Loading...
09-22-97 PC Agenda . '. i 'I AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road - Council Chambers . Monday, September 22, 1997 7pm I. Approval of Minutes - September 8, 1997 Iriformal Public Hearing - Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 71 II. --: Applicant: - -- Hennepin County Property Services Address: 7151 Madison Avenue West (Formerly Known as 7155 Madison Avenue West) Purpose: Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) dated June 3, 1997, which would allow for the proposed residential facility to be approximately 800 sq.ft. larger than permitted by the original C;U.P. - SHORT RECESS - III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals - ...... IV. Other Business A. Workshop Se'ssion on Technical Background for the Land Use Plan V. Adjournment .1 :j -;. . . --~~~-----_._..._---- Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The ComrT'!ission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon . the Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or w}II not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Commission holds informal public hearings on land us-e proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. With the completion of the informal public hearing(s) there will be a short recess before the commission cqntinues with the remainder of the agenda. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommendation from staff. Commission members may ask questions of staff. . " - - - 2. The proponent wiIJ describe the proposal and ansWer any questions from the Commission. 3.. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual. ques.tions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. . 4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized. by the Chair. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. . . 7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. . . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8,1997 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, September 8,1997. "The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Martens, and McAleese; absent were Kapsner and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Recording Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes - August 25. 1997 MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to " approve the August 25, 1997 minutes with the following two corrections: Page Six, Paragraph 4: Delete noted words as follows: Commissioner McAleese commented on the narrow issue of the rezoning and believes it is appropriate. McAleese said that he attended the City Council meeting of July 15, ana has reQonsideroa the matter of Fezoning tJ:Je property. He said that he is nst sure whether tJ:Je City Cour:mil ',\'as \.'.~r.()ng iA their denial of the rezoning ,..,heR looking at the issue of policy. McAleese said that he would vote against the rezoning at this time, that looking at the simple planning standpoint of rezoning makes sense, but believes there are other development issues. The paragraph was corrected as follows: ... McAleese said that he attended the City Council meeting of July 15 and had originally agreed with the City Council's decision but has reconsidered. He said that ... Page Six, Paragraph 5: Change "vote of 6-2" to "vote of 4_2". II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 71 Applicant: Hennepin County Property Services Address: 7151 Madison Avenue West (Formerly Known as 7155 Madison Avenue West) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8. 1997 Page Two . Purpose: Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) dated June 3, 1997, which would allow for the proposed residential facility to be approximately 800 sq.ft. larger than permitted by the original C.U.P. ~ Director Mark Grimes told the Commission that Hennepin County would like to pull this agenda item, to be reviewed at a future Commission meeting. MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to continue this item to a future Planning Commission meeting. III. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Applicant: Colonial Acres Home, Inc. Address: 5650 and 5800 St. Croix Avenue . Purpose: Amend the Comp Plan Map for a portion of the subject property from Industrial (Radio) to Residential (High Density) and a portion of the subject property from Residential (Medium Density) to Residential (High Density) IV. Informal Public ~earing - Rezoning Applicant: Colonial Acres Home, Inc. Address: 5650 and 5800 St. Croix Avenue Purpose: Rezone the proposed property from the Radio and Television Zoning District to the M-3 Multiple Dwelling (6-story maximum height) Zoning District and the existing property from M-1 to the M-3 Multiple Dwelling Zoning District City Planner Beth Knoblauch asked the Commission if it would be okay to report on both the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map amendment and the rezoning of the above mentioned properties because the items were similar in nature. The Commission agreed. Knoblauch reviewed a colored site plan pointing out the . requests by Colonial Acres. She told the Commission that the area surrounding Covenant Manor has a general mix of uses of office, retail and apartments. City . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8~ 1997 Page Three Planner Knoblauch said that the amendment to the Comp Plan Map was for both the proposed building and existing building, noting that the existing building was a housecleaning item in that the Comp Plan Map shows this building as medium density and it should be high density. She continued saying that the Comp Plan Map shows the proposed structure as having an industrial use of Radio which is inappropriate for the proposal. She said that anything over 12 units per acre should be high density. Knoblauch told the Commission that the proposed property does not have access to any streets, that the easement along Cobacabana is being used presently. She said that it makes sense to join these two properties. Knoblauch also talked about the City's Livable Community commitment noting that this is a state mandated program and communities that participate are to provide housing of affordability and density. She said that Golden Valley can use this project as part of its goal to meet the density portion of the Livable Communities Act. . . City Planner Knoblauch proceeded to review the rezoning request commenting that the rezoning is similar to the Comp Plan Map amendment. She said that the existing site of Covenant Manor is zoned M-1 which has a maximum building height of three stories. This building is five stories. She said the proposed site is zoned Radio and Television which is not suitable for the project. Knoblauch said that the existing and proposed sites should be rezoned to M-3 (maximum of 6-stories). Chair Pentel asked the Commission if they had questions for staff. None were asked. Applicant Dan Biersdorf, 33 So. 6th Street, told the Commission that City Planner Knoblauch had spelled out in her memo and presentation any concerns. Biersdorf said that the proposed parcel is an island in itself and that the policy of the City is not to have these kinds of situations. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Groger asked staff what kind of impact this development would have . on the Hwy. 100 project in that the frontage road is being taken on the west side of Hwy.100. He also wanted to know if staff knew if any parking would need to be removed from the shopping center because of the Hwy. 100 project. Knoblauch said that the shopping center would be spared of any taking of parking. Grimes commented tha~ the Cobacabana apartments, to the east of Covenant Manor, would be losing some parking along the frontage road. . Chair Pentel commented that this is a logical amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map, and rezoning of the properties makes sense. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8,1997 Page Four . Commissioner McAleese said that the Comp Plan Map amendment and rezoning only make sense with a P.U.D. and would be voting in favor ofthe proposals because the P.U.D. would come before the Commission as the next item. MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried "unanimously to recommend approval to the City Council to amend the Comprehensive land Use Plan Map for a portion of the subject property from Industrial (Radio) to Residential (High Density), and a portion of the subject property from Residential (Medium Density) to Residential (High Density). MOVED by Groger, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to the City Council to rezone the proposed property from the Radio and Television Zoning District to the M-3 Multiple Dwelling (6-story maximum height) Zoning District and the existing property from M-1 to the M-3 Multiple Zoning District. V. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Preliminary Design Plan - P.U.D. No.1B, Covenant Manor Colonial Acres . Applicant: Colonial Acres Home, Inc. Address: 5650 and 5800 St. Croix Avenue Purpose: Review of an amendment to the Preliminary Design Plan, P.U.D. No. 18, Covenant Manor Colonial Acres City Planner Knoblauch reviewed a color site map of what is existing on the Covenant Manor site today and what is being proposed. She said that the applicant is proposing to add to the site a new canopy over the front entrance of the existing site, a loading dock, garages, a new 6-story wing onto the north side of the existing building and relocate a 4-stall garage behind the proposed building. Knoblauch briefly talked about the eligibility of the application and the original P.U.D. She said that the Covenant Manor site was originally suppose to be an office building but Covenant Manor asked to have the density changed. She reviewed the "Standards and Criteria for PUD's" noting the eight points, of which some are not required until General Plan review. She briefly talked about the landscaping requirements saying that it would be impossible for the applicant, with today's planting requirements, to plant the amount of trees required. She suggested that . the City may want to consider whether there are off-site landscaping improvements that the applicant could make in exchange for the reduced on-site requirements. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 1997 Page Five Knoblauch continued her review of "Planning Considerations" talking about the Existing PUD Boundary, Maximum Approved Dwelling Units, Existing Parking, Zoning, Park Land, Livable Communities and Engineering/Construction Issues. She talked about the number of existing units commenting that some have been combined and some are being used as guest units. Knoblauch "requested from the applicant new interior plans so that staff could have an accurate count of rooms which will then let staff determine the number of parking spaces required. She talked about the number of parking spaces on the site and believes the applicant has met this requirement. . City Planner Knoblauch noted that there are substantial built-in variances but if previously approved variances are looked at and what is being requested now, there is not much difference. She talked about the residential and commercial uses on " the site saying that the commercial uses are accessory to those who live there and that these uses do not constitute a strong variance in this case. Knoblauch talked about the lot area in that the proposed addition would almost double the count of what is there now, but when the entire site is averaged together, it isn't quite as bad. She said that the proposed structural lot coverage would be 36%, where 35% is the normal lot coverage for this type of site. City Planner Knoblauch once again review the colored site plan pointing out setback areas that would not be met, specifically mentioning areas that have no greenspace at all. Knoblauch told the Commission that she has not yet received a recommendation from the Open Space and Recreation (OS&R) Commission regarding park land. She said that last year, when the applicant had brought forth a rezoning request, the OS&R talked about not taking land but would be in favor of a" cash payment. Knoblauch suggested that the Commission could recommend that the applicant clean up St. Croix Park in lieu of a cash payment or park space within the development. . " Knoblauch talked about the Livable Communities program and how the proposed new 6-story residential facility would affect the City's goals. She said that the existing portion of Covenant Manor has already been included in the Livable Communities information. Knoblauch said that four of the six benchmarks apply to this development with a positive impact on housing and multi-unit density and a negative impact on owner/renter mix and no clear assessment on ownership afford ability . . Knoblauch commented on the Engineering/Construction issues saying that the Inspections Department has not identified any particular construction issues at this Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 1997 Page Six . stage. She said that Engineering had supplied staff with a memo, but they did not see any serious issues, but noted that the applicant will need to submit some follow- up information. Knoblauch told the Commission that staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to Covenant Manor P.U.D. No. 1-B subject to staff recommendation. Chair Pentel asked staff about the number of units on the site. Knoblauch said there are 130 units in the existing building and 134 proposed for the new building. Commissioner Martens asked staff if Covenant Manor units are rental vs ownership. Knoblauch said that based on the up-front endowment, it would seem that the units are home ownership. Chair Pentel asked about the antennae at the east side of the Springgate Shopping Center which had been recently put up, and can the City expect more of these. . Knoblauch commented because there was no expansion of the building footprint . there was no expansion of a nonconformity, and she said yes more antennas could ~~~. . Commissioner Groger commented on the previous addition in 1984 where it has always looked as though the building was unfinished and very close to the north property line. Knoblauch said that she believes that the Covenant Manor has had an option to buy the proposed sight for sometime and that may be why the existing building is so close to the property line. Groger asked about the driveway to the rear of the proposed building and if there has been an agreement worked out with Byerlys for this use. He said that he thought there was an existing easement agreement with the medical building more toward the northwest side of the existing site. Knoblauch commented that it looks as though it is a new entrance. She said she was unsure whether the tower site had an assess agreement with Byerlys. Knoblauch commented that staff was happy to see the access to the north of the proposed building as she is sure the Fire Department would also approve of this access. Chair Pentel asked where the trash receptacles would be placed. Knoblauch . reviewed the site plan and the site of the receptacles. Pentel asked how the refuse trucks would get into the site. Knoblauch said the applicant could respond to this question. Commissioner Groger commented on the enclosed four-stall garages against the lot . line at the rear of the proposed structure, noting that one of the office buildings to the west would be fairly close to this structure. He asked staff if they had a . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8,1997 Page Seven measurement from the closest office building to the proposed four-stall garages. Knoblauch said that she was unsure how close the building was to the proposed garages, but would check on this. Commissioner Johnson asked staff what they were considering for off-site landscaping. Knoblauch said that staff is suggesting a clean-up of the St. Croix Park and the path through the park. Commissioner Martens asked if there was any opportunity of putting landscaping on the existing site vs. the proposed site. Knoblauch said that most of the landscaping on the existing site is around the original wing. She said that she was not an expert on landscaping regarding how many trees or shrubs could go in and believes there . is some opportunity. Commissioner Groger commented that the landscaping looks quite nice now, and the removal of the garages along St. Croix Avenue would be an improvement. . Chair Pentel asked if the parking was adequate now. Knoblauch said that staff has not heard of any complaints. She said that Director Grimes has been over there several times and noted that the parking has always been full, but not overflowing. Chair Pentel talked about the existing landscaping on the east side along Cobacabana being very minimal and asked staff if this could be an area of off-site landscaping improvements. She questioned staff about plans for the parking lot on the Cobacabana site. Knoblauch said that she was unsure about the parking plans and added that this would be an area that could be used for off-site landscaping. Commissioner Johnson asked whether there was a danger of residents parking on other property if parking was not available at Covenant Manor. Knoblauch commented that there is an existing agreement with the Bassett Creek Office Plaza for evenings, weekends and holidays. She continued to say that she does not believe that there would be an overflow onto the Springgate parking lot. Commissioner Groger noted that after the removal of the garages along St. Croix the parking lot will be quite close to the road. He questioned staff on whether there is any provisions to residents for long-term storage of RVs or boats. Knoblauch said she is not aware of any provisions but the Commission could recommend that there be no long-term storage of recreational vehicles. Commissioner Johnson asked staff what its understanding was of the purpose for the guest units. Knoblauch said she was unaware of the units until she reviewed . the floor plans. She said that Covenant Manor residents use these units for visitors. