezone from "Open Development" to "Commercial" Martin Farrell gave a brief staff report, and recommended approval of the rezoning petition, but voiced his objections to the proposed project as a gross over use of the site. He advised the Planning Commission that favorable consider- ation of the rezoning request does not mean approval of the proposed project . � Mrs. Beverly Kottas , the proponent, addressed the Planning Commission, and entertained questions. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Polachek, and carried unanimously to appr�ve the rezoning petition to H. I . Enterprises, 7921 Wayzata Blvd. - VIII . Concept Plan Approval - P.U.D. 30 APPLICANT: Henry Hyatt LOCATION:= Mendelssohn Avenue North REQUEST: Concept Approval for P.U.D. 30 Martin Farrell gave the staff report, and recort�mended denial of Concept Approval for P.U.D. 30. Henry Hyatt, the proponent, addressed the Planning Commission and entertained questions. Mr. Hyatt stated that he requested to be heard before the Plannina Commission to discuss the general use of the property, and that this is a very preliminary concept plan. It was never his intent that this be proposed as a plan for development , but rather as a talking piece to discuss the generalized use of the property. Mr. Hyatt stated that they had heard from various sources that there has been an interest in potentially looking at this plan as it links to the Gallant's defaulted P.U.D. He stated he was not comTng before the Planning Cortunission with a specific ptan for a specific development. Mr. Hyatt stated � he was before the Planning Commission to see if there fs a desire to have some form of assisted housing on this site. � September 12, 1980 T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Martin Farrell SUBJECT: Petition to Rezone - General Mills , Inc. �9200 Wayzata Blvd.) BACKGROUND � ANALYSIS: The request arises on the part of General Mills, Inc. The request is for the rezoning of approximately 39 acres of land currently zoned "Qpen Development" to a "Business � Professional Office" zoning district. The address of the subject property is 9200 Wayzata Blvd. The site is located directly north of Betty Crocker Drive. General Mills, Inc. corporate headquarters are located to the south of Betty Crocker Drive. Currently, the 39 acre site is vacant and zoned "Open Development". Bassett Creek runs through the south end of the site and there is a scenic trail running along the creek. It is General Mills intent to leave the creek �in its present form. They also do not have any plans for corporate expansion on the property at this time. General Mills, Inc. has discussed the possibility of entering a lease agreement with the City of Golden Valley that would • allow the construction of four baseball diamonds on the west end of the subject property. Under the proposed "Business � Professional Office" zoning district , baseball fietds would be a conditional use. However, before the baseball fields could be built, General Mills would have to go through the application process for a Conditional Use Permit. The surrounding land uses vary a good deal . The area south of Betty Crocker Drive is zoned "Open Development" but is being petitioned to be rezoned to "Industrial". The actual use of the area to the south is and has been industrial since 195,7. County Road 18 borders the west side of the subject property. Brookview Golf Course is directly east of the site and is zoned "(I-4) Institutional". The property to the north is diversely zoned into 4 different zoning districts. Starting at the west end of the land north of the subject property and moving east, the land is zoned "Industrial", "Multiple Family (M-1)", "Residential", and "Business � Professional Office". If the site is rezoned, then the setback requirements would have to be met according to each zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan designates the majority of the subject property as "Limited Business" with the exception being the area around Bassett Creek. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area around Bassett Creek as "Natural Area". Therefore, a "Business S Professional Office" zoning district would not be � Page 2 � September 12, 1980 Memo regarding General Mills Petition to Rezone inconsistant with efther the Comprehensive Plan or the surrounding land uses. This particular site was looked at by the Planning Commission in their Open Space Report. Attached to this report is a copy of the Planning Cort�nission's report regarding this site (Parcel #3) • General Mills plans regarding the property have not changed since the Open Space Report was written. _ One of the major drawbacks to the site is that the majority of the site is in the flood plain. If, at some future date, General Mitls does wish to develop the site, a great deal of soil correction would be necessary. Also, any development within the flood plain would require a Special Use Permit through the Board of Zoning Appeals. RECOMMENDATION Originally, General Mills, Inc. �equested that this property be rezoned to "Industrial". The reason for this request was so all of their property in Golden Valley would be under one consistant zoning district. After several meetings and consultations between General Mills and City staff, the rezoning request was changed to "Business and Professional Office". This use would be more acceptable and more consistant with the surrounding area. I do not see a problem with the rezoning request. General Mills has stated that the � only plans they have for development in the near future are the ball fields. It was the City of Golden Valley that requested the recreational use of General Mitls property originally. Also, any future development would again come under scrutiny by the City through the flood plain ordinance. Given the aforementioned considerations , I recommend that the Ptanning Commission give favorable consideration to the rezoning petition. � , ' _ ..•�� t••:wc�+�•••� ^?' F VLtYOU?M �iTr 0 cn. ti � ,,•, :4_ _y-��' ,.�'.i.s. 'T—�y�� na�� . .M�.�'! ' . �co,.s. � t . c.i;�, � ' r `,� ,'•• s ca°E" `mu �r�� e � f � •►(,�aM , �� ^ � �Y�� 'r4� w ,t'�r • �t t � �i � , . • �. �k I ' � r• ' �t'• v► - ! ��;r.. o s � � �� fi*r� � i. � ` � �� , �� j �. " � � J ` � '� o� � � \ . � `�� 't \ • � • , '� •� - • N:1 ' �'' � \ �`� \ y`: � ,� �Y. •,'° '' ` `>\ r-�0�• / -�!' ,✓.� � �, / ` • ��i \� � \ .s � : - ' ` � � s. �� o _rr • y ,,\D�O' \ \ r \ '� '' , � .Kr ^ C l�� , �h � � 1 • \ � \ J _ L"� ,v " _ `\ `\.o \ \ � � _ �1�• • 'C1. � G \ \ 1 - `i � ` . o G � \ 5 °��, '��?y ,�.. �� ♦ � � rv �, ` � � �le � C �n � q `� � �� ,` � � , N �� 1 � d '` f `,\ �3� \ ' -, - , : �\ N ,� `� N � � L _ ;� — - - - - ` - �5 � � • : � - � .� m G �-- � • �� j ``� y , � � : _ J � �. V •• ~ \ ' — � � ' I � _ � \ y{ � • � •'� M�,1 '��-_ � \ �� • o :: r y�' �C Y -------------� '�tr: i• �T � �__. - - w -------�- � , _Mic � g ao�'l �''e. . r - � a i � � ��' =�v _w y • • .. o � 1 � . �� " . .. o t 1 �_ �� ` ��5; ! tl1�� 3 � ,•�i { • - • • � • � � o i !b,�'" . - � \ ars i aso � s�_• � ,H� w� � ��i . ° �1 . � _ �- --h .. W l �� Sbi Y- a � \ \ \ \ I� rE1�IGN AVEs" �K •;;.,E;: �, �,1 ... , : -'M+ '� \ \\ \` , \ . r � ' .ro te u • . ... , .--.." • u y ,�� Y � �„ " � :� p Y �• � � � u.n �o e -.� . ' =� � � : *•� \ ' � :e��•�. �rus; � �, � �` \\ �� 'Z �• Y •L O �.e O ti � \ ` \ ,�,..:: � ` ' e � � ; .cn.�1 i �a ,� ;o • N i 1�l� �/ r` � , \ `` ``\ \ \ �J i �� i i � ` . `� (� `� '� " ` I ee -- °' � � \ �� V \ \ � � _•� ° � M � � O; •'' '\ �!�� < � s 'S:�D • \ � aD a� n� ' �: � �• : � \ •� � � (t1ft� �J! 4if •• �0 .\ � ` oar- J . ��is ' � � .i♦ _ .. . . ..., '� • ! \ \ \� � � � _... . � \ � �'>++.cOECATUR AVE: ,,� ��c s - _� ��' , ',� `•� � ` `•� f Pi a • a . � � - l..,f�J4 � .t \ .� �\ .� 10! 116` �M I!t ND . 'i I y � \ � N \ s • = • e � � _ �x `� � � • • ' ' s � , � ` `� `\ \ M � ' " f'�n � ♦.�.