01-12-98 PC Minutes
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 12, 1998
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City
Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on
Monday, January 12, 1998. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at
7pm.
Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner,
Martens, McAleese and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of
Planring and Development; Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold,
Recording Secretary.
I, Approval of Minutes -November 24, 1997
MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to
approve the November 24, 1997 minutes with the following amendments:
Page 1, Paragraph 2: Commissioner Prazak was in attendance at the November
24, 1997 meeting.
Page 3, Paragraph 5: The following paragraph was changed by adding the
language which is underlined and deleting the language which is crossed-out.
nn +h.,~ ~nh C+ I ni pie. DnrL ~ein~ ~IrJ hn~io n~ i+hnri+~i +n +nv n h~ ~c~inne~c~ in (_r.liJer, \/nlln~i
,
ho ~er~t ~Irl
i+r~onli ~..i+h +he ('`ifii A++~rne~i +~ nlnri{~i +he Inr~n~ Anne n~f +h~ nrrlinnnno
McAleese asked if the new wording in the ordinance would allow the City of St.
Louis Park to assess properties in Golden Valley and vise versa. Grimes said that
only the Golden Valley City Council may assess Golden Valleyproperty and only St.
Louis Park may assess property in its city as stipulated in Chapter 462 of State
Statute. Grimes said there would have to be a joint powers agreement in order for
the joint task force to assess capital improvements. McAleese said that he had no
fundamental problems with assessing~roperty owners for improvements that occur
in their area and improve access to their area, but he is concerned about the
wording of the ordinance in that it sounds as though St. Louis Park would have
authority to tax a business in Golden Valley along I-394. Grimes said that an
t~
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 12, 1998
Page 2
assessment can only be imposed by the City Council, not from the joint task force or
the City of St. Louis Park. Grimes said that he would speak with the City Attorney to
clarify the language of the ordinance.
Page 4, Paragraph2. Change spelling of word "divid" to "divvied"
II. Informal Public Hearing -Tabled Item from the November 24, 1997
Planning Commission Meeting -- Amendment to the Zoning Code -
Traffic Management Administrative Fees
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To amend Section 11.56, Subd. 9 of City Code regarding
administrative fees that would allow the city to periodically
assess the parcels subject to the traffic management fee for the
cost involved in implementing capital improvements designed to
reduce traffic congestion, facilitate transit use and implement
traffic management plans in the I-394 corridor.
Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, reviewed for the commission
the purpose of the amendment which is to add a sentence that would stag that the
cities of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park would be able to assess properties .for
certain capital improvements along the I-394 corridor. Grimes said that he has
talked with the City's Finance Director on how the fees would be collected and City's
Attorney regarding his opinion concerning the language of the ordinance. Grimes
said that it was the City Attorney's opinion that the language does not construe any
extra authority to the Joint Task Force and that only the respective city itself could
assess its own city. He also said that the Joint Task .Force, which is appointed by
both cities, suggested that there be an assessment; Golden Valley could make a
suggestion not to include the language and St. Louis Park could include the
language. Grimes continued by saying that the language in the ordinance would put
property owners on notice that there is the possibility of assessments that could be
collected for capital improvements along the I-394 corridor, but can only be done by
the respective city councils. Grimes told the commission that Finance Director Don
Taylor said that fees would be placed in a special account and be administered by
the Joint Task Force.
Grimes said that staff is recommending to adopt the amended language in the
ordinance. He would like to see the same language between the two cities.
Commissioner McAleese said that since the amendment doesn't give, to the city or
task force, any additional powers and there is a certain element of notice involved (a
notice of general power), so it doesn't make any sense to clutter up the wording by
adding this language. He also questioned why the City of St. Louis Park is so
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 12, 1998
Page 3
interested in adding this language concerning fees. Grimes said that the Joint Task
Force came up with the language and St. Louis Park was more enthused. Grimes
said that the attorneys for both cities have said that this amendment would put on
record that there is the possibility of some day doing capital improvements where
money may have to be collected through assessments of properties along I-394.