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 1997 Page Eight . Dan Biersdorf introduce John Howl, campus administrator for Covenant Manor. Mr. Howl gave a background on Covenant Manor and a vision for the future. . Dan Biersdorf commented on the whether the units are home ownership or rental. He said that Covenant Manor is a continuing care facility with a entrance fee and monthly maintenance fee for residents. He said that many services are included in the fee. Biersdorf said that residents pay tax on a homestead tax basis so it would be more ownership than rental. Biersdorf told the Commission that an easement has been obtained from the owners of the Byerly's property to use for service and emergency vehicles. Biersdorf also commented that there is an easement with the office building for the existing site. Architect Rick Moore said trash removal would occur from its current loc;:ation for the west building. The proposed addition's trash containers will be at the north end of the building and be picked up using the driveway through Springgate. Moore said the trucks would use the service drive through the shopping center. Knoblauch asked if the trucks would enter at the north service road and pick up at the proposed site and existing building; Moore said that was possible. Mr. Moore commented on the greenspace to the north, east and south sides of the properties. He said the intent is a screening type landscaping for the site and would mainly be working on the new screening areas that need to be developed. . Chair Pentel asked if there were plans for snow removal. Moore said most of the snow would be removed. Chair Pentel asked what kind of pedestrian access there would be between the proposed site and Springgate Shopping Center. Moore commented that there would be an internal walkway through the proposed building to a door leading over to the shopping center. Mr. Moore reviewed color renderings of the site noting that the intent was to make the site more friendly, with more character. He talked about the exterior of the addition and courtyard area. Chair Pentel asked to revisit the issue of RV's and boats asking if parking garage stalls would be available for long-term storage of boats. Moore commented that there are some stalls in the parking garage that would be more usable for long term storage because of the difficulty to maneuver a car in and out, but has not really discussed the storage of recreation vehicles. He said that if these vehicles were to . remain outside, they would try to store them on the northwest comer of the site. . .' Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 1997 Page Nine Commissioner Groger asked how many of the current residents have vehicles. John Howl said about one half of the dwelling units have cars. He said there is a demand and every once in awhile they may have to park outside until something opens up. Howl said about one-third of the cars are leaving the site on a daily basis and there is a car that takes residents to doctor's appointments. Commissioner Groger asked about clean up of the park vs. lieu of cash. Howl said that he would work with the City on this. Commissioner Johnson asked about the guest units. Howl commented that there is only one guest unit and it is used to accommodate residents needs vs. staying in a hotel. He said that there is a time limit on .its use and a rental fee. . , Commissioner Martens asked what percentage of new residents come from the existing base of Golden Valley. Howl commented that a market study shows that a majority of the population would be coming from a 7-10 mile radius and would also see residents coming from members of the Evangelical church. Knoblauch asked Mr. Howl if he could let the Council know where the existing residents come from. Mr. Howl said that he could conduct a study for this information. Howl said a number of residents come from out of state who want to move closer to family. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Frank Newcomb, resident of Covenant Manor, told the Commission that he moved from Michigan. He had analyzed several retirement areas and found this setting to be very uniql:Je, a jewel in the City. Newcomb believes the quality of life will increase if the proposal is approved. John Cole, resident of Covenant Manor, said that he has lived here since 1989. He served on the Design Development Commission for the last two years bringing in resident input, working with the architect and staff. . Jody Humphrey, resident of Covenant Manor, told the Commission that she had come from Santa. Barbara to be near family. She said that she has found Covenant Manor to be a delightful and quiet place to live, and that she spends her money in Golden Valley. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. . Commissioner McAleese asked the applicant for clarification whether residents would be able to use the driveway on the east side of the site to access the driveways through the office park and shopping center instead of using St. Croix Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 1997 Page Ten . Avenue. Moore commented that one could physically use this access. He said that the access to the north of the proposed building could also be used but because of . the garage entrance/exist and the parking area to the front of the site, it may not be a convenient route. He suggested that Mr. Howl talk with the residents to discourage this route. McAleese said that he didn't think it would be a problem either but because there are two separate easements onto other properties involved and if a problem would occur that Covenant Manor would handle it. City Planner Knoblauch asked what was happening with the swimming pool. Moore said that the existing pool is being converted to a dining area and a new pool. Chair Pentel commented that she is pleased with the way the site looks and the participatory design process. She does believe the site is very tight a.,d lacks greenspace, but people who are purchasing the apartments are aware of these concerns. Commissioner Groger said that this was good planning for a difficult spot to put residential because of the surrounding office and shopping areas. He said that he has. one reservation which is the building at the very north end with no setback area . and would rather not see it located there, but this being a very tight piece of property, there may be no alternatives. Groger supports the overall proposal and . believes this is a good use for the site and for the 'City, but would like to see alternatives to the storage building. Knoblauch said that staff would check to see where the office building is located to the lot line. Moore said that the building could be moved down a little to put in some landscaping. Groger commented that it is an improvement having the garage at the rear instead of the front. Commissioner Johnson said that she was excited about the proposal and believes this is a good site. She was glad to have heard that the residents had input concerning the development. Johnson said that she would like to see St. Croix Park cleaned up, which would benefit the entire community, as a park dedication. She said that she was happy to see this proposal which helps the City make some headway toward the City's Livable Community goals. Commissioner Marten agreed with Johnson's comment on park dedication. He commented that the plan was a good one which achieved density in a suburban location without intruding on other peoples rights or activities. Commissioner McAleese said that he supports the proposal and it would be a nice addition to the community. He said that he is concerned with traffic using the' . driveway to the Springgate Shopping Center, but believes that this can be handled . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission S'eptember 8, 1997 Page Eleven internally. He said he was also concerned with the outdoor storage of recreational vehicles and does not want to see RV's parked outside at all, but is aware that people may have RV's parked outside right now and that some kind of time frame could be worked out to move these vehicles. McAleese said that this qualifies as a development for a P.U.D. He said he believes with what has been said about landscaping and park dedication and does not have a strong position on whether it is paid in cash or maintenance of a park. McAleese said if agrees with staffs recommendation setting the maximum of 246 units and including the interior floor plans be included as part of the recommendations. He did asked staff about the reinforcement for ponding on the roof and who would oversee this. Knoblauch said that it would be the Inspections Department. McAleese said he would be interested . in finding out the mix of the neighborhood. 00 Rick Moore said that there would be three detention storage ponds, two underground and one on the roof which have all been calculated out. . MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger and motion carried by a vote of 5-0 (two commissioners absent) to recommend approval to the City Council for an amendment to the Preliminary Design Plan, P.U.D. No. 71, Covenant Manor Colonial Acres subject the following recommendations: . waiving of the PUD landscaping requirement set out in City Code Sec. 11.55, Subd. 5.8.7, on condition that the applicant continue to pursue the off-site landscaping options discussed at the informal public hearing - any landscaping so provided should be shown on the final plans and be allowed to count toward the City's landscaping standards for multi-unit residential construction, so that the proposal comes as close to meeting the full standards as is practical under the circumstances; . inclusion ofthe information "P.U.D. No. 1-8" as part ofthe plattitle; '. specific reference in the amended permit to both the maximum number of permitted units for the entire building and the number of units reserved for guest use; . a new provision in the amended permit to limit and ultimately phase out any outside storage of boats or recreational vehicles of any kind - residents who are now using outside storage may be allowed to continue doing so, but only in areas not visible from the street, and new residents should be informed up front that they may not store their boats or other recreational vehicles anywhere on the lot except in the underground garage area; . ~ . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission . September 8, 1997 Page Twelve · a new provision in the amended permit to . limit the two northerly driveways across the adjacent office and shopping center properties for service and emergency access only - if at any time the City or adjacent property managers notify Covenant Manor that a problem has developed from over-use of those driveways, Covenant Manor should be prepared to take action as necessary to discourage or preclude residents and guests from ~outinely using the driveways as a "short cut" between the Covenant Manor entrance and Duluth Street; · any site plan modification that can reasonably be accommodated in the area of the relocated four-stall detached storage garage, to minimize its visual impact on the adjacent office building to the west; · submittal of an updated set of floor plans identifying uses throughout the entire building; · a park dedication contribution as required by City Code, with the preferred option being to contribute labor and equipment toward such activities as the clean-up of adjacent St. Croix Park or the maintenance of the nearby Bassett Creek trail segment rather than making a cash payment; · acceptance of staffs interpretation of the developmenfs characteristics for . Livable Communities evaluation purposes, and finding that the proposal does make a positive contribution toward Golden Valley's Livable Communities commitment; and · all requirements and comments set out in the Engineering Department memo dated August 29,1997. VI. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals City Planner Knoblauch told the Commission that the Golden Valley HRA approved the resolution for condemnation of the properties in west area of Golden Hills. Chair Pentel reviewed the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting she attended on August 26, 1997. Director Grimes informed the Commission about a realtor looking to buy the single- family homes across Hwy. 55 from Golden Valley Commons for a higher density use. . . . . Minutes ofthe Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 1997 Page Thirteen VII. Other Business Chair Pentel talked to the Commission about the landscaping on the Shaper Property and is investigating the type of seed mix to be used. City Planner Knoblauch told the Commission to expect to have to workshop session at the next meeting on technical background for the land Use Plan. VIII. Adjournment . Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 9:20pm. Emilie Johnson, Secretary Adjournment. 9:20 . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes Director of Planning and Development Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 97-71 to allow construction of larger building for the Juvenile Detention Facility at 7151 Madison Avenue North (Formerly known as 7155 Madison Avenue West - Hennepin County Property Services, Applicant . Hennepin County has requested that CUP No. 97-71 be amended in order to allow for the construction of a juvenile detention center that would be about 800 sq.ft. larger. CUP No. 97-71 was granted by the City CounciLon June 3,1997 after receiving a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission on May 12,1997. At the May 27,1997 Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meeting, the BZA approved several variances that allowed for the construction of the building that was proposed as part of the original CUP. Prior to the original CUP action, the City Council amended the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map to permit institutional uses on this site. I am attaching staff memos and minutes on the original CUP application for your information. Hennepin County is now requesting that the CUP be amended because the site plan submitted with a building plan of 5,745 sq.ft., dated May 12, 1997 and attached to the CUP is no longer valid. As stated in a memo from Michael Jordan of SMMA Architects, the size of the building is proposed to increase from 6,000 sq. ft. to 6,552 sq. ft. (Note that the original CUP approved a building of 5,745 sq. ft.) They state that the size has increased due to the exterior thickness of the walls from 1 ft. to 1 ft. 4 in. and the addition of a room to enclose the dumpster. It is also my understanding that additional space was needed to meet certain code requirements. At the Planning Commission hearing, the architects will need to explain in greater detail why the building size expanded from 5,745 sq.ft. to 6,552 sq.ft. Due to the increased size of the building, Hennepin County must also apply for new variances to permit the construction of this proposed building. The variances that are required for the new building are substantially larger due to the increased size of the building. Attached is a list of the variances that will be requested from the BZA. The County will have to appear before the BZA prior to the amended CUP consideration by the City Council. . . The use of the new building remains to same - a 16-bed juvenile detention annex. In my memo to the Planning Commission dated May 7,1997, there is an explanation of the use. This is attached for your information. If this amended CUP is approved, a revised "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions" will have to be drafted. These "Covenants" will then be filed with the County Recorder. The revised "Covenants" will have to reflect the revised CUP. The City will require that the "Covenants" state the exact size of the building as approved by the amended CUP. The staff will also recommend that the amended CUP include a condition that no building permits will be issued until there is proof that the "Covenants" are recorded. As part of the CUP review, City Code requires that the Planning Commission make findings and recommendations to the City Council based on ten factors. They are as follows with staff comments: 1. Demonstrated need for the proposed use: The County has indicated in their materials that there is a shortage of juvenile detention space in the County. Many of the juveniles that take up bed space in the Correction System are from the suburbs. 2. Consistency of Comprehensive Plan of the City: The property where the facility is proposed is recommended to be designated on the Plan Map for Semi-Public uses. This City Council will consider this change at its May 20, 1997 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended this change at their April 14, 1997 meeting. 3. Effect upon property values in the neighborhood: The staff does not believe that this proposal will have a negative effect on property values because the site has been used in the past as an unsecured residential facility. 4. Effect on anticipated traffic generation upon the current traffic flow and congestion in the area: The proposed use will have a minimal traffic impact. It is estimated that the use will generate fewer than 50 trips per day. This would be fewer trips than would be generated from a small industrial or office user on the same sized site. 5. Effect of any Increases In population or density upon surrounding land uses: The number of persons living at the detention facility will be the same as the number living in the previous group home. Since the juveniles cannot leave the facility and will be on-site at all times, the effect will be minimal. 6. Increase in noise levels to be caused by the proposed use: There may be some additional noise due to the fenced, outside play area. The County has stated that if the juveniles become too noisy, they will be told they. must go inside. Much of the time the juveniles will be outside (weekends and after 5 PM) is after the majority of businesses has left the neighborhood. 7. Any odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibration to be caused by the proposed use: No such problems would occur due to the detention facility. 8. Any Increase In files, rats, or other animals and vermin to be caused by the proposed use: The proposed use will not cause any increase in these animal problems. . . 2 . 9. Visual appearance of the proposed structure of use: The new building will be designed by an architect. The neighbors believe that it will be an improvement over the existing building. The building will be well landscaped. 10. Any other effect upon the general public health, safety, and welfare of the City: The Director of Public Safety has been extensively involved with this application. It is his opinion that the proposed use will not cause the City public safety problems due to it being a detention facility. The County will be responsible for the behavior of the juveniles. The number will be limited to 16. The types of offender that will be sent to this facility are screened to eliminate those that may harm themselves or others. Also, the number of police calls to this site would be far, far less than when it was a group home. . RECOMMENDED ACTION The staff believes that the use of this property for a juvenile detention facility, operated by the Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections, will be an improved use of the site and provide the neighborhood with a more secure and attractive building. The County has given assurances to the City of Golden Valley that the new facility will be secure, be well maintained, respect its neighbors, and be attractive. A "Declaration of Covenants" has been prepared by the County for signing that will guarantee that the building will only be used for a 16-bed juvenile detention facility. This "Covenant" will give the City and neighbors security in that they will know who is responsible for the operation of the building. The staff is recommending approval with the fOllowing conditions: 1. No building permits be issued until there is proof that the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions has been filed. 