+ � \ M �W wi \ \ ! N�� t V r+ty I �` � � � � e e \ �y \ �� : `, � I � r ` ' . -_- ° .' ',r ' .: ...:� ,: ��--''�z- -�`� ° IOONE �,;a �-:��:, AYE. N. ° � . ,,. �•�fik6� � J. • z H � -' 1 ;. � � , ��. t , 1 o� � � . � ' �, �� r �' �� x q � ^ r. i V ° .. � . OPEN SPACE REPORT , . Gecember 13� 1979 • , Page 2 PROPERTY OI�MERSHIP: A. Mary Y. Prazak B. General Milis � ACREAGE: A. .88 B. 5� .77 ACCESSIBILITY (Pt.) : A. Ensign/Ouluth _ B. Flag Avenue North - llaper Str+eet �. PRESENT ZONING: A. Industrial ' B. Industrial/Business b Professtonal Office SURROUNDING LAND USE: A. North - Residential South - Industrial East - Residential Mest - Restdential/Institutional RECOMMENDATION: Future tand use decisions relative to this large tract of land will have a very significant impact on the stabtlity and quality of the surround- ing neighborhoods. The owner of this parcel, General Milis� Inc. , had indica�ed to the Planning Commissfon that they have no immedfate plans to further develop . this property. It is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that: A. General Mitis. Inc. continue to maintain the cur�ent open space status of the northern portion of Parcel l/2. � B. Wtth respect to long-range planning considerations, the City Council should request that General Milis, Inc. pre- pare a Master Plan for the development of this property, submitting such plan to tfie City for review and comment as welt as fo� inclusion in the Ctty's long-ra�ge camprehensive planning strategy. � � PAR C E L #3 • A'�El I�Io'L f�l oj �E'f'I`� ��K'E� ��. �. � Lying within the �outhwest quad�ant of the City this site affords to the Community a very att�active open space. Presently, no security practices have been implemented by the owner and no immediate plans to develop the . site have been indicated by the owner. Again, as in the case with Parcel A'2, a trail runs through the property adjacent to the Bassett Creek corridor. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP: General Mills, inc. ACREAGE: ' 39.18 PRESENT ZONING: Open Development SURROUNOING LAND USE: North - Residenttal . lndustrial,=6usiness/Prof. Office • South - Industrial � Public st�aet • East - Public St�eet. institutfonal . Mest - Public Highway (County) � '1g8 �• �.__�� . L� IJ i�_._ �i.��7'�y,—�� (! e ��, •��=�=x��=_==�S` �� . (�j �. � � .�• ► ��: � �� /` b��;��.. :�, � � � � _ ; ��'f�• � �3.-=��=�=�r� ,� � � �� ,�;�� •_�� -*.—*—��. I+ - � .� � �,. --��. �= ,�� - -� _ ___t �� ,� _� ,� � �� ,� � � - �T� � ��- � , _, �� ; - ;�_;R ..��L , � -��,y . � � �i��- ��J `� �� • /� �f � ,�„l . �-{ ' �:�� 4 ��' �,�g I ��'`3',�- �' -(LJ��'�4 � �- - .� '�R�iKp• —,'� . ,�� . -y �=�°�9� • �� - „��s� �r44�i��_ � � j....-f�s. � i�_ � . ' ��, _ :�,,1� ��, ,� �. __ ,�,. .. — �T.,,-�-�� „� ;r.. I� � �.�-,T� ��. � � �,��I�._ �` � I . � � � �� i �c� — — i ■ C - � `1 - -� - _ _ _'- -- -��1�� i+� � j � '� � �� I �� _ ._. . �, � �� : . � � ��.�L ,�,...,_. �+ ;�� , t - "m°` `�!!4�.1� �#A�._:., i,,, .-�--I - ; - .r � �� '� ��;�� - � � �. ��.�� '�`� � :�`i ;;,I�� — _#_�,� ,yy _ _ � ,�'�� _ ��I,�•_��-,��-_`� ��.dt+.� _ � �'- �t � �'° �-�! ' ',� �`''�. _ ��_ � ��,,�y� ' r� �"� - # ' � .r�6.� - � • .� ' � ' �� ■ `� r � t�`r.'T. '� ' C'��i .� ' . ' � ` ','-7�� `�I�-� :� ��- a T '�� ,�,,�� -�'I� f .�I�a�. � - -- - ��: rj� ��I,� + '�� ,�., -_�� _y.. r - - ; � �i�� il �� , �, � � - � � ��:�� , � = - _ ,��A I �'�� *�. , �"� �� -� �� '�i. �.:; ' � �`� � � ��. i� _ �/ ��o� � � \� � � �+ .� �� —� _` �� _�•.�. -- - �, ,, .., �� = � - � __�.�.. .��.�,J�.�. � _ _ _ �_.�'.=.� � '"��,.�ilo'��,. ' - �' � ��__T� i��-�;.F =-�� ' r > � L � - — �4'�� ;:��.y�`v�r�`1��\ �� ^ �� - . L, � i,�� --�— �. '_ 1r� � �,, �. ��:\ - ' ,,,y;- f�_�� '��. �ne:, �t--�F��_� �� a�. ��`��--,��=- f � � ��.��:�`l�_. �...�i'� �� ' a � _ � �.. �. _ �� . �\ �-� �� . ' . ��, ;' , _ , ,� , �� ''_ -� � �� _�� ,. .� '..'��;'�%:��:� ��C�r —�-�y.�.�,•�\�ivaat�., . - � - � ii '� i i � � # - � I!IIIIIII� , ;.�� i,.�., �� i��i1ii,i�i i i�i ii i i i ,�,��,� �� November 18, 1980 T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Martin Farrell SUBJECT: Request for a waiver of the Platting Ordinance BACKGROUND � ANALYSIS This request arises on the part of a Mr. Hickey and Mr. Johnson, who are adjacent property_owners on the 1600 block of Xerxes Avenue North-in Golden Valley. As. the proponents, they are requesting a waiver of the Platting Ordinance so that they can divide Lot 17, Block 5, McNair Manor. Mr. Johnson owns Lot 8, Lot 16, and the north part of Lot 7, and would like to extend this property through to York Avenue. This would involve purchasing the north 20 feet of Lot 17. Mr. Hickey, who owns Lot 6, Lot 18, and the south part of Lot 7, would also like to extend his property through to York Avenue. This would involve the purc�ase of the south 30 feet of Lot 17. Currently, York Avenue does not extend far enough south to reach Lot 17. • The City has no plans of extending York Avenue. The only access to Lot 17 would be from the proponents' properties on Xerxes Avenue. Also, the proponents do not have any plans of building on Lot 17 .at this time. The request for this lot d.ivision is to keep the rear properties consistant with the front lots on Xerxes Avenue Nort�. - Attached is a copy of the survey of the lot division, RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the Planning Commission give favorable consideration to this request for a waiver ofi the Platting Ordinance. � • z � �_ m o � �E��E Na• _ � � � �, < K A _ n a .� � � Y�R .,�:,¢�,,_ ..�oo - - ,.,,, cn m cn z � o ' ° �°�g 6� -- � � Q o o — �,3 ---. ' � � < � � M � .� �p.�'§� , �� y.�i b�i �d mt� � � � � � � � , a.t7 09. . w �C � eD � � d /� ,1 �' O r. � '� z ^► =k � � � � � N o � _ - c � -� � _ � � '� �°' °' ' 2„-- - �c n � � � s: eo c+ � e-� _. - = o -+ ^. f9 � - - _" -- ^' _ - v o _ - ° ? s •• D ._ _ . - �. c° �' 3 � � � n - - o _ _. o � — s - Q G7 � _ ^� !D Q A = tn � y � �..� z' � -_ "7 y� _ � v C _- � � ' 1 c � - �, � O .+ A • � 3 v� c� x � ` � 4t =n N � �:yY V1 � � � � O = �o � � `° o z tu `^y ° � � .+ p VE C .-. °' 3 O N � � � `D cc z � S fD � 0 n z ..► � 0 N O V � Q m� �`� w °, oA aa � � � � °m �'� � fD N � +ai w �. 0 No �, '�*'' i � � - V u -� � � � � � W Q m °. � — . � .c .� ..�i "' � ' .�. � i �. � � ? �, .=, � � v, _+ � z c eo - 9o's� �J� _^.� � �, Z � 5Q.f0 . m� co - e� - --- O� TI "r W Z d � N _ N Q �• �' C � � c m �; - -- r � 'r � cv I � -t v+ m �-•� , < D < ' � ^;" �o � 3 � '�I, .� st� o � � � o Z = o��`- � z o' °_', � _ �I N � d 1 � �.--' fD z; � � d 'O O D � 7 7 • � O � �'s f� �Oi � p OI „ . y = C M:I � �p � � 07 � � ^ � � nnn\ ■� "' a z � � � t■■ : ; � - -• -• � � � _ _ � ' � c, _ � O N � C � A d � fL �G fD d �.- .r�.ir �y — p = ;;�c,�' � �.. '.r"; - - . �� ;� ` « roa�C�o � ° .s �'�, .�'i ° � �� , . `'' ,t�, '�s � . 1�4 � , w� , ' / �s aia /� ,�1, � L ••; � � ��4. � p .� =� N . . % ````�O•c'' ` �� ° p ��`, �',,�t ! � --'i y� � '�� y� � a ��' -:�' /-�+6 �c ` 6 �ro � i -^� /.. `a� � � a .�-s o y,tiT� ;�1 S (��,� .'bo T � ._ -d, . • t ,� � � /', •�. •�+ �\', �� '� ,bo� � � y� Yff��'4 3� �,r �+, ,� � � � �, � � { � . i�'� tM�� ' � � .� �.` �� '��'i� - 'bs' ��o:es. '�'� �--- `� � i�.� i � \`� ?r S � - '� �'�� 4 ` �i�!'j' Y�� `� � � �_� '� • �S." � ,Qw � '�� " � o `r�� " �_ .♦ +' i ,�L•�r•�•r •j� ,��n 4' � � `�� : ••��` i '`r �S • F' ,` � . :�, '7 � � V tP +� �1,t.��„ � '.9�� •- "�/.4 e :, yo. �,s_ � 0' ` a��- a� , m � N !�t � ' � rn �� ` $ t► � N� �' .�� S � $'v. a o � � . � ,!► ��' .m � -_�1�-- m � \ `� � �� w -- �_ M ��• �+'� � ��rs'LZf + '-- .s W -"i� y�� 1,../ - s �' _-----�as.7°_r � �Ns ° --_�°� ! _� w - � �, m e �'� e •w � �r w . ; 9w �' _ � p ; a+ , ; �� ----�-°.S_- � .-�'_-- ' v �e .� •. w O� ------ Y .o D w u � . y , G w ,• N I A?�r _ .��w_ O 1 �� A � r, '° � � - a �, ----w---�----=i- � � o �p�► `-� �" � �� .. � s �'� o� � � �s• � °v w � ( w ° l�4--�� T!'� o 1 2 •_i!:-SS � � M N � ,� �d y�l�' ° g 6 � � p !° Zn� o, • � � r. IeLI IV � ; �N9 �,'� W „'�:NiOi��•��' t� p � , ' W � ` Z � A �o O • b C ' W �a t° � ° � �S O � �1a, �p�,`y r� � E1vv� l-�P�C Y .g - - --135�o L� G �9t `�^�� a��"� � __/2Z4� _. y �A�YI 4.s Ai �, !'`Kt�.'(: � \ � * � � ~ �� C ` !/9 � ` A � � `} � -- � �• u� ~ O `1 � - Il0.9 ` 110_9 r I p �6 ': � � �� °� __-�_ Zns.F __:. � � -- w . \ 1 v, --.L9�°-`�s--- 1 � N �Pa^�. � , '\� � — ~ � 33 ` � — ----- � � i �' � � � � ` �ia�cl•rac.2•�-t o �\�— , 1 � "� � � \7� I p �G H � ` � � i � aw 1 � ` � � ' � �J) � � o�� u: ____._./ S �.. � �� 'o � . November 5, 1980 T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Martin Farrelt SUBJECT: Future Use of Community Developrt�ent Block Grant Funds Staff is currently in the process of applying for Year VII Community Block Grant Funds. Attached is a copy of the tirr�table which indicates that the City Council wilt conduct a public hea�ing -r-eq�es-ting citizen input into the future use of the CDBG funds. I thaught it would be appropriate to request general recommendations from the Ptanning Com-' mission before the City holds these public hearings. Also attached is a copy of the Comprehensive Strategy established by H.U.D. for the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program. If you have any � suggestions for use(s) of these funds, use this strategy as your guide- line. � ��_ .