Loading...
01-12-98 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, January 12, 1991 7pm I. Approval of Minutes - November 24, 1997 II. Informal Public Hearing - Tabled Item from the November 24, 1997 Planning Commission Meting -- 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 1-394 corridor. --- SHORT RECESS --- III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals IV. Other Business A. Update on Technical Background for the Land Use Plan V. Adjournment '\ . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 1997 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, November 24, 1997. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Martens, and McAleese; absent was Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and Mary Dold, Recording Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes - October 27. 1997 MOVED by Prazak, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the October 27, 1997 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearina - Amendment to the Zonina Code - Traffic Manaaement Administrative Fees Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend Section 1.56, 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 1-394 corridor. Planning and Development Director, Mark Grimes, summarized the reason for the 1- 394 overlay district. He noted in particular how future development would affect the capacity of the three interchanges in Golden Valley. Grimes said that the Xenia interchange would be impacted most because Golden Valley and St. Louis Park have proposed development planned near this interchange. Grimes explained to the commission how developers affected by this ordinance must adopt a traffic management plan. (This would primarily affect office buildings which typically are three stories, or greater, in height.) He said the plan would go into effect when a certain level of service for these interchanges was obtained or when the reserve capacity for those interchange areas was reached. Grimes said the reserve capacity was determined by how much both the City's of Golden Valley ( Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 1997 Page 2 interchanges and also the level of service was determined by what was thought to be reasonable. Grimes noted that neither city had received a traffic management plan until 1997 because no large, high density buildings had been constructed in the corridor. . Grimes told the commission that a joint task force between Golden Valley and 8t. Louis Park wanted both cities to review how the cities could make capitol improvements in the corridor to help reduce congestion. He said some ideas would be to create a traffic circulator system, create bike paths to reduce traffic, or look at how to increase other forms of transportation. As suggested in the proposed amendment, each city could assess for specific capitol improvements. Commissioner Kapsner asked Grimes that when a retail establishment, like Home Depot goes in, would this not trigger the need for a traffic management plan and assessments. Grimes said no because it does not generate a peak amount of traffic, which is the concern of both cities. Commissioner Prazak asked Grimes if the City of 8t. Louis Park had a similar fee. Grimes told the commission that 8t. Louis Park had the exact same fee and ordinance. Commissioner Johnson asked if 8t. Louis Park had amended its ordinance and . Grimes said that they are in the process of doing so. Commissioner Martens asked if the joint task force looked at staggered hours for business operation. Grimes said that that had been reviewed and anything that can reduce peak hour traffic would be looked at. Martens asked what was considered peak PM hours. Grimes stated between 4pm and 6pm. Commissioner Groger wanted to clarify that the existing law allows for the collection of fees only from new developments and up to now nothing has been collected. Grimes confirmed that the existing law is for only new development and that no fees have been collected as yet. Groger asked if the amendment would then allow for the two cities to be able to assess all properties meeting the standards. Groger noted that the amendment states that properties in the affected area could be assessed. Martens asked where the affected area lies. Grimes said the ordinance legally describes the area affected. Grimes said that it is his understanding it would be for the entire area but assessments would still have to go through a hearing process. Groger said that he believes it would be unfair to assess properties that have been in existence for sometime when it would be the new developments causing the traffic problems. Grimes commented that existing buildings do cause traffic problems, and noted the Northwest Racquet Club in 8t. Louis Park. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 1997 Page 3 . Grimes said that the Traffic Management Plan fees for administration are assessed only towards those buildings which are above the 6/10 of a foot of floor area ratio, but assessments would be against all properties in that area. He believes it would be very difficult to pick out only the large office buildings in the area to be assessed. Commissioner McAleese noted that other areas have implemented user fees when submitting development plans. McAleese asked that when MEPC has finished putting together its traffic management plan would the joint task force then implement the plan. Grimes stated that the joint task force would review the plan but it is implemented by the developer. He said that each City would oversee that the plan is being implemented. McAleese asked Grimes if the City of Golden Valley would be checking on MEPC to make sure they are implementing their plans. Grimes said that both St. Louis Park and Golden Valley would be doing reviews once a year. McAleese asked whom the fee would be paid to. Grimes said that it would be held in trust by Golden Valley and St. Louis Park. . McAleese said that he had no fundamental problems which would improve access to the 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 1-394. Grimes commented that the tax 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. McAleese commented that he agrees with taxing businesses when they benefit, but the language in the ordinance seems to say that if something was happening in St. Louis Park, Golden Valley businesses would be taxed. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Johnson said that McAleese's point is a good one by adding language reflecting particular parcels in one's respective city. She said she liked the idea of expanding the ordinance to include capital improvements. . Commissioner Groger said that he is not in favor of the proposed amendment. He said that he does not understand why this amendment is before the Planning Commission taking into consideration that this district has been in existence for eight years and nothing has happened since that time. Groger said he is aware of the extraordinary number of taxes that exist and the taxing authorities, and that businesses are paying enough taxes now. Groger said that until he sees what the money would be used for, he sees no need for additional taxes for Golden Valley. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 1997 Page 4 Chair Pentel noted that she respects Groger's views but applauds the cities of St. . Louis Park and Golden Valley for working together to form some kind of logistical arrangement to try to work together. She believes that both cities can benefit from working with one another when it comes to looking at the 1-394 corridor. McAleese said that he's not sure what kind of language change he would like to see in the ordinance regarding the taxation of businesses. He said he was interested in knowing how the assessed money would be divid up. Grimes suggested that the Commission table this item until staff can talk with the City Attorney regarding the language in the ordinance. McAleese said that the City has the power to tax and was not sure what the ordinance was attempting to achieve. He said that he would have to vote against it unless it was tabled because of the language in the ordinance. Grimes told the commission the amended ordinance would put property owners on alert that traffic management plans would be required and if that wasn't enough something else would be required. Commissioner Martens said that he wonders why public improvements are noted in the ordinance when there are assessments and public hearings that already exist. He asked if this is giving cities more rights or power by adding it in the ordinance. Grimes commented that there are no more rights but the joint task force wanted to put people on notice which suggests that something in the future could happen whereby traffic management plans may not be enough. . Commissioner Kapsner asked Grimes if a decision was not made tonight would it create a problem. Grimes said that St. Louis Park would like to know that we are discussing this item and delaying it shouldn't be a problem. Kapsner talked about when the ordinance was first talked about in 1989, saying that many cities were concerned about tremendous development in the 1-394 corridor. He said, if he remembered correctly, the task force was created to handle problems which could surface, but this has never happened. Kapsner now believes that the joint task force has become its own monster, saying let's make some money by taxing this district, which in turn creates another tax, which is being created because we have created a joint task force. He believes existing businesses do benefit from such things as bus shelters, but that staggered hours really don't work, so its a matter of off-street parking or being bused to an area. Grimes agreed to what Kapsner said noting that the market itself has made some of the decisions about development. He added that some development is not of the high density that was thought would go in, i.e. hotels which don't create peak traffic. Kapsner suggested that the item be tabled and a vote taken at a future meeting. . . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 1997 Page 5 MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McAleese to table this item to a future meeting. McAleese requested to amend the motion to include that the item be tabled until staff can resolve the issues as discussed. Grimes said that he would talk with St. Louis Park about the language noting that they may want to keep the language as is. Martens said that he doesn't see the necessity for the amended language and that the commission shouldn't presume that this would automatically happen as an additional tax. He noted that the City has the special assessment process available, if appropriate. Groger said that the money raised would be under the joint task force. The commission voted unanimously to table this item to a future meeting. III. Reports on MeetinQs of the HousinQ and Redevelopment Authority. City Council and Board of ZoninQ Appeals Commissioner Groger reviewed the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting he attended. Director Grimes told the commission that Hidden Lakes PUD permit and other items would be on the December 16 City Council meeting. IV. Other Business A. Continued Workshop Session on Technical Background for the Land Use Plan Chair Pentel suggested a task force get together and look at a rewriting of the Land Use Plan. Groger agreed that it would be easier than all seven members of the commission trying to go through it. He asked if any other members were interested. Grimes commented that he has no objection to the formation of a subcommittee going through the plan and it would then be words coming from the commission. McAleese asked if there was a time table for completion of this. Grimes said the entire Comprehensive Plan has to be completed by late spring, 1998. He said some sections would need to have an extension. Groger asked Grimes at what point would the land use plan map be reviewed, noting that the decisions made about the map may help in what is needed in the plan. Grimes said that it would be beneficial to have the whole body meet to discuss the land use plan map. Pentel commented that even without the map, the text can be in place because it speaks for itself. Martens questioned whether there should be a separation of the comp plan changes and zoning changes and would like some input on this. Grimes commented that there is concern how the comp map and zoning map have been Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 1997 Page 6 looked at as the same. He said the plan map should be something that is looked at . "out in the future" and these two maps won't always agree. Grimes commented that staff has not been looking at the plan that much and that there hasn't been any drastic changes in the past years. Martens said that there were three or four items in the draft comp plan which should be brought out and suggested that the proposed small group could define these items and bring them back to the commission. Pentel asked if anyone else wished to be on this subcommittee and requested that all comments and concerns be submitted no later than December 1 to the Planning Department. McAleese agreed to be on the subcommittee with Pentel and Martens. Groger commented on a section of the land use policies concerning the Hwy. 100 project which is something that he is generally in favor of but he questioned deferring consideration of all proposed land use plan amendments for individual properties along Hwy. 100 until after highway construction s complete. Martens asked how this is done when land is ready to be developed. McAleese commented by moratorium. Grimes noted that this would be only for properties that needed amendments to the land use plan. B. Reschedule December 22, 1997 meeting to December 15, 1997 . After discussion of dates available, the commission decided to meet on its regular scheduled date of December 22, 1997, if a meeting was required. Pentel asked if there was any other business. V. Adiournment Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 8: 1 Opm. Emilie Johnson, Secretary . . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: January 8, 1998 Golden Valley Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Continued Consideration of an Amendment to a Portion of the "1-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance" (Section 11.56, Subd. 9 of the Zoning Code) -- City of Golden Valley, Applicant . At the November 24, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held an informal public hearing to consider an amendment to a portion of the "1-394 . Overlay Zoning District". I am attaching a copy of my memo to the Commission dated November 19, 1997 which explains the existing ordinance and why it is proposed to be changed. The Commission tabled the consideration of the amendment because there was concern that the language in the amendment was unclear or that the amendment was unnecessary. As requested by the Commission, I reviewed the proposed amendment with the City Attorney. It is his opinion that the language in the proposed amendment is acceptable and that it does not take any power or authority from the respective City Councils. He told me that only a City Council can assess properties within their City for improvements. This amendment would not allow either the Task Force or the City of St. Louis Park to assess properties in Golden Valley for capital improvements that do not benefit Golden Valley properties. As outlined in the "1-394 Overlay Zoning District" ordinance, the Joint Task Force that was created by a joint powers agreement between Golden Valley and St. Louis Park may suggest to each of the City Councils that it would be beneficial to assess certain properties in the 1-394 corridor for certain capital improvements. Only the City Councils may assess the properties and the City Councils have the right to disagree with the Joint Task Force. There was also a question regarding the collection of the fees as outlined in Section 11.56, Subd. 9. The fee that is collected is for the specific purpose of the costs incurred by the Task Force in reviewing, investigating, and