2. The variances requested to construct the building be granted by the BZA or if denied by the BZA, approved by appeal to the City Council. 3. The attached site plan prepared by Symees Maini and McKee Associatesl Winsor Faricy, with the signature of the Director of Planning and Development and dated of September 4, 1997 be made a part of the CUP. 4. The "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions" be filed with this property . 5. A landscape plan be submitted during the building permit process and be approved by the Building Board of Review. 6. Any outdoor lighting be approved by the Chief Building Inspector to insure that the lights do not adversely effect neighboring properties. 7. The detention facility be limited to 16 beds. 8. All necessary permits for construction are obtained from the City, County and State. 9. There shall be no outdoor storage of goods, supplies or equipment unless screened so it is not visible from the street or adjacent properties. . 3 . 10. The uses on the site shall meet all applicable City, State and Federal regulations. 11. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP. . Attachments: Location Map Staff Memo to Planning Commission dated April 1 0, 1997 (Comp. Plan Amendment and Rezoning) Minutes of the Planning Commission dated April 14, 1997 Staff Memo to Planning Commission dated May 7,1997 (Conditional Use Permit) Minutes of the Planning Commission dated May 12, 1997 Staff Memo to City Council (Public Hearing on Compo Plan Amendment and Rezoning) Minutes of the City Council dated May 20, 1997 Staff Memo to Board of Zoning Appeals dated May 21, 1997 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals dated May 27, 1997 Staff Memo to City Council (Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit) Minutes of the City Council dated June 3, 1997 Hennepin County's Descriptive Summary (3 pages) Staff Use and Support Material (3 pages) Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (3 pages) New Proposed Variances Survey/New Site Plan/Old Site Plan (attached separately) (Note: Attachments of the above mentioned memos were not included. If more information is desired, contact the Planning Department) . 4 . ISO If-- l .. ~. .. IS': ~ -= :.;.:::~ ' ~~-b. \. ~~:.. ~ ClD~~ ~ QCD' . :. i N \0 . .... N . ... I: ... ~ ;. 163 N8'"SS'WE ~.. =~ ~" "'- ", N 1/2 SEC. 29, 7. 200 0 200 t I scale _____i..________ ."... :;--. :-- ,.-, .....:--;, .. ....-.... fe. 00 -r: l("'\ R 1""'\: , . - 10 .... I L-..... i.l k, 1 .1;_1 r ~ - . .~ '8 ~ ..~ " . ~~ N ,.. .... ! ... ~ eg l\i ISO I ... ~ u '-' 'll ~ 4 " - ~ . . . IT:\WORD\MEMO.DOT ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING STRATEGIC PLANNING RESOURCES ~ Symmes Main! & McKee AssociateslWinsor Farley MEMORANDUM MINNEAPOLIS.MN. ST.PAUL.MN eCAt.dSRIDGE.MA To: CITY OF GOLDEN VAllEY Date:8/18197 From: MICHAEL JORDAN Project No.:97413.00 Project HENNEPIN COUNTY -16 BED BOYS JUVENILE DETENTION ANNEX Re: ZONING SETBACK VARIANCE AND REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Distribution: RICHARD STRONG, HCPM (MF) The original zoning setback along the Nevada Avenue side of the proposed building was qased on our preliminary site plan, and the location of the existing building on the site, which had assumed that the existing parking lot dimensions could be applied to the new parkin&, lot layout. When we received the Zoning variance description, we found that the required parking setback was listed as 5'-0", not the 3'-0" as shown and the parking stilH dimensions were required to be 20'-0" and not 18'-0" as shown. Since our building dimensions are fixed, this requires a change to reduce by 4'-8" the setback at the Nevada Street side of the project. . The size of pur building has also changed from the original submittal and ~pprova1 of the conditional use permit. The building exterior wall thickness was increased from 1'-0" to 1 '-4" and we also added a room to enclose the trash dumpster which increased the building area from 6,000 S.F. to 6,552 S.F. As a result, we are also requesting an increase in the permitted area to 7,000 S.F. . 801 Nicollet Mall. Suite 1600, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612.332. 3654 Fax. 332. 3626 MEMORANDUM . Date: April 10, 1997 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing -- Amendment of the Comprehensive land Use Plan Map from an Industrial Use to Semi-Public Facilities; and Rezoning of the Subject Property from Industrial to Institutional (1~3) to allow for the Construction of a Boy's Detention Facility for Hennepin County --7155 Madison Avenue West - Hennepin County Property Services, Applicant . Hennepin County Property Services, acting for the Hennepin County Community Corrections, has requested a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning. Map Amendment in order that Hennepin County may construct a new 16-bed boy's detention facility at 7155 Madison Avenue West (southeast comer of Madison Avenue and Nevada Avenue). The site is a comer lot (200 feet by 145 feet) which is about 28,500 sq.ft. in area (.65 acre). The site is now the location of a 16-bed group home that has been on this site since 1975. It has served adolescent girls. The building is currently empty but has been actively on the market for the past year or so. Such a detention facility would be considered a residential facility in the 1-3 district, so a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required. The property is zoned Industrial and guided on the Plan Map for Industrial use. The site became a group home in 1975 when the City Council determined that the use of the property, as a group home, would fit in with the area. The building was used for other industrial purposes until that time. Group homes were not a permitted use. At that time, the Zoning Code gave the City Council authority to allow uses in the Industrial district that were not specifically but would be compatible with uses permitted in the Industrial district. This was done by motion of the City Council. It did not require a CUP. Some time after the group home was built, the City Council changed the Zoning Code and did not permit uses other than those specifically outlined in the Code. The group home is now considered a non-conforming use. It may continue as it is today but it cannot be expanded. . The Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections has been looking for alternative ways to house the growing juvenile offender population, since it was determined by the County Board that the present 87-bed facility at 510 Park Avenue would not be expanded due to high costs. One of the alternative ways is the construction of a small 16-bed facility at the subject site for juvenile boys who do not pose a threat to the community or themselves. 1 . . . The Planning staff and City Attorney have met to discuss the use of this site as a detention facility. When the County first approached the City in 1996, the idea was to either tear down the existing group home and build a new 16-bed facility or substantially rehabilitate the existing building on the same footprint. Staff and the City Attorney first determined that the use of the building, for a detention facility, was consistent with its current use as a group home if the number of beds remained the same (16 beds). Therefore, the County could use the building as long as the footprint of the building remained the same. Interior and maintenance improvements could be done. The other alternative and the one preferred by the County is to demolish the existing building and start over. The first alternative could be done because it was determined to be consistent with the existing nonconforming use. The second, however, could not be done without a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment and Zoning Code amendment. In either case, there is also a state law that requires that when a public agency opens a public facility in another City, the City Council of the City where the facility is to be opened, has to find that the proposed use is consistent with the Comp Plan and Zoning Code. Prior to the City Council finding, the Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the City Coun~i1 on this matter. In anticipation of the above State requirements, the City staff suggested to Hennepin County that they meet with the surrounding property owners in order to get their input on the proposed use. The County met two or three times with these owners. The property owners realized that the property could be used by the County "as is" and that the former use as an adolescent girls group home caused problems. In fact, Director of Public Safety, Dean Mooney has stated that the former group home caused many police calls, primarily due to runaways. There was also some property damage caused by the runaways. Itis Director Mooney's opinion that a secured detention facility would have fewer, if any, problems. In the discussions with the business neighbors, the result of the discussions was that a new detention facility on the site would be preferred over remodeling the existing building. The new building would be better designed from the neighborhood's perspective and provide the County with a new 16-bed state-of-the-art type facility. At the February 4, 1997 City Council meeting, the City Council met with Hennepin County to discuss their proposed use of the site. The Council directed staff to explore changes to the Zoning Code that would allow the County to build a new building on this site. The Planning staff met with the City Attorney to go. over the options. There are few options from a zoning perspective. The staff is recommending that Planning Commission and City Council consider rezoning the property to Institutional (1-3) which would make this type of facility a conditional use. The other alternative would have been to either make group homes/detention centers a conditional use in the Industrial district or go back to the former provision that would allow the City Council to allow certain uses that they believe would be compatible with the uses permitted in the Industrial district. 2 . . . The Planning and legal staff have given hard thought to this matter. The recommended method to allow for this juvenile detention center is to rezone the property to Institutional (1-3). If a conditional use was permitted for this type of use in the Industrial district, the City would have to consider residential facilities in all areas zoned Industrial. The staff does not believe that residential facilities are appropriate in all Industrial areas. By permitting it as a CUP, it is difficult to not allow such a use, if it meets the standards set in the Code. The staff does not recommend going back to the way the City Council originally allowed the group home. This type of clause in the Code would allow' uses that may be entirely inappropriate for the Industrial area without proper notification and hearing from the public. The rezoning to Institutional does raise certain issues. First, is this the dreaded "spot zoning" issue. In this case, the group home has existed in this location for over 20 years. It is in an area with offices and manufacturing uses. The Industrial neighborhood is well maintained and is desirable industrial/office location. The property is also in an area that is quite a distance from residential uses and schools. Dover Hill is probably the closest housing. It is separated from the site by other industrial uses and a railroad track. Based on staff experience, group homes or detention centers of this size and type are not liked by residential neighborhoods. Because of this unique location and site history, this site for a detention center may work as well as any other location in Golden Valley. Second, when rezoning to 1-3, the other uses that we permitted in that district should also be considered. These permitted uses include rest homes, sanitaria, nursing homes and clinics. Conditional uses include hospitals, out-patient surgical facilities, lodge halls, day care, and residential facilities. Due to the small size of this property, other uses of this property, either permitted by right or as a CUP, would be unlikely. Perhaps a day care facility, small clinic, or residential facility could occur on this site. However, the limited amount of space on the lot for parking and open space make other uses unlikely. Third, the Comprehensive Plan should be considered. In this case, it is recommended that the Comp Plan Map first be amended from Industrial to Semi- Public (Institutional). The Comp Plan description and the Zoning would then be consistent with this change. The issue with "spot zoning" is less problematic. The issue that the Planning Commission and City Council must decide here is whether it would be in the long term best interest of the City to have this type of use in an Industrial area. Group homes, residential facilities and detention facilities are all needed in the City. With a secured facility, this type of facility may work because the residents (inmates) are not going out into the neighborhood but staying in the facility. With the continued controversy over their location near residences, perhaps locating these institutional uses in the Industrial district would be appropriate and make sense. In the case of this property, it has the history of use as a group home. It would seem to make more sense to allow for a new building that the neighborhood wants rather than trying to retrofit an existing building. 3 . . . With the rezoning, Hennepin County has agreed to a set of restrictive covenants that State that the building would be limited to a 16-bed juvenile detention facility. A draft copy of those covenants is attached. These covenants will have to be modified to indicate that it is a conditional use in the Institutional (1-3) zoning district and that the County would commit to only using the building as a 16-bed detention facility without agreement by the City. I am attaching several reports and other information that have been gathered on this matter for the past several months. Some of this information is helpful for background on this subject. Recommended Action This is a difficult zoning and planning issue. Hennepin County will build the detention center at this location in either a substantially remodeled facility or a new facility. The preference of the neighbors in the area is that the existing building be tom down and replaced with a new building. Staff also believe that a new building would be preferable because it will be better designed for the site. Because it is. a locked facility, trye use will be more compatible with the area. In order to construct a new building, there would need to be an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from an Industrial use to Semi-Public Facilities and a rezoning of the subject property from Industrial to Institutional (1-3). If these issues go forward, a CUP would have to be issued for the site to be used as a residential facility. The County has agreed to the use of the prop"erty only under conditions found in restrictive covenants stating it would be a 16-bed facility. Overall, the staff recommends amending the Plan Map and Zoning Map. In this specific instance, staff believe that this location for a 16-bed detention facility would not have a .detrimental affect on the neighborhood and essentially continue its existing status. With the CUP; the City can apply other conditions they believe are necessary prior to issuance of the CUP. MWG:mkd Attachments: Location Map Survey Site Plan Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Other materials attached 4 . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Seven ak asked if this is a new P.U.D. Knoblauch answered it is a new,p r . 9 development. McAleese s the fence issue, agreed. t another type of fence may be mo~ opriate and believes Condition 6, be address . e landscaping plan. Pentel dition 3 will be revised to paces to be used for III. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Address: 7155 Madison Avenue West, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: To change the designation of the subject property from an Industrial use to Semi-Public Facilities IV. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning Applicant: Hennepin County Property Services Address: 7155 Madison Avenue West, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: Rezoning of the subject property from industrial to Institutional (1-3) Planning Director Mark Grimes gave a summary of his staff report. He said that Hennepin County Property Services is requesting the City to amend its Plan Map and approve a rezoning of the subject property to allow for a boys detention facility for Hennepin County Community Corrections. He noted the subject property is currently zoned Industrial and that the existing structure had been used as a group home for adolescent girls. Since the mid-1970's, it has not been used for the past few years, but has been on the market. Grimes commented that Hennepin County was denied additional beds at its downtown facility. He . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Eight said Hennepin County would use the subject property to house boys who were not a threat to the community. Grimes said the County chose this site because it was previously used as a group home. He noted that the Council, in 1975, under a provision of the Zoning Code at that time, allowed for this use. At that time, the City Council could allow a use in the Industrial District if the City Council determined that the use was not detrimental to the neighborhood. This clause was removed from the Code somewhere around 1988. Grimes noted that Hennepin County was willing to use the existing footprint and make extensive renovations to the building which would have been consistent with the zoning code. The County met with the Industrial neighbors in the area to explain what they wanted to do. The neighbors reactions were that they knew that Hennepin County could operate a detention center from the exist!ng building, but would rather see a new facility with a better constructed outdoor activity area, better landscaping and better parking for the site. . Grimes noted that staff went to the City Council, in February of 1997, and the Council asked staff to look at the alternatives to allow this type of facility. Staff and the City Attorney's best suggestion would be to rezone to Institutional and the Plan Map be amended to Semi-Public Facility so a Conditional Use Permit could be issued for a residential facility on the site. Hennepin County would then build a new facility as shown on the plan submitted. Grimes noted that variances may be needed for this proposed building and the applicant may need to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Commissioner Johnson asked if Hennepin County has committed to which type offenders would be housed at the facility. Grimes asked Johnson to address that question to Sig Fine from Hennepin County Corrections. Grimes talked about a covenant agreement for this site between the City and County that would state the kind of offenders to be housed in this facility. Commissioner Kapsner asked which property is located directly to the .east of the subject property. Grimes said it is Boustead Electric Company. Chair Pentel asked if the covenant would be attached to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Grimes answered yes. Pentel asked if the CUP comes before the commission for review and Grimes said yes. . Commissioner Groger said that his problem is that the City is taking an existing nonconforming situation and making it permanent by changing the zoning and Plan Map. Mark said yes. Grimes said the approval of the rezoning would make . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Nine the property consistent with the Plan Map. Groger said he didn't have a problem with the existing use and attached covenant, but what happens in the future if the number of juvenile offenders goes down. Grimes said that they have set out specifics in the covenant and the City would have to agree to any changes. City Planner Knoblauch asked for clarification that if Hennepin County did not want to use it as a detention facility, but maybe a clinic, would this be allowed. Grimes said no. Hennepin County has agreed by covenant to use this site as stated and would have to come back to the City if the use would change, whether permitted by code or not. . McAleese said for the purposes of rezoning, we are talking about a general type of use that will occur here, but on the other hand this could fall through and we don't know if the covenant will be signed further restricting the use of ~he property. There are other meetings at which it will be addressed. Grimes said that staff will only entertain the CUP if the covenant is attached. McAleese said that that was down the line and technically we can think of the covenant but not something concrete. Grimes said the commission will need to ask if they are comfortable with this zoning district at this location. He said that because this is a small piece a property, there are some limitations and how it can be used. However, we are trying to put protections in the code that Hennepin County will be the only users of the property. Pentel asked if the City will collect taxes on this property if Hennepin County has it. Grimes said no. McAleese asked if the rezoning and Plan Map amendment doesn't get approved tonight or by the Council what happens. He said that it is his understanding that Hennepin County could use the existing facility "as is". Grimes said yes. Grimes said that Hennepin County could maintain the footprint and rebuild. McAleese asked what the City review process would be. Grimes said they would need to pull a building permit. Grimes said that in any case, Hennepin County would supply a covenant limiting its use to 16 beds for juvenile boys. McAleese asked for clarification on the previous nonconforming use, that hasn't been in business for 6 months. Grimes said that staff has discussed this is~ue with the City Attorney who has commented that if someone consistently markets the property for a grandfathered nonconforming use, the property is not considered abandoned. . Kapsner asked how many beds were proposed. Grimes said 16. Kapsner commented that this could possibly revert back into a group home and Grimes answered yes. He continued saying that once you review the plans, one can see that there is a specific use in mind. Kapsner asked if the City of Golden Valley . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Ten was compensated by Hennepin County regarding past police calls to this site. Grimes said no. Groger asked about the appearance of the building. Grimes said that Hennepin County has sketches and is willing to work with the area businesses. Kapsner asked how close the nearest school was located. Grimes said the Sandburg Junior High is a couple of blocks to the east. . Sig Fine, Director of Correctional Institutions for Hennepin County, complimented staff whose has worked with Hennepin County for the past five months. Mr. Fine talked about the need for space to house less serious juvenile males. He noted that one person has escaped in the past 14 years from the juvenile facility in Minneapolis. Mr. Fine talked about the need for more space and wh~t kind of juveniles would be housed on the subject property. He noted the average length of stay would be approximately seven days. He talked about trying to comply with the City's zoning code, by taking the building apart, putting in the needed security features and still maintain the building footprint. Mr. Fine told the commission that his organization met with the neighbors and they would like to see a new facility built which would blend better with the Industrial area. He said there decision to pursue the proposed requests resulted from the neighbors concerns about security, aesthetics of the existing building and could a new building be built that blended better. Commissioner Kapsner asked if rebuilding is cheaper than adding another story onto the facility downtown. Mr. Fine said yes, it was significantly cheaper. Commissioner Johnson questioned what kind of offenders would be placed at this site. Mr. Fine said it would be offender-based instead of offense-based. These juveniles will be hand selected. He doesn't anticipate any public safety risk. Commissioner Prazak asked if an offender would be moved from this facility to downtown if there were any problems associated with the offender. Fine answered yes. Chair Prazak asked how much movement would be seen from this facility to downtown. Fine said there would be daily movement. There may be two or three trips a day. All juveniles will be booked downtown and then brought to this facility. . Grimes asked if food would be brought in everyday. Fine said yes. .. . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Eleven Pentel said she noticed a study area on the plan. She asked if there will be visitors. Fine said yes, you might see parents, professionals, or attorneys. Fine said that under State Statute, they can hold a juvenile in detention for 14 days before they have to give formal education so the plan is to not hold anyone that long. Someone who would be held that long will be located at the downtown facility. Grimes commented that there are set hours for visiting and a limitation on the number of visitors at one time. All visitors must first call for an appointment. Chair Pentel asked about the outdoor activities and asked about visibility to the outside. Fine said there would be a brick wall. Wayne Winsor, Winsor/Faricy Architects, reviewed the proposed buildi~g plan. Commissioner Lewis asked if the outdoor activity area would be covered. Mr. Winsor answered no. Pentel asked at what time of the evening activities would be outside. Barb Karn, Acting Division Manager for the Juvenile Detention Center answered that at the downtown facility, the outdoor area is lit and activities go on until 9:30pm, but this would not be the case at the Golden Valley facility. The juveniles would only be outside during daylight hours. Kapsner asked if the proposed building is designed so a second story could be added. Fine and Karn both said no. Groger asked the applicant, given the restrictions being placed on this facility, Le. number of males to be housed and only for a short period of time, is there a long term need for this type of facility and restrictions. Karn said yes, that demographic studies have been done to determine the number of beds that are needed. After the year 2010, the age range of these juveniles start dropping. Pentel asked if 16 beds is really what was needed. Karn responded that for detention purposes, this number of beds was sufficient. Grimes asked if the juveniles would be monitored when outdoors. Karn responded that outdoor activities are always monitored. Groger asked Karn if it is anticipated that this facility would be full all the time. Karn answered yes. . .. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Twelve Pentel asked what kind of signage would be placed on the property. Fine answered only the address. Pentel asked how many of existing trees would remain. The architect said all the trees on the boulevard would remain. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing Steve Svensen, VP & co-owner of Boustead Electric, 7135 Madison Avenue West (located directly to the east of the proposed property), said that all the neighbors agreed that they do not want to see another facility like the last one. Mr. Svensen commented that the neighbors want the property rezoned, so Hennepin County can build a security building and take care of these juveniles. He noted that the County has made a lot of concessions so business customers are not exposed to the residents of this facility. McAleese commented that visually it would be an improvement. Svensen agreed. Curtis J. Smith, CJ Printing, 2420 Nevada Avenue North (property located to the south of subject property). Mr. Smith commented that his biggest concern were people on the outside trying to get residents out. He is concerned that people may climb his building trying to get the residents of this facility out. Smith noted that his building is five (5) feet of the property line. Pentel pointed out that the plans show that the proposed detention center's outside wall would be 15 feet from the subject property line. Grimes reaffirmed with the applicant that there would be outdoor security cameras scanning the area at all times. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Prazak commented that he was comfortable with the "spot zoning" for this area. He believes that the proposed use would be an improvement over the previous use. Prazak commented that he believes the City of Golden Valley has a responsibility to provide facilities of this kind. Johnson agreed with Prazak's comments and added that she liked the idea of a new building instead of remodeling the existing one. She believes this type of facility is greatly needed and is appropriate for the City to participate in placing this type of facility in Golden Valley. McAleese said if the proposal was for an empty lot, he would be unable to support either of the requests, but because the City is stuck with the existing conditions, the proposal would be an improvement. McAleese noted that he is . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Thirteen bothered by something that comes close to being "spot zoning" but is willing to go along with this proposal. He said he was deeply troubled by the interpretation of the zoning code that a "group home" and a "jail" are the same things, but doesn't believe that this particular case is so bad. McAleese continued saying that if the facility were for hard core criminals, he would be troubled and perhaps the zoning code isn't specific enough on what is meant by residential facility. The Planning Commission may want to revisit the zoning code on this issue. Prazak commended Hennepin County for contacting the neighboring businesses regarding this issue and that the design takes into account the businesses concerns. Kapsner asked the applicant if the residents of the facility would be uf!supervised in the outside area at any time. Fine answered no. Kapsner asked staff what affect would this facility have on the housing goals for Golden Valley. Staff said none. . Groger said he supports the proposal and believes it is a vast improvement and that his only concern would be the outdoor activity area regarding to noise or things being thrown over the wall. He said that he trusts staff for monitoring this situation and taking appropriate action. Groger added that he does like the flag poles in the front of the building. Pentel said that she favors the proposal, but is concerned that when demographics change, there may be a need to reconsider what is happening at this site. She believes that through the CUP process and covenant, that the Planning Commission and staff will be assured that it will be for juvenile males and only for 16 beds. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from Industrial to Semi-Public Facilities. MOVED by Kapnser, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council to approve the rezoning of the subject property from Industrial to Institutional (1-3). . . . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: May 7,1997 Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes Director of Planning and Development Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a Boy's Juvenile Detention Center at 7155 Madison Avenue West - Hennepin County Property Services, Applicant RE: . Hennepin County Property Services has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for the construction of a 16-bed boy's juvenile detention facility. The facility would be operated by the Hennepin County Dept. of Community Corrections. The property where the facility is to be located is pending rezoning from Industrial to Institutional (1-3). (The City Council will be considering the rezoning and comprehensive plan map amendment for this site on May 20, 1997.) If the property is zoned Institutional (1-3), a juvenile detentional facility would be considered a conditional use in that district. It is the opinion of both the City staff and City Attorney that the proposed juvenile detention facility fits under the definition of a residential facility. Attached is a copy of the definition of a residential facility. At the April 14, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission considered a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Industrial to Semi-Public; and rezoning of this property from Industrial to Institutional (1-3). The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval for both of these requests (see attached minutes). These items will be considered at a public hearing by the City Council at its May 20, 1997 meeting. Prior to the CUP going to the City Council for approval, the County must appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on May 27, 1997 because the proposed detention facility does not meet all setback requirements for building and parking. The Zoning Code requires that the side and rear setback be 50 feet for building and 25 feet for parking or driveway. In other words, a 25 foot landscaped strip must be maintained around the rear and side lot lines. The front yard setback is 35 feet when abutting streets. It is anticipated that the public hearing on the CUP will be held Or) June 3, 1997, after the decision of the BZA is made. If the BZA does not agree to the variance(s), the County could then appeal the decision to the City Council at its June, 3, 1997 meeting. . . As discussed at the Comprehensive Plan Map and Rezoning hearing on April 14, 1997, the Department of Community Corrections has a need to add beds to house juvenile offenders. They have provided information to the Planning Commission in writing and orally regarding this need. I am attaching copies of the written information that they have submitted indicating the need for this facility. The County has also told the Commission and staff that they prefer to build a new building on this site rather than remodel the existing group home. This appears to be the preferred alternative because it will provide a better building for the purposes of housing juvenile offenders and it will also be more acceptable to the industrial neighbors. The County staff has met with the neighbors in the area and they all seem to be in agreement that if a juvenile detention facility is going onto this site, a new building, with state-of-the-art technology and a well designed is in everyone's best interest. The County has submitted the following reports: · Staff use and support · Statement of need · Statutory Requirement · Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions · Site Plan · Survey of property This submitted information is self explanatory with the exception of the Covenants. The Covenants would be placed on the property stating that they have told the City that the site would only be used for a 16-bed, temporary holding facility for juveniles. They will include a site plan with these covenants. These covenants will be reviewed by the City Attorney. The staff would like the Covenants changed to indicate that the detention facility use is a CUP and not a nonconforming use as indicated in the "Recitals". The Covenants is an added assurance by the County that the property will only be used for a small, juvenile facility unless the Covenant agreement is changed. As required by the City Code, the Commission must make findings and recommendations to the Council based on ten factors. They are as follows with staff comments: 1. Demonstrated need for the proposed use: The County has indicated in their materials that there is a shortage of juvenile detention space in the County. Many of the juveniles that take up bed space in the Correction System are from the suburbs. 2. Consistency of Comprehensive Plan of the City: The property where the facility is proposed is recommended to be designated on the Plan Map for Semi-Public uses. This City Council will consider this change at its May 20, 1997 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended this change at their April 14, 1997 meeting. . . 2 . 3. Effect upon property values in the neighborhood: The staff does not believe that this proposal will have a negative effect on property values because the site has been used in the past as an unsecured residential facility . 