04-09-84 PC Minutes20
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 9, 1984
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the Council Chambers
of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Vice
Chair Tubman called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Those present were Commissioners Leppik, McAleese, Russell, Singer and Tubman.
Commissioners Forster and Prazak were absent.
Also present were Alda Peikert, Assistant Planner, and Allen Barnard, Housing
and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Attorney.
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1984
It was moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Commissioner McAleese and
carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the March 26, 1984 Planning
Commission meeting as recorded.
II. SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PUD AMENDMENT PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PLAN
APPLICANT: Stanley M. Chasney
LOCATION: 4959/4969/4979 Olson Memorial Highway
REQUEST: Preliminary Design Plan approval of PUD #28,
Pondwood Office Park, Amendment No. 2
Vice Chair Tubman introduced this agenda item. The proponent, Mr. Stanley
Chasney, was present
It was moved by Commissioner Singer, seconded by Commissioner Leppik and carried
unanimously to set an informal public hearing date of April 23, 1984 to consider
the request received from Mr. Stanley M. Chasney for Preliminary Design Plan
approval of an amendment to PUD #28, Pondwood Office Park, to allow conversion
of one of the office condominium units to residential use and to allow addition
of a three stall garage structure.
III. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 15 OF
CITY ZONING CODE
Vice Chair Tubman introduced this agenda item and called on Housiny and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Attorney Allen Barnard to present the proposed
amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance. Mr. Barnard
explained the HRA staff recommendation for the amendment designed to facilitate
redevelopment projects undertaken by the HRA.
1
21
Planning Commission Minutes - April 9, 1984
Page 2
In response to a question from Commissioner Singer, Mr. Barnard confirmed his
opinion that the proposed amendment would withstand any scrutiny under statute.
Commissioner Leppik asked for clarification of the effect of PUD Preliminary
Design Plan approval on a property. Mr. Barnard explained that the proposed PUD
Ordinance amendment allows City initiation of the PUD process on property the
HRA intends to acquire for redevelopment but allows processing through the
Preliminary Design Plan approval stage only prior to actual acquisition. This
limitation is a safeguard against the event that the HRA does not follow through
with the intended acquisition and redevelopment. Preliminary Design Plan appro-
val has no lasting or binding effect on the property. The developer does not
have PUD approval until the General Plan of Development approval stage of the
PUD process. Mr. Barnard stated his personal opinion that the PUD process
should not proceed to the General Plan approval stage until either the HRA or
developer owns the land.
Commissioner McAleese questioned the effect of initiation of the PUD approval
process on saleability of a property. Mr. Barnard explained that under the pro-
posed amendment City initiation of the PUD procedure is allowable only where the
HRA has by resolution stated intent to acquire the property. Mr. Barnard
suggested that under these circumstances the property is already affected by
anticipated redevelopment and that initiation of the PUD process would not add
to the impact on property owners.
Commissioner McAleese expressed agreement with the goal of the proposed amend-
ment and stated that he finds the proposed procedure to be reasonable. He
suggested, however, that the proposed amendment to Section 15:14 Subdivision 11
of the Zoning Code does not go far enough in dealing with specifics in the event
of City initiation of the PUD process and that additional sections of the Code
should be revised to include special provisions for City initiated PUD applica-
tions. Commissioner McAleese listed the following as discrepancies or points of
confusion:
1. Payment of application fees. Commissioner McAleese suggested provision for
waiver of fees in the case of a City initiated application.
2. Requirement of 20 copies of plans. Commissioner McAleese questioned
submittal to the City of information presumably already compiled as part of
the redevelopment planning process.
3. Deadlines for submittal of and action on the General Plan of Development
following Preliminary Design Plan approval. Commissioner McAleese suggested
that delays in the acquisition or condemnation processes could result in
need for waiver of time deadlines and that provision for waiver of time
deadlines in the case of City initiated applications should be included in
the amendment.
1
~~
Planning Commission Minutes - April 9, 1984
Page 3
4. Referral to the Planning Commission. Based on the assumption that the City
Council would approve an application which the Council itself submitted,
Commissioner McAleese questioned whether Planning Commission review has any
meaning in this case.
In addressing the points raised by Commissioner McAleese, City HRA Attorney
Allen Barnard first noted that ordinances are drawn for general application and
may not make perfect sense when applied to specific cases or developments,
whether or not unusual due to initiation by the City. By way of background, Mr.
Barnard informed the Commission that HRA staff at one time considered recommen-
dation of a separate zoning district for the Valley Square Redevelopment
District but dismissed that alternative as overly complicated.
Concerning Planning Commission review of HRA redevelopment proposals, Mr.
Barnard stated that the problem of prejudginy the PUD process has been under
consideration by HRA staff for a long time. HRA procedure in use at this time
calls for referral of preliminary redevelopment plans to the Planning Commission
for review prior to inclusion in HRA development agreements. However, comments
offered by the Planning Commission at the development agreement point in the
process require careful wordiny in order to avoid the appearance of prejudginy
the Planning Commission hearing on the PUD Preliminary Design Plan.
In response again to the question of Planning Commission review of a City ini-
tiated application and also in response to suggeted waiver of other infor-
mational requirements for City initiated applications, Mr. Barnard concluded
with the observation that the real applicant in the process remains the deve-
loper despite the fact that the City may initiate the application officially.
The developer would actually be the one providing the plans and information
required for the Preliminary Design Plan.
Vice Chair Tubman asked at what point City involvement in the developer's pro-
ject would become great enough that the City would be obligated to allow the
project to proceed. Mr. Barnard pointed out that the developer becomes the
official applicant at the General Plan of Development stage of the PUD process.
The HRA does not actually wish to be the applicant, but merely wishes to yet the
process moving, and this can be done by the City. The proposed amendment simply
recognizes the need for PUD approval processing concurrent with acquisition or
condemnation of the property in order to minimize delays in the construction
start and to minimize land holding costs. Postponement of the PUD process until
after conclusion of condemnation constitutes a significant impediment to the
redevelopment process, and the proposed amendment offers a partial solution to
the problem.
1
23
Planning Commission Minutes - April 9, 1985
Page 4
Commissioner Leppik moved that the Planning Commission recommend City Council
approval of the Proposed amendment to the PUD Ordinance providing for City ini-
tiation of the PUD approval process through Preliminary Design Plan in the case
of properties the HRA intends to acquire. Commissioner Leppik stated that the
City should take any measures possible to encourage developers to participate in
redevelopment and that the proposed amendment facilitates the redevelopment
process.
Commissioner Singer seconded the motion, and a vote was taken. The motion
passed by a vote of four to one, with Commissioners Leppik, Russell, Singer and
Tubman voting in favor of the motion. Commissioner McAleese voted against the
motion, stating that he feels the goal and concept of the proposed amendment are
fine, but that there is need for clarification of details. Commissioner
McAleese suggested that the Ordinance language be rewritten to eliminate
problems with application of other sections to City. initiated applications and
stated that he feels there is no excuse for confusion in an Ordinance.
IV. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 3, 1984
Vice Chair Tubman provided the Planning Commission with a report on the April 3,
1984 City Council meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lloyd Tubman, Vice Chair
1