Loading...
12-12-88 PC Minutes MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting of December 12, 1988 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the Council Chambers of the Golden Valley Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. The meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 28, 1988 On page 3, paragraph 2, Commissioner Leppik requested deletion of the language relating to gas running off into neighboring yards, as this wording did not accurately represent her concern. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt moved to approve the minutes of November 28, 1988 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. Commissioner Russell seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously. II. DISCUSSION OF RESIDENTIAL FACILITY POLICY AS IT RELATES TO LEVEL IV BOARD AND LODGING FACILITIES At the request of Mayor Anderson, the Planning Commission hosted a discussion regarding a proposed amendment to the Zoning code. Present at the meeting were members of the City Council and Human Rights Commission. The proposed amendment would change the definition of "Residential Facility" to include those facilities that are licensed by the State and Level IV Board and Lodging Facilities under agreement with Hennepin County. The request for the change has been made by Neal Tift who is proposing a six (6) bed Level IV residential facility in Golden Valley. Planning and Development Director Mark Grimes began the discussion by explaining the requested change by Mr. Tift. He explained that Level IV Board and Lodging Facilities are not licensed by the. State, therefore, such facilities are not. permitted in Golden Valley. If the City would choose to amend the definition of "Residential Facility"'as requested by Mr. Tift, a Level IV Board and Lodging Facility could be permitted the same as a State Licensed facility. He also explained that the City changed its Zoning Code to add the definition of a residential facility as required by a change in State Statute several years ago. The Statute states that residential facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons in a single family zoning district must be considered a permitted use. He also said that the State Legislature will probably be considering a change to license Level IV type facilities during the upcoming session. Marge Wherley, representing the Hennepin County Department of Community Services, was present to describe Level IV facilities and the County's .Level IV agreement procedure. She described the Level IV program, the clients it serves, and the funding process. She said that they are encouraging Level IV facilities in the suburbs. Neal Tift, who is proposing the ordinance amendment in order that he carr open a Level 1V facility in Golden Valley, discussed his. proposed facility. It would serve six persons and be located in a home in Golden Valley. He explained that the facility would be for profit, and therefore, pay property taxes. The fund- ing of .the facility would be primarily through the State and County. Almost all residents are on general assistance in Level IV facilities. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 12, 1988 Page 2 Mr. Tift explained that his facility would serve six persons with AIDS or ARC. The staff would be trained to deal with persons with AIDS and ARC. .There. would be about four full time staff members with Mrs. Tift managing the program. Mr. Tift was asked why he chose Golden Valley as a site for the proposed Level IV facility. He said that Golden Valley is known to have a progressive atmosphere. After additional discussion, it was determined that the Planning Commission would decide when they would. first consider the amendment to the Zoning Code as requested by Mr. Tift. III. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - I-394 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT ORDINANCE Director Grimes reintroduced the I-394 discussion and explained the related agenda packet items. The two main items for review were a letter from David Olson, President of the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce, addressing the business community's concerns about the ordinance, and a letter from Allen Barnard, Golden Valley City Attorney acting for the I-394 Joint Task Force, addressing the changes suggested by Mr. Olson's letter. Mr. Olson was present to provide any additional input required by the Planning Commission. Rick Weiblen of MEPC and John Schevenius of General Mills were also present. Commissioner Leppik asked for clarification on the purpose of the Planning Commis- sion's review of the proposed I-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance. Director Grimes explained that this ordinance will constitute an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance, and so the Planning Commission must make an official recommenda- tion to the City Council regarding its approval. After some general discussion, it was decided to proceed by going through the Chamber letter and the Task Force response item by item. Specific recommendations for changes to the proposed ordinance would be noted for forwarding to the Task Force and the City Council. Commissioner Russell pointed out that the Attorney's opinion should be carefully considered on all items. Mr. Olson indicated that the proposed ordinance seems to be getting stronger as it goes through the review process, and this is contrary to the concerns of the Chamber. Section 2N of the proposed ordinance defining."reserve capacity", was discussed at length. Mr. Olson reiterated the Chamber's concern that the allocation of develop- ment capacity in square feet,. being based on all generated trips using only the I-394 system rather than spreading out into local streets, was too conservative. The 1,767,000 square feet allocated to the Xenia/Vernon interchange appeared