�� , I a�--••,r��-I".1 i � Augus' 22, 19�0 l`- : ' �:�;' Partici��ant Comnunities/Planning Area Citizer� ndvisory Corr�nittees � Hennep�n County � � UR4AN NENNEPIN COUNTY YEAR VII APPLICATION " SCHEDULE Ttie following time table for development of the Year VII Urban Hennepin County has been prepared and is being distributed pursuant to Hennepin County's respon- sibilities as set forth in the joint cooperation agreement. � � - a � � September 20� 1980 Cooperating corrmunities appoint individuals •, „ to serve on the Planning Area Citizen Advi- sory Comnittee. October 4-December 1 , Cooperating comnunities conduct local �ubl��c 19aa hearing(s) for input on developr�ent of Year VII Comnunity Development and I�ousing Assistance programs. : Decenber 10. 1980 Cooperating cort�nunities subm9t preliminary Year VII Cortmunity Development program and �' Housing Assistance Plan to Hennepin County for distribution to Planning Area Citizen � Advisory Comnittees. � Decer�ber 15, 1980- PACACs conduct and complete review of respec- Januaryil6, 1981 tive planning area cortmunities. _ February 6, 1981 Formal act9on, on submission of Conmunity De- velopnrnt program and Housing Ilssistance Plan . to Hennepin County for lnclusion in the Year . . " . . VII Urban Hennepin County COBG application. � � Mar�h 9-29. 1981 Ilennepin County, participant cormunities and � PACACs resolve any continuing differences in _ the Year VII Conmunity Development Program or Housing Assistance Plan. Ftnal draft appli- � cation document is prepared and distr9buted for review prior to'A-95 Review submissiorr. April 2. 1981 Application submitted to P�etro Council for A-95 Review. " �•1ay 5, 19II1 Application submittal to f�UD for final ap- � . , proval . ' August 1 , 1981 NUD approval of Year VII application. � . ' . . , � • bl � � , . ' � • HUD - 7064 � ' Attachment � ' COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CONpMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM INTROQUCTION The statutory objectives of the CortIInunity Development Block Grant_ Pr_ogram include the provision of decent affordable housing; a suitable living environment; and increased employment opportunities principally for persons of low and moderate incomes. A strategy to address these objectives in Urban Hennepin County has been formulated. The strategy is a careful plan or method designed to meet desired goals. The Urban Hennepin County Comprehensive Strategy repre- sents a coordinated and mutually supportive approach to meeting the , housing and community development needs of Urban Hennepin County. The Comprehensive Strategy establishes the relationship which must exist between Urban Hennepin County housing and cortmunity development activities and needs. The strategy thus serves to focus available Federal Housing and Cortmunity Development funds and state and local resources on priority housing and community development activities. As mandated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development the Compre- hensive Strategy consists of a general strategy and component strategies affecting neighborhood revitalization, housing, public facilities and improvements, handicapped improvements and economic improvements. � GENERAL STRATEGY The design and content of the Comprehensive Strategy is representative of the admanistration structure of the Urban Hennepin County Cortmunity Development Program. The Comprehensive Strategy has been developed in such a way as to insure that the block grant program is administered in a manner to further the purposes of the Act, and that it be done in a spirit of partnership and cooperation with participating comnunities. The Urban Hennep'rn County Comprehensive Strategy provides each participating comnunity ffiexibility in the development of local programs to address identified Urban Hennepin County needs. The local programs are reviewed to ensure consistency with the overall Urban County Comprehensive Strategy. Program Benefit To assure that program objectives are met, a minimum of 75 percent of the funds available over the three year program period shall be used for projects and activities which principally benefit low and moderate income persons. A project or activity is considered to principally benefit low and moderate income persons if it: � 1 . has income eligibility requirements or 2. the majority of persons benefitting are low and moderate income or . _ __ - _ . _ _ �. is for the removal of architectural barriers or 4. is an integrai part of a project which will principally benefit low and moderate income persons • In judging program benefit the information contained in the three year cortmunity development and housing assistance plan, the annual comnunity development program and other generally available data will be used. Certain projects or activities which benefit less than a majority of low and moderate income persons can be progrartmed under special circumstances. In this instance it must be demonstrated that there are no areas within the participating comnunity in which the activity is tfl be located where low and moderate income persons constitute a majority, or there are so few such areas that it is inappropriate to limit projects to them. In addition, it should be clear that the project serves an area having the largest proportion of low and moderate income residents in the caunty, is designed to meet their needs and benefits them at least in proportion to their share of the population of the area served. Program Priorities Meeting identified housi�g needs wiil continue as the primary Urban County priority. In those comnunities where minimal housing activity has taken place and/or where a significant need continues to exist, particular emphasis will be placed on providing appropriate assistance. Because of market and programmatic constraints and the uniqueness of circumstances existent within each community no uniform approach is possible. Therefore, the Urban County, in cooperation with each participant, has developed and � will implement an action plan designed to address unique conQnunity problems and potentials. If a participating co�nunity does not propose activities or does not take action necessary to provide housing assistance, it may be appropriate for _ the Urban County to impose a sanction against the community, such as placing conditions on the grant or reducing the grant amount. Those cort�nunities which have achieved clearly acceptable performance will be expected to continue to allocate CDBG funds to housing activities at a level sufficient to maintain accep�able performance. Administrative A reasonable expenditure rate of Cortanunity Development funds must be maintained. It is essential , therefore, that activities be executed within two years from the start of the program year in which they were funded. Funds designated for activities which have not been completed within this period shall be subject to reprogrartening. Comnunity Development funds which remain in the activity budget after the activity has been completed shall be reprogramned to another activity. All participants in the Urban Hennepin County Cortanunity Development Block Grant Program shall certify and insure compliance with the Entitlement Grants Program Assurances. (HUD Form 7068) � � 1 . NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION STRATEGY � The strategy to be followed by Urban Hennepin County to address identified neighborhood revitalization needs emphasizes upgrading the housing stock. This emphasis is to be supported through the provision of public improvements necessary to upgrade a declining neighborhood. Strategies have been developed in cooperation with the participating comnunity and affected neighborhood which include activities deemed appropriate for improving the neighborhood. Glenwood Lake Neighborhood - Golden Vallev This strategy is designed to directly aid low-and-moderate-income homeowners in the defined neighborhood in various ways. First, special assessment grants will be available to help reduce the impact of casts for street improvements and storm sewer facilities on income eligible households. Additionally, CDBG and MHFA funds will be available for housing rehabilitation grants and loans. Funds will also be used to pay for the removal of diseased elm trees from property of income eligible households. Cortmunity Development funds have been allocated to this strategy during program years V-VII. West Robbinsdale Neiqhborhood - Robbinsdale The strategy for revitalization in this neighborhood is directed toward improving the condition of the existing housing stock through rehabi- . litation loans and grants available and through the development and implementation of a housing maintenance code. To address another priority need, recreation space in the neighborhood, the strategy includes funds for the acquisition of land and development of a neighborhood park. Comnunity Development funds have been allocated to this strategy