This would required developers to put in their leases that there is an ordinance
regarding assessment fees; this would let tenants know that they could be subject to
a traffic management plan.
Grimes told the commission that the original language proposed from St. Louis Park
was much stronger than what the commission is now looking at, and is a
compromise of what the law is now. McAleese again commented that if St. Louis
Park wanted stronger language, it must suggest that they must want something
more. Grimes told McAleese that St. Louis Park can only proceed through its City
Council.
Kapsner commented that he sees a need for the amended ordinance in that real
estate taxes exist but the proposed tax would be for a building along I-394, whereas,
a similar building on Hwy. 55 would not have to pay this proposed tax, so that could
open the City to upset business owners or lawsuits.
McAleese said that he believes that business owners will be upset whether the
amended language is in the ordinance or not. What we are talking about are capital
improvements which businesses would be taxed on anyway, whether or not there is
a joint task force covering this. If Golden Valley puts in a stop light, the chances are
that the adjacent businesses will pay for the stop light. Kapsner said that this may
go beyond that in that it could be for bus shelters or something that anywhere else
in the City it would not be experienced.
Grimes explained to the commission that the City had assessed property owners for
a signal that was put in at Market and Louisiana. Property owners as far away as
Xenia were taxed because it was believed that businesses in the general area
would benefit from it.
McAleese asked who would be put on notice for this assessment. He said the
tenants who are moving into the businesses are not going to receive a notice.
Grimes said that tenants would receive a paragraph from the ordinance that says
that potentially they could be subject to a traffic management plan. McAleese talked
about the tenants who move in not getting specific notice of being taxed. He
suggested that maybe the ordinance needs to be amended further so that tenants
who receive this small paragraph in their lease are aware of the possibility of
additional taxes.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 12, 1998
Page 4
Grimes commented that a real estate attorney for MEPC was at the meeting and
had concerns about the language, but after it was "watered down", he found it to be
acceptable to his client. McAleese stated that the language doesn't add or subtract
any powers, so how can a developer be upset or potentially upset by the language.
Martens commented that the developer could read the language and ask if the City
had special powers. Martens said that he would be satisfied if there were a
preamble to that sentence which said "subject to the specific approval of the City
Council on any particular assessment."
McAleese argued that since the City already has the power to tax, the sentence
could be taken out and there would be no confusion for anyone.
Groger said that he had concerns and is not sure there is a need for this language,
but after listening to staff believes that the wording is harmless.
Pentel said that she thinks the amendment is a good thing for the two cities and it
clarifies the cooperation for capital improvements along the I-394 corridor.
Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Chair
Pentel closed the informal public hearing.
MOVED by Groger, seconded by Prazak and motion carried by a vote of 6-1 to
recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to Section 11.56, Subd.
9 (Traffic Management Administrative Fees).
III. Reports on meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council and Board of Zoning Appeals
Chair Pentel talked about the HRA meeting she attended whereby it was approved
that the City should proceed with the extension of Area B tax increment district.
Grimes said that Representative Leppik has submitted this request to the legislature
and she will inform staff when it will go before a committee.
McAleese asked if there were issues regarding the school districts. Grimes talked
about the Hopkins school district being of the formula for receiving money.
Knoblauch reminded the commission that the extension of the district was only for
Area B in the Valley Square Redevelopment District.
Groger briefed the commission on what took place at the. December 16, 1997 Board
of Zoning Appeals meeting.
c~
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 12, 1998
Page 5
IV. Other Business
A. Continued Workshop Session Technical Background for the Land Use
Plan.
Grimes asked Pentel when an update would be ready for the Land Use Plan.
Pentel said the small group met before the holidays and generally looked through it.
McAleese asked when the groups comments are due. Grimes said the middle of
February.
V. Adjournment
The Chair adjourn the meeting at 7:50pm.