administering management plans under this ordinance. This will remain the same even if this amendment is approved. These fees are collected by each City and held in a separate fund that the Task Force may use. The money collected by a City for a~y assessment for capital improvements in the corridor . . would not be collected or kept by the Joint Task Force. These funds would be collected by the City as with any special assessment project. As I stated in my November 19, 1997 memo, this change to the Ordinance has been suggested by the Joint Task Force to put property owners on notice that each City has the right to assess properties in the corridor for capital . improvements that may reduce congestion in the area. Both cities already have this right. The City Council in each City is the only authority that can assess. The Joint Powers agreement between the two cities, which created the Task Force, do~s not give the Task Force the authority to assess properties within the 1-394 corridor. RECOMMENDED ACTION After further discussions with the City Attorney, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed amendment to Section 11.56, Subd. 9. The proposed language does not reduce the authority of the Golden Valley City Councilor give any authority to assess properties to any other government body. Attachments: Memo dated November 19, 1997 with attachments . . 2 . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: November 19, 1997 Golden Valley Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Informal Public Hearing -- Amendment to a Portion of the "1-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance" (Section 11.56, Subd. 9 of the Zoning Code) -- City of Golden Valley, Applicant . In 1989, the cities of Golden Valley and S1. Louis Park each adopted a new chapter to their respective zoning codes related to traffic management along the 1-394 corridor. The two cities jointly adopted the same language for their zoning code which requires that traffic management plans be created by the owner of new, high density developments. The high density developments that would meet the criteria for the creation of a Traffic Management Plan would primarily be multi-story office buildings with more than .6 sq.f1. of gross floor area per square foot of land area. The traffic management plans would be prepared at the time the buildings are constructed or existing buildings are expanded. They would go into effect only when the level of service at one of the three freeway interchanges, shared by Golden Valley and S1. Louis Park, reaches a certain level and/or the amount of development around each interchange exceeds a pre-determined reserve capacity. I am enclosing a copy of the "1-394 Overlay Zoning Ordinance" which describes in detail the reserve capacity, level of service concept, and land area zones which surround each of the freeway interchanges. Since this ordinance was adopted by both cities in 1989, no traffic management plans have been prepared because no buildings have been built that meet the criteria for preparing a Traffic Management Plan. (When this ordinance was adopted in 1989, there was still a booming office market. After 1989, however, the office market decreased dramatically. Due to this decrease in office construction, no new high density office buildings have been built in the 1-394 corridor.) The first building that requires a traffic management plan, since the ordinance was adopted in 1989, will soon be under construction in S1. Louis Park. MEPC American Properties has already received zoning approvals from S1. Louis Park that will allow construction of a large, multi-story office building next to the Travelers Express building. This planned building is near the Xenia Avenue interchange. As part of the Planned Unit Development approval by S1. Louis Park, MEPC has already prepared a Traffic Management Plan that has been approved by the Joint Task . Force. As defined in the Ordinance, the Joint Task Force has representatives from both cities. The Task Force was represented by the City Manager, City Council . Member Jan LeSuer, and the Planning Director. A copy of the Traffic Management Plan is attached. When the Joint Task Force met to discuss the MEPC Traffic Management Plan this Fall, a revision to the Ordinance was suggested by the St. Louis Park Task Force. The Golden Valley Task Force members agreed to bring the change to its City Council for consideration. The proposed change to the Golden Valley Ordinance is as follows (changes are underlined): 1-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance Section 11.56, Subd. 9 I. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT /\DMINISTRATIVE FEE AND ASSESSMENTS Under the authority in Minnesota Statute 462.353, subd. 4, each owner of a parcel or development subject to the terms of the Ordinance shall pay a traffic management administrative fee of $.10 per square foot of gross floor area. Fifty (50)% of the fee shall be paid at the time such owner applies for a conditional use permit or planned unit development permit for such development and (50)% of the fee shall be paid at the time such owner applies for a building permit thereof. The fees shall be collected by the city and deposited as a separate fund under the authority of the Joint Task Force. The fund will be used by the Joint Task Force only for its costs incurred in reviewing, investigating and administering traffic management plans under this Ordinance. Should the costs of administering and enforcing this Ordinance require it, the city reserves the right to periodically assess such costs to the parcels within the area covered. The city also reserves the riaht to periodicallv assess the parcels within the respective areas for the costs involved in implementina capital improvements desianed to reduce traffic conaestion, facilitate transit use, and implement Traffic Manaaement Plans in the vicinity of Xenia/Park Place Boulevard and 1-394, Louisiana Avenue and 1-394, and Boone Avenue and 1-394. . The proposed amendment relates to the section on traffic management fees. Currently, the fees collected may only be used by the Joint Task Force for costs incurred in reviewing, investigating and administering traffic management plans submitted to the Task Force. It cannot be used for capital improvements to reduce traffic congestion. The Joint Task Force believes that it is in the best interest of both cities to give the cities the right to assess the parcels within the 1-394 corridor for the cost involved in implementing capital improvements related to the reduction of traffic congestion. These improvements may include a local transit circulator system, improved transit stops, park and ride facilities, improved pedestrian circulation and bicycle related improvements. There are no current plans for capital improvements. . 2 . It should be understood the right to assess by the City requires a public hearing process. The Joint Task Force may suggest an assessment, however, each City Council has to go through the normal assessment process. St. Louis Park is now going through the process to amend its zoning code in a similar manner. My understanding is that the St. Louis Park amendment will be before its City Council for approval in December, 1997. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the attached amendment to the "1-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance". Both the City staff and Golden Valley members of the Task Force believe that the ability for each City to assess for capital improvements to reduce traffic congestion should be an option in order to enhance the 1-394 corridor. Attachments: Traffic Management Plan for the MEPC Building Golden Valley City Code, Section 11.56, Subd. 9 . . 3 August 27, 1997 . TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN: BUILlJING LOCATED AT 1600 UTICA AVENUE, ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA In compliance with Section 14:5-10 of the $1. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance (TDM Ordinance). Owner proposes this Traffic Management Plan for the 1600 Building. The Traffic Management Plan (Th1P) consists of the following elements: The O,^,ller will designate a person on its staff as the Transportation Management Coordinator for the 1600 Rllilding (the Coordinator). The Coordinator will: 1. comply with reporting requirements; 2. implement parking management policies and programs; 3. provide oversight and manageIIltmt of the TIvIP; and 4. provide transportation coordination services to implement the individual transportation management elements of the program. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR . The Owner will designate a member of its statfro act as the Coordinator. Such individuaJ shall have authority to coordinate and implement TMP measures for the 1600 Building. The primary responsibilities of the Coordinator are as follows: I. Comply;v.rith TMP reporting requirements established by the City; 2. Develop) implement and monitor parking management policies and programs) and develop and monitor parking operations consistent with the ubjectives: of the TOM Ordinance; and 3. Oversee and manage the provision of transportation services for implementation of the T?vfP and act LlS liaison to the City regarding all aspects of transportation elements for the 1600 Building' s operation. The Coordinator function shall be maintained for the functional life of the 1600 Building to the extent required by the TDM Ordinance. . TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION SERVlCES . The function and responsibilities of transportation coordination services performed by the Coordinator for the 1600 Building may be provided jointly with those provided for other buildings owned by MEPC within Minneapolis West Business Center (l'vfWBC), particularly the building presently located at J 550 Utica Avenue. Elements of Transoonation Coordination Services The primary elements of the transportation coordination services shall include one or more of the following: . . a) To develop coordinate and implement an overall information program for commute alternatives; , (1) Facilitate (via lv1EPC Concierge Update publication) rideshare 'With MWBC. (2) Commuter Fairs and Campaigns. b) . To coordinate and implement public transit promotional activities; , (1) Work with Metro Transit to locate bus shelters within MWBC. (2) Work with Metro Transit to schedule convenient fouces for tenants and clients. c) To coordinate :md implement ridesharing promotional activities for all . tenants and their employees; (1) Provide convenient parking for car pools and van pools. d) To coordinate and implement bicycle and pedestrian promotional activities for all tenants and their t:mployees; e) To collect, coordinate and disse.Tninate flextime promotional information; f) . To coordinate and provide infonnation regarding any other technique or combination of techniques potentially capable of reducing the traffie and relate impacts of the 1600 Building; g) Act as liaison and facilitator for the City or the TDM Joint Task Force to implement any rideshare or transit programs (e.g. electronic bulletin board. new bus routes, van pools. etc.), incentives or subsidies that they wish to initiate; cmd h) Discuss with the cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley as well as other entities and property owners a financing system for transit and ~ infrastructure improvements that are designed to alleviate congestion at the intersections defined in the TDM Ordinance. 