4. Effect on anticipated traffic generation upon the current traffic flow and congestion in the area: The proposed use will have a minimal traffic impact. It is estimated that the use will generate fewer than 50 trips per day. This would be fewer trips than would be generated from a small industrial or office user on the same sized site. 5. Effect of any increases in population or density upon surrounding land uses: The number of persons living at the detention facility will be the same as the number living in the previous group home. Since the juveniles cannot leave the facility and will be on-site at all times, the effect will be minimal. 6. Increase in noise levels to be caused by the proposed use: There may be some additional noise due to the fenced, outside play area. The County has stated that if the juveniles become too noisy, they will be told they must go inside. Much of the time the juveniles will be outside (weekends .and after 5 PM) is after the majority of businesses has left the neighborhood. 7. Any odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibration to be caused by the proposed use: No such problems would occur due to the detention facility. 8. Any increase in flies, rats, or other animals and vermin to be caused by the proposed use: The proposed use will not cause any increase in these animal problems. 9. Visual appearance of the proposed structure of use: The new building will be designed by an architect. The neighbors believe that it will be an improvement over the existing building. The building will be well landscaped. 10. Any other effect upon the general public health, safety, and welfare of the City: The Director of Public Safety has been extensively involved with this application. It is his opinion that the proposed use will not cause the City public safety problems due to it being a detention facility. The County will be responsible for the behavior of the juveniles. The number will be limited to 16. The types of offender that will be sent to this facility are screened to eliminate those that may harm themselves or others. Also, the number of police calls to this site would be far, far less than when it was a group home. . . RECOMMENDED ACTION The staff believes that the use of this property for a juvenile detention facility operated by the Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections will be an improved use of the site and provide the neighborhood with a more secure and attractive building. The County has given assurances to the City of Golden Valley that the new facility will be secure, be well maintained, respect its neighbors, and be attractive. A "Declaration of Covenants" has been prepared by the County for signing that will guarantee that the building will only be used for a 16-bed juvenile detention facility. This is "Covenant" will give the City and 3 . neighbors security in that they will know who is responsible for the operation of the building. The staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment for this property is approved by the City Council. 2. The variances requested to construct the building be granted by the BZA or if denied by the BZA, approved by appeal to the City Council. 3. The attached site plan prepared by Symees Maini and McKee Associates and Winsor Faricy and dated May 12,1997 be made a part of the CUP. " 4. The "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions" be filed with this property . 5. A landscape plan be submitted during the building permit process and be approved by the Building Board of Review. 6. Any outdoor lighting be approved by the Chief Building Inspector to insure that the lights do not adversely effect neighboring properties. 7. The detention facility be limited to 16 beds. 8. All necessary permits for construction are obtained from the City, County and State. 9. There shall be no outdoor storage of goods, supplies or equipment unless screened so it is not visible from the street or adjacent properties. 10. The uses on the site shall meet all applicable City, State and Federal regulations. 11. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP. . Attachments: Definition of Residential Facility Minutes of the Planning Commission dated April 14, 1997 Staff Memo to Planning Commission dated April 1 0, 1997 Hennepin County's Descriptive Summary (3 pages) Staff Use and Support Material (3 pages) Statement of Need (3 pages) Statutory Requirement (1 page) Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (3 pages) Location Map Survey Site Plan (enclosed separately) . 4 . . .. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 12,1997 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. eeting s called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. , apsner, Lewis, nt were Mark Grimes, Director I. ed by Groger and motto utes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Hennepin County Property Services Address: 7155 Madison Avenue West, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: To allow for the use of a detention facility in the Institutional (1-3) Zoning District Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, gave a brief summary of his staff report to the Commission dated May 7,1997. Grimes told the Commission that Hennepin County made the request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on behalf of the Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections. The permit is needed in order to allow a juvenile detention center at 7155 Madison Avenue West in the Institutional District. Grimes reviewed previous recommendations by the Planning Commission to change the Comprehensive Plan Map from Industrial to Semi-Public Facilities and the Zoning Map from Industrial to Institutional. Director Grimes gave brief history of the 7155 Madison Avenue West property noting that the site, in the past, was used as a girl's group home. He said that the site had been marketed for the past few years as a group home. Grimes said that Hennepin County told staff that it has a need for additional space to house juveniles and believes this site would work. Hennepin County and the neighboring businesses have had a couple of meetings regarding the use of the site and whether to renovate the existing structure or design a new building. It seemed to be the consensus that a new designed building would look more aesthetically pleasing than the existing building. In order to construct the new building, the Council would have to approve a Compo Plan Map amendment, Zoning Map amendment and a Conditional Use Permit. Grimes said the Council would be holding a public hearing for a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 12,1997 Page 2 amendment and Zoning Map amendment on May 20. He explained that the proposed building would not meet all the required setbacks and Hennepin County would have to appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals on May 27. If the Board approves the requested variances, the Council, at its June 3 meeting, will then review Hennepin County's request for a CUP or hear an appeal if the BZA did not grant the requested variances. Grimes again said that the CUP would allow a 16-bed juvenile detention facility in the Institutional (1-3) District. He told the Commission that Hennepin County has submitted a covenant agreement which states that this facility will be used for this purpose. The covenant agreement will be made a part of the conditions for this CUP. Grimes explained that juveniles would first be booked at the downtown Minneapolis facility and then would be brought to the Golden Valley site. He talked about the length of stay, off-site food preparation, visitation and number of officials on the site. Director Grimes reviewed the setback issues and the need for variances on the- east and south sides of the property, with the construction of the new building. He then reviewed the "ten factors for consideration". (Nothing outstanding was noted in these ten factors.) Grimes said that the existing structure will be demolished and a new building constructed which should be an enhancement to the site and area. Staff believes that the use of the site as a detention facility would be an improvement over the existing use and that the covenant agreement would assure that this site be used only as a 16-bed detention facility for boys. Grimes reviewed his conditions for granting the CUP as follows: 1. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment for this property is approved by the City Council. 2. The variances requested to construct the building be granted by the BZA or if denied by the BZA, approved by appeal to the City Council. 3. The attached site plan prepared by Symees Maini and McKee Associates and Winsor Faricy and dated May 12,1997 be made a part of the CUP. 4. The "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions" be filed with this property. 5. A landscape plan be submitted during the building permit process and be approved by the Building Board of Review. 6. Any outdoor lighting be approved by the Chief Building Inspector to insure that the "lights do not adversely effect neighboring properties. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 12,1997 Page 3 . 7. The detention facility be limited to 16 beds. 8. All necessary permits for construction are obtained from the City, County and State. 9. There shall be no outdoor storage of goods, supplies or equipment unless screened so it is not visible from the street or adjacent properties. 10. The uses on the site shall meet all applicable City, State and Federal regulations. 11. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP. Commissioner Lewis asked Grimes about item 8(8) of the covenants. She wanted to know if this meant that the City could sue to enforce the covenants if Hennepin County was not abiding. Grimes said that the language in the covenant is standard language, and if Hennepin County made a change it would have to be approved by the City. Commissioner Pentel asked how the City would know if Hennepin County was not abiding by the covenant. Grimes said that the City would have to trust Hennepin County or there would probably be complaints from the neighboring businesses. He continued saying that the Inspections Department and/or Police Department probably would be . making routine yearly checks. Commissioner Lewis asked about item 1 of the covenant regarding no adults or persons who would be tried as an adult be housed at this facility. Grimes commented that Hennepin County could better answer this question. Commissioner McAleese said that he believes that item 1 is a promise by Hennepin County that persons being housed at this site will be considered juveniles and not treated as adults; Grimes agreed and said that once a juvenile is verified as an adult, they would not be sent to the Golden Valley site. Commissioner Groger asked Grimes about the length of stay for juveniles and Hennepin County's requirement to send these persons to school. He was concerned that if the time limit was not met, would this cause more traffic due to transportation from the Golden Valley facility to the Minneapolis facility to school these juveniles. He said he found nothing in the covenant which covers this topic. Grimes answered that Hennepin County would need to provide schooling for juveniles if they were kept longer than 14 days. He said that schooling is provided at the downtown facility, but that Hennepin County has told staff that seven days would be the average length of stay for a juvenile at the Golden Valley facility. Grimes also said that the juveniles at this facility are waiting for a court appearance, and therefore, their stay would not be that long. Grimes suggested that maybe there could be a monthly or yearly report stating the length of time a juvenile was at the site. Chair Pentel said that Hennepin County must have their own regulations regarding this subject. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 12,1997 Page 4 . Commissioner McAleese asked Grimes about the recommended language change to the covenant, as noted in his memo on page 2, regarding the detention facility use falling under a Conditional Use Permit rather than it being a nonconforming use as noted in the "Recitals". McAleese wanted to know if this change should be a condition or just a change before it comes to the Council. Grimes said that he would be talking with Hennepin County and requesting that they change the language in the "Recitals". That this would not need to be a condition of the CUP. Sig Fine, Director of Correctional Institutions for Hennepin County, commented that this facility would be for short-term, male, juvenile offenders for pre-trial, age 16, for not more than 14 days. This facility is intended to help accommodate the facility downtown, which would have the responsibility of housing the more dangerous kids. He said that the Golden Valley facility would be secured and well staffed. He said that due to meetings with the neighborhood businesses, the business owners felt that if there were a wall around the facility, they would feel better ~bout the site, along with an enclosed sally port for egress and ingress. Fine said that because of these additions the building was enlarged which affected the setbacks. He noted that this site is very small. . Fine believes that Hennepin County has been very forthcoming and will be good neighbors. . Chair Pentel asked if the downtown facility ever had to be evacuated. Fine said once due to a bomb scare and persons were moved to the recreation yard. He said this could happen at this facility but the juveniles would be evacuated to the recreation yard until a Hennepin County squad could evaluate the situation. Fine said that there has only been one escapee from the downtown facility in the past 15 years. Chair Pentel asked if clients and staff would be allowed to smoke in the building. Fine said they would not and would probably be going outside on their break to have a smoke. He said that all Hennepin County facilities are smoke free but the grounds are not. Commissioner Kapsner asked if the juveniles have any interaction with the community regarding dental or doctor appointments or schooling. Fine said that there is a contract for medical needs, and physicians would visit the site as needed and if there is a need for a clinic or hospital visit, this would be done through a supervised transportation to the Hennepin County Medical Center. Director Grimes asked how many juveniles would be transported to the facility in Golden Valley each day. Barb Kam, Acting Division Manager for the Juvenile Detention Center, anticipated three transports of juveniles per day along with two transports of food, one for lunch and one for dinner, and one other transport for laundry pick-up and drop-off. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. . Duane Devereaux, property owner of 2370 and 2455 Louisiana Avenue North, believes this should be called a prison, because people are being locked up. He believes that properties values in the area will depreciate and an appraiser should evaluate this. He believes this is an expensive piece of land to put this type of facility on in an Industrial Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 12,1997 Page 5 . area. Mr. Devereaux said he was worried about the type of people that would visit the site. He believes that the size of the property is not efficient because there is no room for expansion, no cooking and laundry facilities, and little parking. He believes this is the poorest use of land in the Industrial District. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Chair Pentel asked if visits would have to be scheduled and would they occur during day time hours. Kam said that visiting hours would be day and evening time hours. She said visits are allowed only to parents or custodial adult, i.e. grandparents. Pentel asked if there had been any crime in downtown Minneapolis related to the juvenile facility or because of visitors to the facility. Karn said none that she or Mr. Fine could say was directly related. . Commissioner Kapsner said that Mr. Devereaux had concerns that were brought up at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, on the subject of buddies coming to visit their friends in the facility. He said he was reassured that there would be no contact over the wall or unsupervised contact, and only parents and legal guardians would be able to visit. Kapsner continued talking about the cost of land for this facility saying that there could be less expensive land but there may be a problem with putting this type of facility in a residential area and believes that the land cost is justifiable. Kapsner said he supports the proposal. Commissioner Groger said a concern he has is with the expansion of the site and the substantial variances which would need to be granted for the construction of the building. Groger continued by saying that the CUP is a valid proposal over what is there now. Commissioner Lewis supports the proposal and believes that this use is a better fit in the Industrial district than a Residential district. She believes that we need this type of facility in the suburbs. Commissioner McAleese supports the proposal along with the changes made at the meeting for the Comp Plan Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment. He said he would recommend a change to condition 2 that the CUP shall not be issued until the variances requested have been approved. Chair Pentel thanked Mr. Devereaux for his comments and told him that some of these issues had been previously addressed. Pentel believes that the facility will be secure and will not have an affect on the surrounding neighborhood. She also said that the building to be built will enhance the area more than what is existing, and that the City could have had another group home go into this site, as is. Pentel supports the proposal. . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 12,1997 Page 6 MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Boy's Juvenile Detention Center at 7155 Madison Avenue West, along with the 11 conditions as outlined in the staff memo, with a change in language to Condition 2 to read as follows: The CUP shall not be issued until the variances requested, to construct the building,. be granted by the BZA or if denied by the BZA, approved by appeal to the City Council. III. A IV. V. Adjournment Emilie Johnson, Secretary 'lJI . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: . . May 14,1997 William S. Joynes, City Manager Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Public Hearings on Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Industrial to Semi-Public Facility and Zoning Map Amendment from Industrial to Institutional (1-3) for Property at 7155 Madison Avenue West -- Hennepin County Property Services, Applicant At the April 14, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Industrial to Semi-Public Facility and a Zoning Map amendment from Industrial to Institutional (1-3) for the property at 7155 " Madison Avenue West. These amendments would allow Hennepin County to use the property for a 16-bed juvenile detention facility if a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) were granted: Ifthe City Council approves both the Plan Map amendment and the Zoning Map amendment, the County will be applying for the CUP to allow a residential facility in the Institutional (1-3) Zoning District. I am attaching a copy of the April 14, 1997 Planning Commission minutes for your information. Also attached is the staff memo on this matter dated April 1 0, 1997. Hennepin County has also applied for the CUP that would allow the site to be used for a residential facility. (It is the opiFlion of the Planning staff and City Attorney that a juvenile detention facility fits the definition of a residential facility as defined by the City's Zoning Code.) The Planning Commission held an informal public hearing on this request at its meeting of May 12, 1997. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the CUP for the juvenile detention facility. However, the public hearing on the CUP must be continued until the June "3, 1997 meeting because the proposed new detention facility will require setback variances. The County has applied for these variances and will appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on May 27, 1997. If the variances are approved by the BZA, the CUP will go to the City Council on June 3, 1997 knowing ,. . that the planned building has received the necessary variances. If the BZA denies the variances, the County has the right to appeal the BZA decision on the variances to the City Council at the June 3, 1997 meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval of both the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map from Industrial to Semi- Public Facility and an amendment to the Zoning Map from Industrial to Institutional (1-3). These changes would permit the County to apply for a CUP that would allow for the construction of a new 16-bed juvenile detention building on the subject site. The County is now in the process of applying for the CUP and necessary variances for consideration by the City Council after the two subject actions are approved. Attachments: Minutes of the Planning Commission dated April 14, 1997 Staff Memo to the Planning Commission dated April 10, 1997 with attachments Site Plan (enclosed separately) Ordinance No. 159, 2nd Series Resolution 97-45 . . 2 "' . "". ":".) . . Regular Meeting of the City Council May 20,1997 Page 5 1 - nanimously to approve the , alley Creek subject to the following be limited in its hours of operation. MOVED BY Mick onded by Johnson and mo Ion" _" . foregoing n to request tt)e applicant to address the Iig on t allard Creek apartments. unanimously to amend the nd their impact Public Hearing - Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendment - 7155 Madison Avenue West and Ordinance #159 - Rezoning to Institutional (1-3) Zoning District - 7155 Madison Avenue West Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development presented the staff report. Richard Strong, Hennepin County Property Services and Barb Karn, Juvenile Detention Center Manager, reviewed the plans and answered questions from the Council. Kevin McAleese, Planning Commission Representative, presented the Commission report. - The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were afforded the opportunity to express their views there,?n. - '. Sandy Commers, Robbinsdale School District 281, expressed concern over the use of Title I and Special Education funding, asked about the educational requirements, and funding for the center and funding for those programs and asked if they will need require a teacher for the site, requesting a notice be sent to the School District notifying them of any changes to the status. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Member Russell introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 97-45 RESOLUTION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP RESPECTING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7155 MADISON AVENUE WEST . . .:,~,\ .- -. ....... . . Regular Meeting of the City Council May 20, 1997 Page 6 Public Hearing - Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendment - 7155 Madison Avenue West and Ordinance #159 - Rezoning to Institutional (1-3) Zoning District - 7155 Madiso~ Avenue West - Continued The motion for the adoption for the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member LeSuer and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: - Anderson, Johnson, LeSuer, Micks and Russell and the following voted against the same: none, - whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk. - Member LeSuer introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 159, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THE CITY CODE . Rezoning from Industrial Zoning District to Institutional (1-3) Zoning District 7155 Madison Avenue West - Hennepin County Property Services, Applicant MOVED by LeSuer, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve Ordinance #159, 2nd Series. Upon a roll call vote, the vote was as follows: . ANDERSON - YES JOHNSON - YES LESUER - YES MICKS - YES RUSSELL - YES Public Hearing - Ordinance #160 - Conditional Use Permit - 7155 Madison Avenue West " . '0 William Joynes stated staff recommends this item be continued to June 3, 1997 in order for the Board of Zoning Appeals to hear the variance requests for the proposed building at their meeting of May 27, 1997. The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon. Hearing and seeing no one, the Mayor closed the public hearing. MOVED by Mi.cks, seconded by LeSuer and motion carried unanimously to continue the public hearing for Ordinance #160 to June 3, 1997. ,se nded by Russ':. wine at Brookviev;- Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27,1997 Page 17 . Grimes asked if the siding on the additi owner said that it would and some of th be re-used. "~ would match the existing structure and the arage brick and some from other locations would . Swedberg asked ho e neighbor knows th ,the value of '>'.house will be decreased and if they have fessional opinion on th", ssue. Mrs. An ~gg commented that it is her opinion, n professional opinion, that t " e would be a decrease in property values. ',>>\ ~' SW7' oled the comments of neighbors a seconded the molio"', GY6ger stated that for the record, the basis of his vote is that it is a minor the neighborhood has changed over the years and larger homes are prevale 7155 Madison Avenue West (Map 14) (97-5-22) Hennepin County Property Services Request: Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requiremerits - 33 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 17 feet for the proposed building on the south side; and Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements - 8 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 17 feet for lack of greenspace on the south side; and . Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements - 6.46 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 43.54 feet for the proposed building on the east side; and . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27,1997 Page 18 Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements - 20 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 5 feet for the lack of greenspace on the east side. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new building at 7155 Madison Avenue West. Owner David Pfeffer was in attendance. Grimes explained that Hennepin County has already presented three other applications to the City for review. A Comprehensive Land Use plan map amendment would change the use of the property from Industrial to Semi-Public Facilities. A rezoning would change the zoning from Industrial to Institution (1-3) and a Conditional Use Permit would allow for the operation of a residential facility (16-bed juvenile detention center) in the Institutional (1-3) Zoning District. This site became a group home in 1975 when the City Council determined that such a use of the property would fit in with the surrounding industrial area. Group homes were not a permitted industrial use, but the Zoning Code gave the City Council authority to allow miscellaneous uses in the Industrial district that would be compatible with its permitted uses. This was approved by motion of the City Council. Some time after the group home was built, the City Council changed the Zoning Code and did not permit uses other than those specifically outlined in the Code. The group home is now considered a legally non- conforming use. It may continue as it is today but it cannot be expanded. The Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections has been looking for alternative ways to house the growing juvenile offender population, since it was determined by the County Board that the present 87-bed facility at 510 Park Avenue would not be expanded due to high costs. When the County first approached the City in 1996, the idea was to either tear down the existing group home and build a new 16-bed facility or substantially rehabilitate the existing building on the same footprint. Hennepin County wants to tear down the group home and build another facility. Variances are needed to do so. The zoning needs to be changed to Institutional, and a Conditional Use Permit is needed. Also, variances are needed because setbacks in Institutional zones are fairly substantial. If granted, Hennepin County can request a Conditional Use Permit. If denied, Hennepin County will appeal to City Council. Swedberg asked if the property would require setbacks for light industrial instead of the juvenile facility, and Grimes stated that it probably would since this is a small, corner lot. The existing building doesn't meet the set back requirements. Groger stated that parking goes up to the lot line now. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1997 Page 19 . Grimes stated that the City Council permitted the group home because there was no reason not to. Now it has a non-conforming group home in the industrial district. The City felt they had to allow it to operate. The neighbors prefer a new home. Security with the group home was a challenge. Swedberg said that it seems that a building of any size would need variances. Grimes stated that maybe a small building could be built without variances. This neighborhood was developed in the 60's without setback requirements. Swedberg observes that the City could get more out of this than we have now. It will look better in back, too. Grimes added that a wall 12 to 14 feet high would keep the juveniles inside. The wall will have razor wire on the inside which will not be visible from the street. Swedberg asked about landscaping. Grimes said that a landscape plan will be presented. The County is working with neighbors to plan landscaping. Traffic is minimal less than 50 trips a day, less than usual in an Industrial zone. The owner stated that there are 23 employees on a 24 hour basis. Grimes said that visitors are limited to parents and guardians, and must be approved ahead of time. Groger added that friends will not be visiting. . Groger related the concern of the owner to the south as this facility would be 5 feet from his lot line. However, there will be someone with the juveniles when they are outside. Grimes added that the wall is 14 feet high so no one will know who is in the facility. Shaffer asked about security cameras and the owner said they will be inside and will probably spin. Shaffer added that the windows facing Nevada are high security windows that no one can see out of. Groger asked about parking needs and Grimes answered that only the employees and a few visitors will be parking there. He added that on-street parking is common in that area and that he doesn't see a parking problem. Swedberg stated that in looking at alternatives, the City couldn't do much better than this proposal. . MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Groger and passed unanimously to approve the waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements - 33 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 17 feet for the proposed building on the south side; and the waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements - 8 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 17 feet for lack of greenspace on the south side; and the waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements - 6.46 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 43.54 feet for the proposed building on the east side; and the waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements - 20 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 5 feet for the lack of greenspace on the east side to allow for the construction of a new building at 7155 Madison Avenue West. '""II' . . . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: May 29, 1997 William S. Joynes Mark W. Grimes Director of Planning and Development Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow Residential Facility at 7155 Madison Avenue West - Hennepin County Property Services, Applicant At the May 12,1997 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) that would allow for the construction and operation of a juvenile detention facility for boys at 7155 Madison Avenue West. The facility would be operated by the Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections. In order to allow for the CUP to be considered by the City Council, the Council previously approved a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment at its May 20, 1997 meeting. The public hearing on the CUP by the City Council has been delayed until the June 3, 1997 meeting in order to allow the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to consider the necessary variances to allow for the construction of the facility. At the May 27, 1997 meeting of the BZA, the BZA granted all necessary variances for the construction of the facility as submitted with the CUP. I am enclosing my memo to the Planning Commission dated May 7,1997 which describes the CUP requested by the County. A copy of the revised "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions" is also attached which will be attached to the records for this property. RECOMMENDED ACTION The staff and Planning Commission are recommending approval of the CUP to allow for the construction of a 16-bed boys juvenile detention facility at 7155 Madison Avenue West. The following conditions are recommended to become a part of the conditional use permit: ...... . 1. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment for this property is approved by the City Council. 2. The CUP shall not be issued until the variances requested, to construct the building, be granted by the BZA or if denied by the BZA, approved by appeal to the City Council. 3. The attached site plan prepared by Symees Maini and McKee Associates and Winsor Faricy and dated May 12,1997 be made a part of the CUP. 4. The "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions" be filed with this property . 5. A landscape plan be submitted during the building permit process and be approved by the Building Board of Review. 6. Any outdoor lighting be approved by the Chief Building Inspector to insure that the lights do not adversely effect neighboring properties. 7. The detention facility be limited to 16 beds. 8. All necessary permits for construction are obtained from the City, County and State. . 9. There shall be no outdoor storage of goods, supplies or equipment unless screened so it is not visible from the street or adjacent properties. 10. The uses on the site shall meet all applicable City, State and Federal regulations. 11. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP. Attachments: Staff Memo to the Planning Commission dated May 7, 1997 and attachments Planning Commission Minutes dated May 12, 1997 Staff Memo to the Board of Zoning Appeals dated May 21, 1997 Ordinance No. 160, 2nd Series . 2 . . . Regular Meeting of the City Council June 3, 1997 Page 2 y Russell, seconded by LeSuer. and motion carried unanimously to authorize the eneral business licenses #16632 - #16687 and #6941 - #6943. * . - Fi~ - "~~ MOVED by RusseU, nded by LeSuer and motion carried fireworks display for tt1 Relief Association Street Dan at the Chester Bird Ameri ion Post #523. '<~j:,-, . -. mously to approve the e held on June 21, 1997 * * . nded by LeSuer and- mo ed as follows:' arried unanimously to receive and '. " mission.:. May 12, 1997 rvices Foundation - May 12, 1997 --~.,.,..-~=-;o. Continued Public Hearing - Ordinance #160' - Conditi~nal Use Permit _ 7155' Madison Avenue West . The following ordinance was MOVED by Russell, seconded by Micks: ORDINANCE #160, 2ND'SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Approval of Conditional Use Permit 7155 Madison Avenue West Hennepin County Property Services, Applicant Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council. Dean Mooney, Director of Public Safety, updated the Council on the educational programs and funding of the programs to be provided the residents of the detention center. Sig Fine, Hennepin County Correctional Institutions Administrator, reviewed the request and answered questions from the Council. . . \~ "'\ - \W ~ . Regular Meeting of the City Council June 3, 1997 Page 3 Continued Public HearinQ - Ordinance #160 - Conditional Use Permit _ 7155 Madison Avenue West The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon. Sandy Commers, Robbinsdale School District 281, thanked the County for being as cooperative and collaborative as they have been regarding the ,issue of funding the educational programs for the residents at the detention center. The Mayor closed the public hearing. MOVED by Russell, seconded by Micks and motion carried unanimously to approve Ordinance #160, 2nd Series. Upon a roll call vote, the vote was as follows: ANDERSON - YES JOHNSON - YES LESUER - YES MICKS - YES RUSSELL _ YES * . \ iI Member LeSuer stated he would like the Council to make an amendment to the aken on this matter by the Cou!icf .. a prior meeting held on June 2. - A ~- ard reviewed the process.' ~ the.' uncil to consider an amendment an action \ - taken. \ ;:"'<'" ks, seconded Johnson and mo n carried unanimously to continue the public item the preliminary design plan a' . roval for PUD #74, Hidden Lakes Development' a Special M~ing scheduled for r: . p.m. on Thursday, June 19, 1997. " lj' * -; . ed unanimously- to approve the nded by staff. -"l.