during program years VI-VII. Morningside Neighborhood - Edina The strategy �or revitalization in this neighborhood includes housing rehabilitation assistance; public improvements to water, sanitary and storm sewer systems, streets and sidewalks; and upgrading the existing park. Special assessment grants will be availahle to income eligible persons. Gomnunity Development funds ahve been allocated to this strategy during program years V-VII . East Ea91e Lake Neighborhood - Maple Grove . The strategy for this neighborhood is designed to provide urban type public improvements, housing rehabilitation assistance through the MHFA program, and expand and upgrade an existing park. Special assessment grants are included in the strategy to assist income eligible residents defray the cost of improving the neighborhood. Community Development funds have been progrartmed into this strategy for program years V-VII. � Zane-Creek Neighborhood - Brooklyn Park • The strategy for improvement in this neighborhood has been develaped by using the neighborhood park as the focus. The strategy includes development of the existing park with a variety of recreational op- portunities, bot� active and passive, and a park buiiding. Con- struction of a ramped sidewalk leading to the park adjacent to heavily travelled streets are included in the program. Comnunity Development funds are progrartmed for these activities in= Year V only. 2. URBAN COUNTYWIDE HOUSING STRATEGY The Urban Hennepin County housing strategy serves to direct scarce housing resources to those sectors of the housing .market which will provide the greatest benefit to lower incame presons. This strategy emphasizes rehabilitation, new constructian and rental assistance on a Planning Area basis. The strategy serves to facilitate the spatial deconcentration of lower income households by increasing the choice of housing opportunities in suburban Hennepin County. This effort is supported in part by the Area Wide Housing Opportunity Plan (AHOP) in this area. • Identified needs of specific household types (families, large family, elderly and handicapped) determines the overall emphasis and priorities , in the Urban County housing strategy. The areal emphasis on rehabilitation is generally determined by the ° extent of housing built prior to 1940, nur�er of substandard• units and lower income residents. The emphasis on existing rental assistance is determined in part by availability of �rental units meeting "Fair Market Rents," and availability of rental assistance funding. Emphasis on new construction is determined in part by availability of land and sites s�itable for new construction, both owner and renter occupied, and th� number of units currently receiving rental assistance in the cortQnun i ty. The housing strategy includes programning outlined in the Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) . In addition, the Urban County promotes developer interest in construction of assisted housing units in priority comnunities. The Urban County supports the "Metro Mobility" program under development by the Metropolitan Council to facilitate outreach, counseling or referral services to lower income households that would like to reside outside areas of lower income concentration. In recognition of the overall program priority to address housing needs, the Urban Caunty has allocated approximately $5.5 million or 43 percent of the anticipated entitlement amount to housing and housing related � activities over program years V-VII. Housing Rehabilitation � As one of the most viable forms of direct assistance to lower income persons in t�e county, housing rehabilitation assistance through grants and loans is being used to aid many households which would otherwise be unable to maintain and improve their homes. In an effort to address the needs reflected in Table I of the HAP and the increased level of interest in rehabilitation by county residents, the Urban County has allocated approximately $3.2 million to various types of rehabilitation assistance over the three program years. - Rehabilitation grants are available to income eligible households in all Urban County comnunities through a combination of funding from the CDBG program and Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) . The Urban� County administers the MHFA Home Improvement Grant Program which provides an additianal $250,000 annually in rehabilitation grants to Urban County residents with an adjusted gross income of $5,000 or less. Maximum unadjusted income for CDBG funded rehabilitation grants follow the Section 8 income guidelines. In addition to funding rehabilitation grants to lower income homeowners, the Urban County is using Year V funds to evaluate the appropriateness of the HUD Section 312 program to address multi-family and corrQnercial re�abilitation needs. . New Housing Construction In order to address the situation in the existing housing market _ identified in the �ousing needs section, the Urban County proposes to use approximately $2.3 million over the three year program to assist in the development of new housing. Assistance will be provided through the acqui�sition of sites and public site improvements appropriate for t�e development of owner and renter occupied housing. Due to t�e present low vacancy rates and the continuing formation of new househol�s, t�e construction of rental units remains a high priority. Table �II in the Program Year VI HAP reflects the established pro- portional distribution for owner and renter occupied housing. When CDBG funds are utilized for land acquisition to encourage the con- struction of new elderly and family assisted housing units, the follow- ing conditions apply: --Prior to site acquisition HUD will be requested to preapprove the site for a specific type of development. --When the site to be acquired is not preapproved for a specific development, language shall be included in the purchase agree- ment restricting future utilization of the site to assisted housing. Any aiternative use, unless determined to be eli- gible for CDBG assistance, will require repayment of grant � amount to Urban Hennepin County as program income. In previous years tbe Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Affordable Home • hbrtgage Program was utilized extensively in the Urban County. This program and t�e HUD Section 235 program were the only ones operating which provided construction and mortgage financing for income eligible households. Action by the State Legislature in 1979 extended the bond- ing aut�ority of N�FA, and, therefore, assured the viability of 'the Affordable Home Program for at least through 1980. Continuation of the program beyond t�is date will necessitate additional bonding authority by the Legislature. A variety of projects to assist in the expansion of owner and renter occupied housing opportunities are proposed over the next three years. As an example, in New Hope a program is being implemented to purchase an estimated ten existing single family homes for rental to eligible families along Section 8 guidelines. Scattered site acquisition for assisted single family construction is proposed in Richfield. Four comnunities on the Soutb Shore of Lake Minnetonka are combining their resources in a cooperative approach to the development of assisted housing. A small rural town and the surrounding township have proposed a joint assisted housing activity. � � Existing Rental Units * Continued utilizatio� of the Section 8 Existing Rental Assistance program will take place to the degree of funding availability. Due to a recent policy revision by the Metro HRA, rental assistance wi11 now be available to eligible residents in the outlying comrnunities of the Urban County. Application of the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program provisions for mobile home pad rental in the outlying areas of the Urban County will be investigated. Expanded utilization of Section 8 Existing program is not otherwise anticipated due to funding limitations and the low vacancy rate/high rent levels. = Special Housing The housing needs of families with female heads of household will continue to be addressed through the rental assistance, rehabilitation and new construction programs. Efforts to assist handicapped households are expected to be provided through rehabilitation and new rental and owner units. The special needs of the mentally handicapped are currently under separate study within Hennepin County and will be appropriately reflected in a future housing strategy. New construction assistance for handicapped homeowners is especially � difficult under existing program guidelines; however, special efforts will be made to utilize the Section 235 program for this purpose. 3. PUBIIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY The strategy to be following by Urban Hennepin County in addressing public facility and improvement needs places emphasis on those activities which will directly benefit lower income residents. Almost a quarter of a million dollars has been designated for special assessment gr�nts in Year VI to help lower income households handle the cos€ of replacing various public improvements including new streets , water and sewer lines. In Robbinsdale, a fully developed community, a small neighborhood park is to be developed in a neighborhood which has no park and only limited access to recreational opportunities in other parts of the cammunity. This is to be done as part of a neighborhood revitalization effort. In an effort to provide a full range of accessible services and programs to senior citizens in the Urban County, centers for the provision of services and programs geared to the needs of elderly are proposed in three fully developed comnunities, and two in the more rural areas of the Urban County. In or.der to minimize the envir.onmental impact of Dutch Elm Oisease � and Oak Wilt and to minimize the financial impact the cost for removal of diseased trees from private property has on lower income households, CDBG funds will be used for public removal and grants to income eligible hameowners for remaval from private property. 4. HANDICAPPED IMPROVEMENTS STRATEGY � It is the goal of Urban Hennepin County to improve accessibility to pub- lic and private structures to allow accessibility to all Urban County programs and facilities. This accessibility would ensure full and equal access to programs, employment and housing opportunities to all residents of the Urban County. With a combination of funds including CDBG monies , the Urban County will establish an accessible and mobile climate for all residents of Urban Hennepin�County with regard to housing, employment and social services. To qualify as fundable activities in the Urban County C�G program, frandi- capped improvement projects must meet a particular need, remove a speci- fic barrier and represent a defined priority. They must also meet the design standards outlined in the American National Standards Inst9tute, "Specifications for Making Buildings and Facilities Accessible to and Usable by the Physically Handicapped", (ANSI A117.1 ) , and the Minnesota Building Code, Chapter 55. To ensure that projects meet these qualifications, cortmunities must de- velop a plan for handicapped accessibility improvements. The plan should include an assessment of the major improvements needed and outline an overall strategy for meeting those needs. The plan should also set pri- orities for implerr�nting the plan and should discuss the anticipated re- sources that will be used, including block grant funds. Handicapped groups or individuals from the cortmunity are involved in the development of the plan. � 5. ECONQMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY The strategy endorses eligible economic development activities in iden- _ tified distressed or deteriorating economic activity areas of Urban Hennepin County. The projects will result in the provision of additional permanent, private sector jobs to low-and moderate incame individuals as well as a reduction in the negative impact of the physical areas on the community. A corr�ination of private and public funds will be used to accomplish thi� task, including CDBG monies. � 6. DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY . � It is the goal of Urban Hennepin County to implement the Community Development Program and Housing Assistance Plan minimizing the direct or indirect displacement of owners or renters from occupied dwelling units. To mitigate any adverse affects resulting from implementation of grant funded activities and assist impacted families, individuals and busi- nesses to remain in their existing neighborhoods when preferred, the following actions shall be implemented: _ --For each acquisition or displacement. activity a determin- ation will be made by Urban Hennepin County as to whether t�e acquisition ar displacement was carried out for an � assisted activity. This determination will be submitted to the Area HUD Office for review. --The Urban County will monitor those acquisitions or dis- placements which were undertaken prior to submission of an application for financial. assistance to determine if the acquisition or displacement was in support of an as- sisted activity and subject to the Uniform Act. --If an rnm�r or occupant of a property disagrees with the determination of Uniform Act eligibility, they may file � an appeal under 24 CFR Part 42, Subpart J. • --The costs of relocation payments and assistance under Title II of the Uniform Act shall be paid from funds pro- vided by the COBG program and funds available locally from any source. . The displaceme�t of families, individuals or businesses which are ownQrs or renters shall be undertaken only when 1 ) the homeowner re- quests that the rtwnicipality acquire the property due to hardship situation res�,�ting from an action of the local government, and 2) the dwelling unit{s) is found to be substandard to a point beyond re- pair. The acquisition/relocation activity is undertaken to protect the resident's health and welfare. When temporary relocation is necessary to complete the rehabilitation of a dwelling unit, it will be so timed as to minimize the period of � dispTacement. When acquisition/relocation is necessary to implement a physical devel- opment the process will be conducted according to the Uniform Act and every effort will be made to negotiate a settlement. The Urban Coun�y, in cooperation with participating comnunities, shall assist displaced residents or businesses through the provision of relo- cation counseling and assistance in securing an alternative location for • residential or 6usiness purposes. � November 5, 1980 T0: Golden Valley Planning Cormnission FROM: Martin Farrell _ SUBJECT: Review of the Guidelines for Devetopment, Goiden Valley Open Space System. At the October 27, 19$0 Planning Commission meeting, a copy of the final draft of the Guidelines for Development was handed out to the Planning Commission. On various other� occasions the Planning Commission has given comments and added recommendations to the original rough drafts of this document. This final copy has been presented to the City Council and is for the Planning Commission's information. • • . November 5, 1980 T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Martin Farrell SUBJECT: Golden Valley Housing Policy Attached is a copy of the proposed Golden Valley Housing Policy. This Housing Policy was written by the Golden Valtey Housing Policy Subcommittee. The Committee was comprised of inembers from both the Ptanning Commission and the Human Rights Commission. _ -- -_ The--Housing Policy was brought befo�-e the City Council on November 17t 1980. At that time, Mona Moede represented the Housing Policy Sub- Committee, and presented the policy to the City Council . The Council accepted the report but did not take action. Before the Council adopts the Housing Policy, they would like to hear from the Planning Commission. • • • HOUSING POLICY IN GOLDEN VALLEY Golden Valley is a first ring suburb directly adjacent to the west boundary of Minneapolis. The preliminary census count by the Bureau of Census states that Golden Valley has a 1980 population of 21 ,913. This figure represents a 9q decrease in population from the 1970 census figure of 24,246. It seems that Golden Valley, like many other fully developed" communities, is experiencing a gradual decline in their population. According to the Metropolitan Council 's Guidelines, Golden Valley is considered fully developed. Although the population has declined over the last ten years, the total number of households has increased by 16%. Golden Valley's housing vacancy rate is relatively low. According to the preliminary 1980 Census figures there are 7,683 households in Golden Valley. Approximately .li of these units are vacant. This implies that the demand for housing in Golden Valley is high. Single family owner occupied units dominate the housing • market. Eighty four percent of all the dwelling units in Golden Valley are owner occupied and the remaining 16i of the units are rented. The overall housing stock in Golden Valley is sound. More than half of the housing units were built between 194Q and 1960. Less than 5i of the existing homes were built prior to 1940. Housing conditions in Golden Valley do not appear to exhibit a substantial problem at the