2 Initial Mana!!ernent ActiQ.ns Upon openin~ and lease-up for the J 600 Ruilding, the Transportation Management . Coordinator through Concierge Sevic.:es shall provide the following services: · Sell bus passes · Provide bus route and schedule information · Provide information on rideshare program · Use a Bulletin Board to communicate TDM infonnation and facilitate car pools and van pools · Pr~vide shower facilities for people biking or running to work · Provide bike racks within MWBC · If a tenant leases more than 35% of the 1600 Building space) ascenain and communicate that tenant's particular I:.ransponation needs to the Joint Task Force or the City and cooperate in the Creation of a particularized IMP for that tenant if the tenant ex.presses an interest in doing so · Work with the City of St. Louis Park in the development of a transit plan for the City · Work with the cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley and other large office buildings in Zone A to develop rideshare matching programs Except for the Initial Management Action,. the TMP and transportation coordination services shall be implemented at such time as required by Section 14:5-10D.2 of the TDM Ordinance when other building owners (ifany) witbinZone A of the TDM District subject to the TDM Ordinance are s:imilarly direc~ed by the Joint Task Force established by the TDM Ordinance. . . 3 . . . SII.56 ess restrictions to parking spaces in on-site parking facilities, programs to support and encourage the utilization of alt?r ative ortation modes. G. Use and accessory use design options W~i" reduce relianc n single-occupancy vehicles by employees and oth~ s who will travel t nd from the proposed use, such as the provt# on of less parking a than that required under the provisionsJEhis chapter, shared park arrangements, the incorporation of rpidential units (in the case proposed commercial uses) and o~h~,!"analogous desi, gn features. other technique or co" ination of techniques capable of use. Subd. 7. nconforrningK' Traffic Generation Uses. Nonconforming traffic gen tion uses,;.care all uses wi thin the area covered by this overlay or nce w$!ch existed or had approved land use and building permits the o;:.:.'"'-Defore the effective date of this Ordinance. I f a nonconformin raffic generation use exceeds more than .6 square feet of gross area per each square foot of land area within a lot or parcel, ot be altered or modified unless it conforms to the terms of ' nce. Subd. 8. Joi e Joint Task Force shall con- sist of eight member,'1.li two elected 0 . cials from each ci ty, each city manager and a" aff member appoint by the city manager from each city. Its ftion shall be to perio ally monitor the traffic generation and a pollution in Zones A, B a C and to review traffic management pIa . so as to insure their compli e with the intent and purpose of t Ordinance. I t also shall ado and promulgate rules of procedur If the Joint Task Force deadlock the issue or matter shall be s itted first to mediation under the s of the American Arbitrat' Association. Thereafter, upon agreeme. of the parties, the iss or matter may be submitted under the Rule f the American Arbitr ion Association to binding arbitration by a s. Ie arbitrator chbs by the parties, or if they cannot agree, by the nepin County Dis ct Court. The arbitration shall proceed under th ules of the Am ican Arbitration Association. Subd. 9. Traffic Management Administrative Fees. Under the authority in Minnesota Stat. S 462.353, Subd. 4, each owner of a par- cel or development subject to the terms of this ordinance shall pay a traffic management administrative fee of $.10 per square foot of gross floor area. 50% of the fee shall be paid at the time such owner applies for a conditional use permit or planned unit development per- mit for such development and 50% of the fee shall be paid at the time such owner applies for a building permit therefor. The fees shall be collected by the city and deposited as a separate fund under the authority of the Joint Task Force. The fund will be used by the Joint Task Force only for its costs incurred in reviewing, investigating and GOLDEN VALLEY CC 267-8 (6-30-89) SII.56 administering traffic management plans under this ordinance. ShoulA the costs of administering and enforc ing this ordinance require i t'W' the city reserves the right to periodically assess such costs to the parcels within the area covered by it. Source: Ordinance No. 13, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-22-89 (Sections 11.57 through 11.59, expans ion. ) inclusive, reserved for future . GOLDEN VALLEY CC 267-9 {6-30-89.