~,.. ,. . ded by Russell and motion carried unanimously to authorize the Mayor and Mayor Pro ~m to sign the Certification of Local Performance Measures for Local Performance Aid Payable in 1998. n~ " it i; -;? JleSCrlf,'{7~ ~-'-j:)) ~ ~""ta~ ~ {~e:II~~ ~Lih""5 -fic.e/,'J Va.! 'fi'~./t- Catr/~ .t:bGC;'I'()/--' 7JF'- US€ ~e.u.MJ ~a/~ . The Hennepin County Juvenile Detention Center, located at 510 Park Avenue in Minneapolis is an 87 -bed maximum security facility designed to hold juveniles arrested for criminal behavior pending court action. Juveniles are held in this locked facility to . ensure the safety of the public, the safety of the juvenile and to ensure that the juvenile appears for hislher next court hearing. Hennepin's existing Juvenile Detention Center was opened in the summer of 1984. During its initial years of operation the average daily population did not exceed the mid-50 to 60 range. However, the population of the Juvenile Detention Center began to exceed the facility capacity beginning in 1989. In that year, the facility was over capacity on 116 separate days with an average of 5.3 residents beyond the 87-bed capacity. In the following five years, through 1994, overcrowding has steadily increased. The facility was overcrowded on 302 separate days in 1994, with an average of 14.5 residents beyond capacity on each of those days. As overcrowding continues, it has been necessary for the Detention Center to use classrooms as well as recreational and other space for resident sleeping. As a condition of continued Minnesota Department of Corrections licensing, the County has been expected to take action to reduce the detention population or provide adequate housing. If additional bed space is not obtained, we may need to change detention criteria, resulting in releases of juveniles who present greater community safety risk. A number of counties within the sate are in the same situation as Hennepin and are now in the process of expanding their juvenile detention capacities. . In addition to merely building more bed space, Hennepin County has examined the population being detained and believes that the development of a juvenile correctional shelter, foster care beds and community-based intermediate sanctions and procedures can serve as effective alternatives to pretrial secure detention for some juveniles. The Juvenile Court has also been committed to decreasing case processing time which will lead to reductions in the length of stay in detention and the use of the Electronic Home Detention Program has been expanded for eligible juveniles. In conjunction with the above actions, Hennepin County will also need additional secure bed space, given demographic projections, and has turned to 7155 Madison as a viable, cost-effective solution. The building at 7155 Madison would be completely rebuilt on the interior, as well as the exterior if allowed, to provide a 16-bed secure (locked) detention annex. The outside recreation area, as well as the interior, will be built to meet the security standards of both the Juvenile Detention Center as well as the Minnesota Department of Corrections, which would be our licensing authority. . The program of this annex would mirror the activities of the IDC. Juveniles would be under the constant supervision of professionally trained staff and will not be allowed outside of the secure parameter with the exception of being transported to and from 510 Park Avenue. Transportation between the two buildings will be done by Juvenile Detention staff in security vehicles. All intake and release procedures will occur at the IDC, eliminating the need for police cars to frequent the building. It is anticipated that . Juvenile Detention staff will make three transports per day between facilities. Since we do not have an Annex for juvenile males in existence, we need to look at the total male population of the IDC for statistical data to describe the male population. Data for the male population of IDC for 1995 reveals: · Total number admitted: 3734 young men · Average age: 15.6 years · Average length of stay: 7.6 days · 71 % are young men of color · Warrants for arrest account for 41 % of the admits, with arrests for new crimes accounting for 50% · Warrants may be issued by probation officers for technical violations (Le., school problems, curfew, drug use, etc.), or by the Juvenile Court for failure to pay a fme or failure to appear for a previously scheduled court hearing for minor offenses (Le., truancy, traffic offenses, curfew, etc.) · Listed below are those primary offenses (most serious) that were presented for admission to the IDC, at a minimum of ten or more times for juvenile males during 1995. . Warrants/ A&Ds Auto Thefts Assault Theft Drug-related Offenses Disorderly Conduct Weapon-related Offenses Robbery Burglary Property Damage Ordered Detained in Court Violated Surveillance Loitering with Intent Auto Traffic & Accident Trespassing Run Away/Absenting Criminal Sexual Conduct Violated Electronic Detention Domestic False Information to Police Court Ordered Treatment Term Curfew Probation/Parole Violation Terroristic Threats Fleeing 2178 840 454 554 316 274 188 212 141 121 169 113 91 114 100 65 40 122 135 54 54 51 22 36 30 . . Homicide/Manslaughter ' Forgery Stolen Property Possess/Conceal Obstructing Legal Process Violated Locator Program 2S 26 24 34 8 The population that would be housed at 7155 Madison would be'the lower risk young men, whose arresting offenses are less serious and who exhibit few behavior problems while in the IDC. For the safety of the detained youth, and for staff, those residents who exhibit serious acting out behavior will be housed at the IDC. When examining the statistics for 1995 for the young men detained, 230 major behavior incidents were recorded, translating into one incident every 1.9 days. Major incidents would generally consist of fights between juveniles; juvenile on juvenile assault, juvenile on staff assault, property damage or escape. With lower risk juveniles being housed at 7155 Madison, the number of behavior incidents would be significantly less. In the past 12 years, due to the structural and procedural security of the n;>C, only one young man has escaped from that building. As stated earlier, the interest is to provide the same level of security at 7155 Madison as at the IDC with the lower risk juveniles. Escapes from this proposed annex would be anticipated to be nonexistent. . . . DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS Revised on 18 August 1997 'Ibis Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions eDeclaration") is made as of the 18th day of August 1997, by the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, a county governmental unit established by the State of Minnesota ("Declarant''). RECITALS A. Declarant is the owner of certain real property in the County of HeIUlepin together with buildings and improvements thereon (collectively referred to as "Property"), such real property is legally described as follows: Lot 7 and the North 3S feet of Lot 6, Block 3, Advertising-Creative Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 131. Declarant is desirous of imposing certain covenants, conditions and 'restrictions upon the Property for pwposes of facilitating its use as a temporary holding facility for juveniles. C. The City of Golden Valley ("City'') has required Declarant to make this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions in order for Declarant to continue to use the property as a conditional use in the 1-3 Institutional Zoning District. . NOW, THEREFORE, in connection with the development of the Property and its ..,_...".......m:!~tinued use, Declarant does hereb . declare that each of the foUo' CO!~~~~jwns :-::- '.~--. . ctron . g-upon; an "lnure-ttr e- iene tr~. . ~Matlt-m~ successive owners and users of the Property. ----....-.............- COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 1. The Property may only be used as a temporary holding facility for juveniles who are awaiting a court appearance or placement in another facility; no adults or persons who will be, or have been, tried as adults may be housed in or on the Property. 2, The building on the Property shall have no more than sixteen (16) beds for such juveniles and there will be no additional beds for staff members. 3. The s,ize and footprint of the building not including the exercise yard'shall remain less than :\ 888 SF as it is on the date these Declarations. {,'55').J ~ f..t. 4. Construction of the facility shall be in accordance to the site plans prepared by Symmes Maini & McKee AssociateslWmsor Farlcy dated 18 Aut!USt 1997 subject to minor variation due to construction technologies and building components selections. No signage will ..~-~~.Qe ~~!.~~~t9n,...~e.~W}4\!l~o9!b.~r ~,~..~~~ id~~tjfjc~~o.~,~4o~~~~:!:~_-c~--:~._"':~~_.~'~~.~~c~oc:c~~_-=:c:'.'",cc. .:.=C'~:~c: ~~fJ'h P(~ 1 2'd lW9W ^lM3dO~d ^lJ ~ Wd1S:21 L6, 81 9~ . S. The property shall be maintained in accordance with all City codes and regulations. 6. While housed on the Property, the juveniles shall not be permitted to walk or freely move throughout the neighborhood surrounding the Property. 7. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions herein contained shall be perpetual, shall create mutual benefits and covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon any owner, tenant, or occupant of the Property and their respective successors and assigns. 8. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions set forth herein shall be enforceable only by Declarant, any successive owner of the Property, any tenant or occupant of the Property or the City of Golden Valley and shall be enforceable by - , __c_c~--,-= ';ccC"'.'''';:, ..;:....c::.-8:;,:. .-=Il\lunctivc'relief; prohibitiveor'mandatory~to:'Prevenfthemac}i::Of 01 to enforce the performance or obseIVance of said covenants, conditions and restrictions; or . . a. A money judgment for damages by reason of the breach of said covenants, conditions and restrictions; or c. Any combination of the foregoing. 9. Invalidation of any of the provisions of the Covenants, Conditions and Restnctic)ns herein. whether by order of court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise, shall in no way affect any of the provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. 10. This Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions may not be amended, modified, cancelled, revoked or terminated without the express written consent of the City of Golden Valley. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has caused this Declaration to be executed as of the day and year first above written. __ .__~. ._,_ __ ~~_":"::'..:..-::"':_::~:':~"":'~~-::':~'::.~:";.~'.~-:::._""-: ~_. ... _ _ __ _ __ _ _~_ _ ~_.__ _:',,:::,~:~':' - ..~-........... -. .~-... '~~',::,: :':"-.'~:-" '_':":-:-"-~';"""'_""'.-'~_'_"''-_=''r',~-:"-:o-,,.,,:~.~......,,.....=......,.,~,,-,",,,,~_"~~h:~.-.:....o:::'""-- ~~...:~~:-..:.::::_~::- . 2 E"d lWSW AIM3dO~d AIJ NN3H WdtS:2t l6, 8t ~ . . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN By Its STATEOFMINNESOTA ) ) 55, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1996, by . the Hennepin, a Minnesota governmental unit, on behalf'ofthe County, day of of the County of Notary Public r.\82208 ps\d&c:\s1aft\strong\c:ovenants '-~':-:'::"'--:':::'-..,.____..:;:,,;,;,::,:,:,,::,,,,,-,,::,,,,:::,:,::::,,: ._.,,_.~__'4"-'" _.. ...., . .. ~ ..,... ._. -- _~~______________w___ 3 v'd lWBW Al~dO~d AIJ NN3H Wd2S:2t L6. 8t 9n~ , ._~-=: ._-----.-. --- --.- ------ . . - - .....-. - ._-----....._~-~--._._-._. -....-- Hennepin PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Government Center 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55487..0228 FAX: #(612) 348-3492 . FAX TRANSMISSION TO: Golden Valley Planning Department A TIN: Mary .Dold DATE: 8/18/97 'AX: 593-8109 fROM: ~d Strong . - .~$YB,J~~T:.:~ndmcnt.t(),the.Land-Use Plan. PHONE: 348-4079 (lnc:ludcs ..this. pap)_ .---PAGES: - ~".__. .... .~_A MESSAGE: The covenants revised 18 August 1997, All the -revisions are in italics . .OTE: PLEASE TRANSMIT DRAWINGS IN FINE MODE hcfax HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer t'd lW9W ^lM3dO~d ^lJ NN3H W~0S:2t 16, 8t 9~ . New Proposed Variances ,GoIde1l ,..,.VallL)'t~ 7155 Madison Avenue West _.' J2)5.9~.L~ Hennepin County Property Services 'f~(612)59?'3109 ." .........'! :~m~.~~~~),fa%f':'?~ Hennepin County Property Services, with property located at 7155 Madison Avenue C:'",:p West, has petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for the following > . rand waivers: 5~6 ->'--f'-:,< '"':'''''"'7''' :';<t~,\L>",~,/", ' Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements - City Code states that side and rear yards in the Institutional Zoning District shall not be less than 50 feet in width and depth, of which at least 25 feet adjacent to the property line shall be landscaped and maintained as a buffer zone. The requested variances are as follows: 'Cij MaDaF · """"i 593-8002 - ,"-?~\- Public Safeo/~':~~' ~~~' ;: '}>o!ice' 593-8079 ' ".': , " - .... '. -' " ,-- .." .,-"-. .,.." ~.(", Fiie 593-8080 . - FaX .593-8098 · 33 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 17 feet from the south property line for the proposed building; and .. ". '~<~;~J:-~,efi ';~\:::;>'~::~ Pulmc Worb .. .., ~030 "'.. :-~c,\';::~~,'" ;.i ",' -;' r~;;; " ,.,>',: ' "'," InspeCtions, 593-8092 ~~.~ ,~ ~1 .'..\:i.....:}: · 20 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 5 feet from the south proeprty line for the lack of greenspace due to .the proposed parking lot; and ...."..; , <~- "1 .5 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 49.5 feet to the east property line for the proposed building; and Motor Vehicle 593~8101 · 20 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 5 feet from the east proeprty line for the lack of greens pace due to the proposed parking lot. Planning and Zoning 593-8095 Section 11.46, Subd. 9 Front Yard Setback - City Code states that no building or structure in an Institutional Zoning District shall be located less than 35 feet from the property line abutting a public street. The requested variances are as follows: Finance 593-8013 ,': . ;:. ! 5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 30 feet from the west proeprty line for the proposed building facing Nevada Avenue; and /-;"!:~f';;'::-;' ('; \;<. -;:),:-",:'7-.:';>- ".,., "') , '~ng':"t.,"'.!(~; i$8020 _<:.{:_;-'~"- ~_:.: ,':., j ..;:,i;;!() The applicant is proposing to construct a new building on the site. Previously .~iIid~~IIC,'i'\j~~ requested variances shall become null and void because of the new plan and fOOJitoO~,~.:'U requests. The applicant has moved the building 5 feet closer to Nevada Avenue in - €iofden Va1le}t~5~Q.,I364~; order to accommodate the required fire lane of 20 feet in width and parking spaces of (~,t2)~5f.1~-'>.i::,'~: 9' x 20' on the east side of the property. FAX(612)~8 ........_ lYD(612):593"3968 .._1 .s:ji~;'fC; ,rD(;'~i'M f.:lPR 18 '97 13:00 QlR..lTEK P.1/1 . i~Ji1!" .[ Hennepin County H;1~"~'~ . It' .~ !:: 1 1f..! '.. f!-: . .~. i.., 1 O;::l~;f:r::~- J ~ AtaEqaW~B~ April I, 1997 r 4 'X.. lift! , 17- bJf 59" f!)Sq~ ~ ;; 0 l~ U t>-.lIey' Duane Devereaux 6100 Jeffrey Lane Edina. MN 55436 RECErVED APR 1 0 1997 R.e: Proposed Juvenile Boys Detention Annex 7155 Madison Avenue West Dear Duane Devereaux: Tht!re will be a meCting on Friday. April) It 1997. at 1:00 p.rn., at the. Golden Valley City Hall, in the City COWlcil Conference Room (across the ball from the Council ChamberS) in order to review the floor plan and look at building elevations. . Nothing is final at this stage and your presence aud input at this meeting are welcome and appreciated. Thank you. . Sincerely, 1:::2 -4/r'- Architect-Project Manager "Y-/D -91 ~ .fhi~. npb J ~Jd !bJ~ ~ I~ J:b ~ ~". () t...l-s irk o,&.;t'l.fj~ -' ~. -1lu ~ 1 .rn.iA.d"t.A. p~(!)i~? - ; ~ ~;;L'~ 3. ,~k I'-oJl".s/CJJ~ 1~ ~- ~ 1I,.,.J_e<4ft e-P~. F\... . L ~.r Depaztment of PuIdic Wa:rk. . . f~- A-2208 Henn.eptn. County OovmuJm\t Center lvtill7'lC3pUlis, Minnesota 55481-0228 (612) J48~28S2 FAX:(612) )48.3491 &c,dcd l'lZJleI' . . . . ~~e RJ:CElVEO r:~. ~ 0 ::. 1996 ace label systems inc. December 6, 1996 Sig Fine Hennepin County Community Corrections C-2353 Hennepin County Government Center' ~eapolis,~.55487 '. Dear Mr. Fine, As a business owner in the very near vacinity of the proposed Juvenile ~oys Detention Annex, we are submitting our very strong objections to this proposal. Ace Label has been located in Golden Valley since 1993, and we are currently in process of building a new facility directly across the street from oUr exi~ting building. There are several reasons that the proposed facility would be detrimental to Ace Label as well as our entire industrial area. 1) Safety- When we moved to Golden Valley in 1993, we carefully looked for the type of :q~ighborhood that would provide for the safety and welfare of our employees. We-operate two shifts, so we have employees arriving at very early hours in the morning as well as a second shift that leaves after midnight. 2) Vandalism- Although personal safety comes first, our employees cars are located in a secluded parking lot. We utilize expensive and valuable computer hardware and systems, which would shut us down if they were damaged or vandalized. Since this is an industrial area, it is very quiet, unattended and unpopulated on the weekends. .. 3) Market Vallie- In order to proceed with our new facility, we must sell the existing building. Our realtor is in agreement with us, that this proposed center could be a . detriment to the sale and decrease the value of our building. We also face this. .. devaluatio~ of the brand new b~ding we are planning. .. 7100 Madison Ave. W. . Golden Valley. Minnesota 55427 · (612) 933-3105 . FAX (612) 545-8771 . Page2. . . - - - - We realize there are no guarantees ~bout s~etyand crime anywhere. However, it makes no sense to propose a facility so inco~istant with the industrial nature of this neighborhood. We would be. jusf as opposed if this were an all night pizza parlor or a bar. . .. . - " Although we are not demographic experts, it seems tha~ a detention center would be better placed in a busy, well lite, high traffic area. We would not ask to place our bUSiness in the middle of an mappropriate area for our process, so we are in hopes that our wishes will be respected to not put this detention facility in the midst of our operation. - Sincerely ~ ACE LABEL SYSTEMS, ING. aL- a: 8. Art Bakshian President and CEO cc: Golden Valley Police Department City of Golden Valley_ Jeff Svendsen, Boustead Electric -- ..