moment . How- ever, it is:important to establish a housing policy that will maintain the quality of housing that Golden Valley has thus far enjoyed. HOUSING GOALS Golden Valley has made a number of attempts at addressing housing goals and objectives. Golden Valley's Comprehensive Plan enumerates certain goals and objectives in a form adopted by the City as the official policy. The Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan addressed the general housing concerns in Golden Valley. This Housing Policy is being established so that future housing developments will have certain guidelines that. shall . be followed. The primary function of this Housing Policy is to set goals and obJectives that are more specific. These goals and objectives are � ' -2- � based on those in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. How- ever, criteria for developing subsidized housing units are further defined. The overriding housing goal in Gotden Valley is as follows: Provide housing opportunities for citizens of all ages and income levels, without discrimination, while maintaining a diversity of high quality living environments through imaginative and sound planning principles. Based on this general goal , the following factors were examined in ' the Comprehensive Plan: 1 . Economics: Provide a variety of housing units at costs affordable to a wide range of family incomes. This can be accomplished through H.U.D. 's • Section 8 Rental Assistance Housing Program. There is a definite need for affordable rental units in Golden Valley. The City, through its HRA, should attempt to integrate subsidized housing projects with market rate housing. Projects that are more than 75i ; federally funded should be discouraged. A ' good housing mix would be market rate units developed with Section 8 units that are subsidized from 51� to 60a by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This type of mix would help keep subsidized housing developments rttore in character with the surrounding neighborhoods. All federally funded housing projects should be carefully analyzed by the Planning Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the HRA, the City Council , • and any other appropriate City commission or subcommittee. This analysis is usually � � -3- � accomplished through the City's P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) Ordinance. 2. Type of Unit : A. Style: A dwelling unit is characterized by two traditional styles : detached single unit and a multiple dwelling unit. Within these two basic styles lie variations of design. The City's P.U.D. ordinance is written so that the developer has a good deal of flexi - bility in the designing process. B. Ownership: The ownership of a dwelling unit is another distinction by which to identify types of units. There exist two basic approaches to residency. • One is referred to as owner occupied. This may include detached singte family units , townhouses, multiple units (condominiums) , duplexes, and fourplexes. The second basic approach is renter occupied units. A rented housing unit can be of any style from an � apartment in a multiple unit complex to a -� detached single family unit. Ownership becomes particularty important in any P.U.D. housing project. The owner will have to prepare and adhere to a viable manage- ment plan as part of any P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) contract. 3. Densit : Another recognized factor affecting a diversity of housing is density. In Golden Valley there • can be found three basic densities for housing: a. Low Density: 1-4 units per acre ' � -4- b. Mid Density: 5-12 units per acre � c. High Density: Greater than 12 units per acre. These classifications are simply guidelines. Density is a retative variable and must , therefore, be analyzed on an individual project basis. The City of Golden Valley must recog- nize the fact that current housing demands , economic and energy conditions, may dictate increased housing densities. 4. Desi ns: Innovative design can directly affect the impact of other factors, such as the density and energy efficiency. A poor design can cause density to have a more detrimental impact than, for example, a good design with the same density. Rising fuel costs have tnecessitated designing with energy efficiency being a high priority. The City of 6olden Valley is keenly aware of the continually rising cost of quality hous�ng and limited amount of land available for residential development in the future. Therefore, future housing in the City must be a result of caref�l planning and cooperation between elected officials, appointed commissions and committees , City staff, and developers. There are numerous justifications for providing the opportunity to have a diversity of housing in a first ring suburban municipaiity such as Golden Valley. They include: 1 . Heterogeneity: The backbone of a mature and socially healthy community is its intrinsic socio- economic mixture. This mix includes, but is not limited to, a diversity of races, life- • . � -5- styles, income levels and age groups. If • a community is to retain this ethnic and socio-economic mix a diversity of housing opportunities should be encouraged by City officials. A diversity of housing should provide families residing in the City with the option to remain in the City as the _ family members mature. As a family matures, its members require different housing needs. For instance, the children of parents owning a home in Golden Valley should have the opportunity to reside in an affordable home in the City once they have reached a decision to buy or rent. Also, as parents reach an elderly age, they may choose to setl their home and move into an apartment or senior housing complex. The City should advocate that housing be provided to serve those special � needs of a maturing family or household in order that a mixed and stable population remains o in Golden Valley. For these reasons, it is important that federally , subsidized housing projects such as Section 202 � ' Rental Housing for the elderly and handicapped and other Section 8 housing projects be integrated together with market rate housing. 2. Stability: A diversity of housing can also create a stable population in a community by: a. Maintaining the number of long-term residents in the City. This factor hinges on the availability of quality housing to families of various income • levels. , , � . -6- • b. Generating healthy commercial districts in the City to serve the local populace. C. Provi�ding housing for families and � individuals with close proximity to major employment centers located in the community. - 3. Adaptability: A variety of housing types, design and density is necessary if the City is to adjust to the changing development patterns expected in the near future. 4. Interdependence: The City of Golden Valley, as a part af the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, can no longer be thought of as an isolated urban community. Therefore, the City's future housing stock . (residential development patterns) should reflect a metropolitan responsibility to providing opportunities for a variety of � housing types and densities. 5. Flexibility: The changing lifestyles and demographics of a suburban community must be accampanied by = a diversity of housing. The solution to providing single people, young families and the elderly with quality housing involves allocating the construction of various housing types, designs and densities in order that selecting •a home and its location remain a respected right of personal choice. HOUSING PROGRAMS . An overview of the housing program elements used by Golden Valtey in conjunction with the obJectives ea�h supports is displayed in Figure 1 . , • _�_ � The City has adopted several policies that are directly related to each objective. These policies have attempted to integrate the housing goals and objectives together with the available housing programs. The � following discussion provides a description of how the City's Housing Policies have been used to attain the four Housing Objectives outlined in the Comprehensive Ptan. OBJECTIVE 1 : PROMOTE THE PRESERVATION AND UPGRADING OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL HOUSING STOCK IN THE CITY. Policies • A. The City shall make use of all available federal , state and local funding sources to promote the rehabilitation and/or redevelop- ment of identified and designated substandard residential units or areas. • B. For residents in Golden Valley participating . in federally or state funded housing programs , the City shall adopt the Section 8 Housing Quality Standards used by HUD to determine a residential unit's habitable