to be of particular concern. It was the decision of the Planning Commission that the square foot allocation is an important element in the ordinance. While the numbers may be conservative, they can always be amended at a later date when traffic counts from actual development are available to support a change; unti l then, the conservative approach would be preferred. Commissioner McAleese proposed that a map should be included in Section 3 of the ordinance. Director Grimes said that a map had been prepared to accompany the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 12, 1988 Page 3 notices sent to property owners in the affected area. This map might be suitable for inclusion in the ordinance. The Planning Commission discussed the changes that were already made to Section 4B, based in part on previous input from the Commissioners. It was agreed that the changes had gone beyond what had been recommended. The Planning Commission would prefer to see a return to the idea that traffic management plans would be prepared when traffic generation reaches a level of service just above the minimum accepted level, but not be effectuated until traffic generation actually reaches the minimum level. The Planning Commission determined that the Attorney's condensation of the infor- mation to be attached to leases in accordance with Section 4C was still longer than necessary. A preliminary recommendation was to delete the entire sentence reading "The traffic management plans required involve. techniques which reduce traffic and its related impact." Also to be deleted was the phrase ".under penalty of law" in the sentence following the one proposed for deletion. After further discussion, the recommendation was for an even shorter notification. With appropriate legal changes in exact wording, the recommended notification would read, "The Cities of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park have established an I-394 Overlay Zoning Ordinance which places restrictions on the total .amount of traffic generated by this development and others located with a targeted area. Under certain circumstances, tenants will be required to prepare and implement traffic management plans as described in the ordinance. A copy of the complete ordinance may be obtained at the City offices of Golden Valley or St. Louis Park." Commissioner McAleese questioned the definition of the term "qualified traffic engineer" in Section 6. First, it implies that there is a list of qualifications. Second, there may be professionals other than engineers who could prepare traffic management plans. The other Commissioners agreed that the terminology was mis- leading and. recommended that it be deleted. Commissioner Russell indicated that she found Section 7 to be confusing to read. In the course of further discussion, the other Commissioners agreed. The Planning Commission recommended overall simplification of this Section.. There was also some concern about the automatic triggering of the provisions of Section 7, but Director Grimes explained that this is the way nonconforming uses are treated in the City's existing Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner McAleese expanded on this by pointing out that there is always an implied appeal process for nonconforming uses under regular zoning. The Planning Commission's response was to recommend that the equiva lent appeal process for the Overlay Ordinance should be clarified. With regard to Section 8 of the proposed ordinance, the Planning Commission agreed that there should be provisions for both residents and business owners to be included on the Joint Task Force. The recommendation was for each City to appoint one resident and one business owner from within the affected area. Furthermore, it was agreed that each City would limit staff participation to one member, that being either the City Manager or another staff member designated by the City Manager. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 12, 1988 Page 4 That concluded the Planning Commission's .review of the proposed Overlay Ordinance. For the record, Mr. Schevenius of General Mills reiterated his company's concerns about limitations on development due to the proposed ordinance. General Mills would like to see the City offer it some protection against the possibility of losing out on future development capacity. Mr. Olson thanked the Planning Commission for its consideration of the concerns expressed by the. Chamber. Commissioner McAleese brought up several points relating to the Joint Powers Agreement that goes with the proposed ordinance. On page 3, #5, the words "square feet" were omitted after the number "1.,575,000" in the fifth line from the bottom of the page. On page 4, #7, he felt that the mutual consent concept was poten- tially unconstitutional, and suggested a 60 day notice of withdrawal as amore acceptable alternative.. On page4, #8, he felt that in order to be consistent with similar provisions in the proposed ordinance there should be mention of arbitra- tion as a second step between mediation and injunction. Finally, on page 5, he felt that the use of the term "prevailing party" in the final sentence was redun- dant. Other Commissioners disagreed with the comments regarding the term "mutual consent". Commissioner McAleese moved., seconded by Chairman Prazak, to recommend City Council approval of the proposed I-394 Overlay Zoning Ordinance with the added recommendations for amendments proposed by the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. IV. REPORT ON NOVEMBER 29, 1988 CITY COUNCIL MEETING There was no report.. V. OTHER The Planning Commission recommended that an informal public hearing be held on the amendment to the definition of a "Residential Facility" as proposed by Neal Tift, on January 9, 1989. IV, ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:43 P.M. 1