acceptability in , order that the City has a means of detecting ' � whether or not a house is in need of improvements or beyond repair. C. The City shall promote the utilization of Federally allocated Community Developrr�nt Block Grant Funds for the purpose of revitalizing the residential neighborhoods targeted for sub- stantial rehabilitation. D. The City H.R.A. may use its legal authority � under "eminent domain" to condemn and remove substandard housing which has been determined , economically unfeasible to rehabilitate. �' : _g_ OBJECTIVE 2: ENCOURAGE A SUFFICIENT VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND � DESIGNS TO ALLOW ALL PEOPLE A HOUSING CHOICE. Poticies : A. The City shall encourage design and planning innovations in housing construction and - residential land use development. This type of City-Developer relationship is encouraged through the City's P.U.D. ordinance. B. The City will promote a diversity of newly constructed housing. Various housing projects differ with the housing programs handling the financing. Therefore, the funding percentage range could vary with the project. However, Housing Projects that ! would be 100% subsidized should not be encouraged. Subsidized housing should be attempted to be integrated with market rate housing. As stated eartier, a good mix would be in the 51% to 60i federally financed range. . C. Residential development shall be buitt in accordance with performance standards that respect the hydrologic and natural landform features. (Proposed developments on wetlands, floodways, flood plains and severe slopes shatl be carefully reviewed in order that the impact on the natural balance of the environment is minimized.) D. The City will continue to offer as an alternative for land utilization the development of Planned � Unit Developments (P.U.D. 's) which allow the City to be more flexible in site design and density requirements. . �o • � ' -9- � E. The City will promote the development of multi-family dwellings, provided the density does not pose an overuse of the site and the surrounding environment. Density is relative to each project and shall be viewed accordingly. OBJECTIVE 3: THE CITY SHALL PROMOTE THE USE OF AVAILABLE PROGRAMS,_ FUNDS AND PLANNING APPROACHES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AT A COST INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES CAN AFFORD WITHOUT COMPROMISING ESSENTIAL NEEDS. SPECIAL � FOCUS ON HOUSING NEEDS OF THE ELDERLY, MINORITIES, HANDICAPPED AND BOTH DOUBLE AND SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN. Policies: � A. The City shall attempt to obtain, when � available, all applicable state and federal housing funds designed to maximize the opportunity of providing a variety of housing types, costs , and densities. B. The City shall encourage the use of the home ownership and rental subsidy programs. : C. The City shall recognize the housing goals established by the Metropolitan Council . D. The City witl provide, when available, increased opportunity for tow and moderate income persons to reside in the community through the provision of state and federal subsidized housing and rental assistance programs. Ideally, these types of projects should be integrated with � market rate housing. E. The City shall encourage that newly constructed . • ' � -10- � subsidized housing be developed in locations offering residents easy access to local and regional urban service centers. � F. The City shall encourage the use of townhouses , duplexes, garden and patio apartments and scattered site single family units for modes� cost housing. G. The City shall promote the implementation of federal housing funds to acquire land for scattered site modest-cost housing in order that land, as an element of housing costs, is minimized. H. The City shall review and revise its present land use regulations to enhance the opportunity � for modest cost housing in the future. t . The City shall continue to promote the market- rate housing at a cost similar to the existing market-rate housing stock in the City. J. The City shall promote the development of town- ; _ houses, condominiums and detached single family homes as viable types of market-rate housing. K. The City shall promote energy efficient design standards when ever possible. OBJECTIVE 4: THE CITY WILL ENCOURAGE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND DISCOURAGE THE PRACTICE OF DISCRIMINATION IN THE AREA OF HOME OWNERSHIP AND RENTING. � Policies : A. The City shall promote a diversity of housing FIGURE 1 : GOLDEN VALLEY INVENTORY ELEMENTS BY OBJECTIVES � Objective Inventory Elements MHFA Home Improvement Grants 1. Promote the preservation � and upgrading of the MHFA Home improvement Loans existing residential housing stock in the City. Community Development Rehabili- tation (CDBG F�nds) _ Zoning Ordinance (currentty being revised) 2. Encourage a sufficient variety of housing Planned Unit Development Ordinance (currently being revised) 3. The City shall promote the use of available programs, Section 8 Housing Assistance - funds, and planning Existing Housing approaches in order to provide housing opportunities Section 8 Housing Assistance - at a cost individuals and New Construction � families can afford without compr�mising essential needs. Scattered Site Program (Local HRA Special focus on housing needs taxing and tax increment financing) of the elderly, minorities, handicapped and both double Section 202 Housing for Elderly and single parent families and Handicapped. with young children. 4. The City will encourage equal opportunity and �iscourage the Section 8 - Existing and New practice of discrimination Construction in the area of home ownership and renting. Community Development Block Grants � � � ' � November 18, 1980 T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Martin Farrell SUBJECT: Rezoning Requirement Memo Attached is a copy of the Rezoning Requirement Memo that was prepared by Alan Barnard, Assistant City Attorney for the Planning Commission information. The memo was prepared at the request of the City Manager. � � � B�ST S: FLAI�AGAN �TTOIt\1;Y5 AT I.A�� • 1t:�isn 73.Lr.�vi� riP CpUN:iEL Ciiei:LLS �.I3L�.�.rn.•5 n�o-tio IDS Gs�•ri:i� f,�:�»ccr. �iwt.o�r;v .luu� li. (�nrt�u�i.L �111\E.�YQLI:i. �I:\�2itit7'r:l :,.�.ti)2 LE��NAHU 1\�. $1Mf�NLT .IAPU:� I�. OLRUV AHCIIIflALU �rLVri:ta (fi12) 33J-�1-.: IZ�i1StiRT M.CSiAltL �701�L'liT I..l-3tiitiUl' C:+.AL1:: FSE;iT'..1`�' l.eo�nxv Dl..ii>»��cro� J:��r:s I.Br:�i ]to�errr R.B.�xru ir,�,�-�v�..> '`."'"'-''rR a`t^`�' November 12 1980 ALL�r li.I3.a�is.vu� / R�i!u�:r�1. I�f.+�aan� RICHAHD.�.�'1:71:(i%O\ (19L�6-I�:.i) TIf0�1A5 D•LA12L�[)\ F1tA2�3f E.�'Ut;L ��lAR7\Cti\1�.�'AT' I'LTTi:\,_I7i. .►a>u:s G 7hicncir. ..I�yt;S A.7Iplt�lt; .)AI�lE J.�1AY19FtUV 3to�ir�xr�I.T'it�iTt j2UAti7t"I I..�II:LI.L:It,.rR. (:.�i.�x�.i:. ('.. fi�:tiV�'�ti�r tiCt.iTl' JJ.LL1.E1: Mr. Jeff Sweet City Manager City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 . Re: Rezoning Requirement Memo Dear Jeff: I enclose a copy of the rezoning requirement memo we discussed last week. With copies of this letter I am also directing copies of the memo to Messrs. Lowell Odland, Marty Farrell and Lloyd . Becker. Please advise me if you have any comments or changes you would like made. / Very truly yours, • r Allen D. Barnard ADB:mjd Enclosure . • cc & enc: Mr. Lowell Od and . Marty Farre Mr. Lloy Bec er BEST �c FLANAGAN � ATTORNEYS AT LwW . 404U I n$ �.l:\TER ` , a�'�INNEAPOLIS� �1\�fESnTA 3'S•6l)'2 � � MEMORANCUM TO: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COA4NiISSION FROM: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: NOVEMBER 11, 1980 RE: REZONING REQUIREMENTS We have been requested to prepare a memorandum summarizing certain legal requirements for rezoning matters . Our discussion below sets out the legal requirements with specific emphasis on the applicable time limitations, the requirement of standards and findings of fact. I. GENERAL • In order to promote the "public health, safety, morals and general welfare" a city may regulate by zoning ordinances and amendments thereto the following: " . . . the location, height, bulk, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other other open spaces, the density and dis- tribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry, residence, recreation, public activities, or other purposes, and the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, agriculture, forestry, soil conservation, water supply con- servation, conservation of shorelands, as defined in §105. 485, access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems as defined in §161H. 02, flood control or other purposes, . . . " (M. S. �462. 357, Subd. 1) Zoning regulations may divide the city into districts or zones of suitable numbers, shapes and area. The regulations must be uniform for each class or kind of use throughout the • district. However, the regulations in one district may differ from those in other districts. . • MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 11, 1980 - PAGE TWO The validity of any amendment to the basic zoning plan in a cit� must be determined by the same rules of law as those applied in testing the validity of the original zoning law. II. TIME LIMITATIONS Minnesota Statutes §462. 357, Subd. 4, provides that an amend- ment to a zoning ordinance, a rezoning, may be initiated by the city council, the planning commission or upon petition of affected property owners. If not initiated by the planning commission, the proposed amendment is to be referred to the planning commission for study and report and may not be acted upon by the city council until it has received the recommendation of the planning commission on the proposed amendment or until 60 days have elapsed from the . date of reference of the amendment without a report by the planning commission. Once a matter has been referred to the planning commissior the planning commission has 60 days within which to make its recommen- dations. If it should fail to make its recommendations within that period of time, the city council may go ahead and consider the rezoning amendment without recommendation of the planning commission. III. STANDARDS Generally, Minnesota law provides that city zoning ordinar�ces are to establish standards for the determination of zoning matters, including applications for rezonings or other amendments to the zoning code. Since the City of Golden Valley Zoning Ordinances provide little, if any, standards for the application of the zoning law, the courts have made it clear that they will require in such situations not only findings of fact, discussed infra, but also expressed statements which tie the findings of fact directly to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the communi ty. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT • The exercise of a city's police power in the land-use planning within a city includes the consideration and denial of rezoning applications, use permits, zoning code variances and the like. The _ � � � MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION � . NOVEMBER 11, 1980 - PAGE THREE courts generally will not reverse such an exercise of the city's - police power unless they determine that the city has acted arbi- trarily, capriciously or in such a manner as to confiscate private property without just compensation therefor. � 'The city council and the planning commission is given broad discretion for land-use control. However, the courts have repeatedly held that the city's exercise of the land-use power must be accompanied by specific findings of fact which set out the factual reasons supporting the actions of the city. Accordingly, both the city council and the city planning commission must provide such specific findings of fact, together with the requisite tie to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare, each time it takes action on a rezoning petition, use permit and the like. In Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192 (1969) , first a planning commission and then the city council denied the applicant a permit to construct a gasoline station. No findings of fact accompanied the denials. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that • without such contemporaneous findings of fact, a prima facie case of arbitrariness was established. The Court declared: "Surely, where nothing more appears than that the council denied the application after a ' hearing before and upon reconimenaation of its planning commission, there is no sufficient evidentiary basis for a court to infe� that the council' s action was reached upon a con- sideration of facts and was based upon reason rather than the mere individual whim of the council members. While plaintiff, indeed, has the burden to show arbitrariness [footnote omittedJ , the failure of the council to record any legally sufficient basis for its determination at the time it acted made a prima facie showing of arbitrariness inevitable. " (Emphasis added) The Zylka rationale has been repeated in other decisions. See Inland Construction Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374 (1972) , (denial of use of land for shopping center was arbitrary) , Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 297 Minn. 294 (1973) , (denial of per- mit for gasoline station was arbitrary) , Holasek v. Villa e of Medina, 303 Minn. 240 (1975) , (denial of permit for mo i e ome par was ar i- trary) . • In addition, the reasons supporting denial of a permit or rezoning application must be proper. In Enright v. City of Bloomingtor. + • • MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION � NOVEMBER 11, 1980 - PAGE FOUR 295 Minn. 186 (1973) , one of the four reasons given by the City for denial of a conditional use permit was not a condition enumerated in the ordinance and, therefore, led the reviewing court to regard the action as arbitrary. Where an ordinance provides no specific standards, the findings for a permit should specify some reason to conclude that the proposed action would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of the community, or that it is otherwise incompatible with the general zoning scheme. There are only a few cases which indicate what valid reasons for rezoning are. Generally, they involve a showing that there will not be a substantial impact on the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community of the propased re- zoning. A primary valid reason would be the consistency of a proposal with the comprehensive plan of the city. Other reasons would be specific findings to the effect that the rezoning applica- tion will not result in adverse impacts on traffic generation or current traffic flow in the area, that the increase in population and density upon surrounding land uses will not be adverse, that • there will not be a substantial adverse increase in noise levels, that the proposed use is such that the fire and other safety vehicles in the community will adequately service it, that there will not be substantial odors, dust, smoke, gas or vibration caused by the proposed use, that there will not be an adverse increase in flies, rats, or other animals or vermin in the area, that the visual appearance of the propased structure will not substantially detract from the community as a whole and from the purposes established by the comprehensive plan and that there will not be other adverse impacts on the general public health, safety, morals and welfare of the community. Invalid reasons for denying a rezoning application involve the lack of a legitimate or demonstrated tie to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. If, for example, specific findings of fact are made which are contrary to all of the evidence, it is doubtful that a court would uphold such findings of fact. Further, if findings of fact are made which are legitimate, but which do not bear on the public health, safety, morals and general welfare, a court would also determine that the city' s action denying a rezoning application was arbitrary and capri- cious. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that mere physical pro- ximity between an existing land-use and a proposed land-use does not of itself inerit a rezoning of the subject property. The Court has also held that where a rezoning is discrimatory or rests upon an � Y ,� , V s EMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION � NOVEMBER 11, 1980 - PAGE FIVE intent to protect certain enterprises from competition or create monopolies within certain areas, the rezonings are improper. Further, the Court has held that where a zoning ordinance or a rezoning application is granted or denied primarily to fur- ther -the aesthetic concepts of a city planning commission, they are invalid, Moreover, where the motivating basis for a rezoning is in furtherance of aesthetic concepts of nearby property owners, the rezoning would be invalid unless the land owner was compensated for the confiscation of his property. Generally speaking, if the evidence before the planning commission and/or city council dis- closes that there is nothing which would reasonably support a finding that the city was acting in the interests of public health, safety or general welfare, the court would strike down a zoning or rezoning action as unreasonable, arbitrary and discrimatory. • ADB:mjd , �