- ., " . I. OVERVIEW OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND REVIEW OF CURRENT LAND USE PLAN Under state law, a land use plan is a required comprehensive plan element for all Minnesota communities. Golden Valley's first land use plan was adopted in 1959, though it was preceded by a "master zoning plan" in the 1940's. The . current plan was adopted in 1982. It has remained intact since then, except for a handful of minor modifications to its future land use map for specific sites undergoing redevelopment. Aside from the plan map, there is little substance to the current land use plan. Summary discussions of the City's four main land use categories (residential, commercial, industrial, and public/semi-public) provide only a vague sense of direction for ongoing planning efforts. Legally required statements of intent for land use planning activities are minimal. . The City's rationale for the brevity of plan content in 1982 was that, as a fully- developed community, Golden Valley's "future land use patterns will not substantially change or alter over the.coming 20-30 years." However, as has been noted in staff reports, public comments, and City deliberations over the years, even minor site changes to the land use map could benefit from some additional decision-making guidance. This section of the Technical Background will examine how well or poorly the 1982 plan meets specific points of current law, with an eye to improving compliance as part of the update process. Legal Requirements . Golden Valley is subject to planning requirements established for all Minnesota cities and to additional provisions applicable only within the Twin Cities Metro Area. State law identifies a land use plan as consisting of "policy statements, goals, standards, and maps, and action programs for guiding the future development of private and public property" (MS 462.352, Subd. 6). It further specifies that land use plans for Metro Area communities must "designate the existing and proposed location, intensity, and extent of use of land and water...for agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial and other public and private purposes, or any combination of such purposes"; they must incorporate a housing element, a water resource management element, and a solar access element, and -- where appropriate - must include a historic preservation element and/or a variety of local resource protection elements (MS 473.859, Subd. 2). The rest of this section will discuss the adequacy of Golden Valley's current land use, plan in view of the. statutory content requirements. ~ . . Definitions Before examining the plan content requirements, in detail, it will be useful to establish definitions of several key terms. Statutes offer no legal definitions of the terms "goal", "policy", "program", or "standard", though all are listed as required components of local comprehensive plans. A fifth term often found in local plans - "objective" -- is not used in state law at all. On the other hand, statutes do refer to plan implementation; since a plan's objectives and policies generally provide the basic blueprint for implementation, it is appropriate to include that term in a discussion of plan content requirements. The following definitions were originally compiled in 1995, when staff began research for an update of the City's housing plan. They were approved for use with that document in 1996, and it is recommended that they also be used in all other comprehensive plan elements for the purpose of consistency. ~ - An idealized end state that serves as a focus for planning efforts; goals . reflect situations toward which to strive without necessarily expecting full attainment. . Objective - An intermediate milestone on the way toward a goal; objectives are specific, measurable, and achievable, and are generally intended to be met within a short (three to five year) time frame. Policy - An ongoing guide or set of criteria for undertaking legislative or administrative actions in conformance with plan goals; policies are specific, like objectives, but are intended to be used whenever applicable throughout the life' of the plan. Program - Usually an established source of assistance - whether financial, legal, physical, or informational -- offered through a public or private agency; a program could also be any coordinated set of actions designed to yield a specified product. Standard - A specified index of measurement or threshold of acceptability. Goals, Objectives, and Policies . In this content area, Golden Valley's 1982 general land use plan does not meet the requirements of state law. It includes no goals or objectives. Only one policy statement can be found, within the discussion ofindustrial uses: "to stress quality land use development that will benefit the community as a whole." That statement comes as close to meeting the definition of a goal as a policy, and 2 . seems equally applicable to all land uses in the City, so it might provide the basis for drafting one or more goals to meet legal requirements in the updated plan. While not formalized as a statement in the plan, the City has a long-standing practice of reviewing the more specific goals, objectives, and policies of the housing and parks plans whenever considering proposals affecting either of those land uses. Specifying that practice as a policy in the updated plan will help inform the public about the land use decision-making process as well as meet state requirements. The policy should also be extended to refer to the water , resource management plan when appropriate. Carrying over the solar access policy from the housing plan would add another policy statement. Programs and Standards Neither programs nor standards are identified within the pages of the current general land use plan. To the extent that the related housing and parks plans do contain policy and objective statements identifying programs and standards, and those plans are used in conjunction with the general land use plan, it can be said that programs and standards are part of the overall land use element. . Maps Golden Valley's 1982 plan does include the required maps outlining areas of existing ("General Land Use") and proposed ("Comprehensive Land Use Plan") land uses by broad categories. Readers cannot always tell from the map titles exactly which map shows what. There are some potentially confusing , differences in the land use categories identified on each map, and there is not enough descriptive information about the scope of uses included within each category. While the plan map refers to "semi-" public land, the accompanying text uses the term "quasi-" public. More importantly, a flaw has recently been discovered on the plan map: the screen assigned to the park/nature area sub- category of "public and semi-public land" was not added to all of the appropriate sites, making them appear to be designated for a change in use that was never intended. All of these points should be cleared up when the new plan is drafted. Additional requirements of state law have an impact on the appearance of the land use plan map and how it is used. Zoning/plan conformity is an important consideration. Compliance with Metro Council guidelines must also be taken into account. Both matters will be addressed in later sections of this report. . 1(., "i 3 . Plan Elements This part of the discussion may become confusing unless one small but important distinction is kept in mind: state law identifies a "land use plan" as a major section of the comprehensive plan, with specific elements to be included among its contents; what Golden Valley has been calling a "land use plan" is really only the basic core of the state-defined plan, with. some of the more detailed elements pulled out into separate plan documents for organizational purposes. This report is concerned only with the content of the city's core plan, which will be referenced as the "general land use plan". Where certain statutory requirements for land use plans are addressed in separate plan documents, the report will note that fact but will not go into detail on the affected requirements. Housing ~ This required element has been part of Golden Valley's land use plan since 1973, but the City has elected to present it as a separate plan document. Basic considerations for residential uses are discussed in the general land use plan, but most of the specific statutory planning requirements for housing are addressed in the housing element itself. An update of the City's housing plan is now making outside review rounds prior to final adoption by the City Council. . Water Resources Management - A fairly recent addition to state law, this element is not addressed at all in Golden Valley's current plan. A consultant has prepared preliminary materials for the City's first water resource management plan, which will be reviewed by a citizen advisory group before coming to the Planning Commission and City Council. It will be treated in the same way as the housing plan, with its own document separate from the general land use plan. Solar Access - Provisions for the protection and development of access to solar energy were statutory land use plan requirements at the time of Golden Valley's 1982 update. Almost fully developed by the end of the 1970's, the City saw little opportunity or need to establish detailed solar access planning provisions. The Metro Council advised meeting state requirements by inserting a solar access statement in the housing plan, since housing was the focus of the most planning and development activity. The recent update of the housing element retains a commitment to solar access as required by law; the same commitment could easily be applied within the broader context of the general land use plan. Miscellaneous Protection Elements - According to state law, provisions for the . preservation, regulation, and/or reasonable development of specified local resources are required only "as appropriate". Communities are not told how to identify when a particular plan element would be appropriate. Golden Valley's 1982 comprehensive plan does not address any of the state-specified resources within the generallal1d use plan itself or in separate plans related to it; the City's . position and intent regarding each resource is more fully spelled out in the next 4 . section of this report. The list of resources to be considered for inclusion in the comprehensive plan per state law is: . historic sites, · wetlands and intermittent water features, · significant groundwater recharge areas, · slopes subject to moderate or severe erosion, . forests and woodlands, · soils or bedrock with particular development constraints, · natural water bodies and water courses, · unique or endangered species of plants and animals, . agricultural lands, . mineral extraction, and · natural resource areas of particular historical significance. . Parks and Open Space - Golden Valley's park plan is another stand-alone document within the comprehensive plan. Basic considerations for the City's parks and open spaces may be identified in the general land use plan, but statutory planning requirements are addressed in the park plan itself. Since State law puts park plans in the public facilities section of comprehensive plans, legal specifics for park plans are not included in any discussion of land use planning requirements. In Golden Valley, however, open space has a strong land use connection, so it is important to have updated information available from the park plan before completing any update of the general land use plan. The City's 1982 park plan is now under review by the Open Space and Recreation Commission. Summary . To. better meet requirements of state law, the following points should be addressed in the updated plan: · At least one goal statement should be formulated as a general guide to land use decisions. · One or more policy statements should identify other plan elements to be consulted in conjunction with the general land use plan as appropriate. · The existing and future land use maps should be more clearly labeled, should depict the same land use categories, and should be carefully proofed to eliminate any errors before the plan is adopted. 'Ji.. '"' 5 . II. METRO COUNCIL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS . State law requires each community in the Twin Cities Metro Area to submit all portions of its comprehensive plan to the Metro Council for review and comment prior to adoption. As part of its review duties under state law, the Metro Council has established its own content guidelines for preparation of all plan elements. This section of the technical background will present the information required by the Metro Council for Golden Valley's general land use plan update, including: · a tabular inventory of existing land uses, to accompany the state- mandated map; . forecasts of population and employment; · a projection of the acreage of various types of land needed to accommodate the forecasted population and employment, as supporting documentation for the land use plan map; · an explanation of exactly how the City is dealing with each of the state's "quasi-required" local resource elements; and · a discussion of plan monitoring and amendment. Analysis of development staging is also a standard Metro Council requirement for general land use plans. As a mature, inner ring suburb lying entirely within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), Golden Valley sees no need for extensive staged development planning; population and employment forecasts are broken down into five year increments as required by the Metro Council, and the City has taken a broad look at how its modest infill growth might occur. Current Land Use Inventory The Metro Council has devised a generic worksheet (see Appendix A) for identifying and tabulating the acreage of various categories of land. The worksheet addresses existing land uses, vacant land, and land with development restrictions. Cities divided by the MUSA line are required to make separate acreage counts within the MUSA and outside of it. Some land use definitions have been provided along with the worksheet, but several key terms are not covered. Some specific types of use either do not appear on the worksheet at all or are split into more than one category without adequate explanation of how the . Metro Council perceives the differences. Golden Valley understands the long term benefit of working toward consistency in land use terminology and classification among the economically and socially . linked Metro Area communities. The City also understands that the Metro .6 . . . Council's classification of land uses is driven by its responsibility for overseeing certain regional systems as identified in state law. However, this is a local plan, and it must be responsive to local needs and preferences. In view of the increasing scrutiny being given to the issue of conformity between local land use plans and zoning regulations, it is important to have land use categories that work for Golden Valley. To that end, the City has revised the worksheet and land use classifications of the Metro Council, and has formulated a list of definitions for key terms used in the City's land use planning efforts. Reasonable attempt has been made to accommodate the needs of the Metro Council as well. Golden Valley's revised and completed worksheet is shown in Exhibit 1. Comments on the worksheet - covering both the Metro Council's generic version . and Golden Valley's revised version - are presented in the following paragraphs. Exhibit 1: Current land Use Acreage in Golden Valley LAND USE CATEGORY ACRES IN USE ACRES VACANT low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Office Commercial Light Industrial Industrial Public/Private Open Space Schools and Religious Facilities Miscellaneous Public Facilities Miscellaneous Semi-Public Facilities Wetland 0.00 Floodplain 0.00 Open Water 0.00 Highway Rights-Qf-Way 0.00 Railroad Rights-of-Way 0.00 All Categories Total land Area in City xxxx.xx Acres or 10.5 Square Miles 7 . Breakdown of Existing land Uses - (Some of this discussion is on hold until the City obtains a relatively accurate land use breakdown.) The City's definitions of land use categories can be found in Exhibit 2. These definitions should also become a part of the general land use plan document itself. For the most part, Golden Valley has been able to maintain approximate consistency with recommended Metro Council land use categories by simply breaking them down into more narrowly defined groups for the City's purposes. For example, Golden Valley's office category would generally be considered part of the Metro Council's broader commercial category. The City's treatment of certain mixed uses is one significant departure from the Metro Council's classification system: where the Metro Council wants to see specific areas of the land use plan map identified as "mixed use" areas, Golden Valley finds it more appropriate to identify types of mixed use PUD's that may occur at any location with a given land use classification. The City's decision not to designate nursing homes or other non-surgical residential care facilities as commercial uses is another departure from Metro Council recommendations. Finally, Golden Valley departs from Metro Council recommendations by recognizing that railroad rights-of-way are significant local land use features. . . .~'. ~ ~ 8 . Exhibit 2: Definitions of Key land Use Terms . Residential, low Density (less than 5.00 homes per gross acre of land .ama): Single family detached homes are the predominant low density residential use, with small clusters of two family attached homes mixed in at scattered locations as appropriate. Other types of residential structures in planned unit developments (PUD's) may also be appropriate as long as the overall density of development falls within the acceptable range. Metro Council equivalent is "single family". Residential, Medium Density (from 5.00 to 11.99 homes per gross acre of land area): Medium density residential uses include two family attached homes in clusters of more than ten units, or townhomes, or other types of housing in . PUD's where the average density of development falls within the acceptable range. Metro Council equivalent is part of "multi-family". Residential, High Density (12.00 homes or more per gross acre of land area): Apartment buildings and condominiums are the predominant high density residential uses. Other types of housing in PUD's are also appropriate in these areas if they are developed to meet the minimum density threshold. Metro Council equivalent is part of "multi-family". Office: This limited use category features general office buildings. Medical or laboratory facilities where work is performed in a predominantly office setting are also acceptable uses. Office areas may include mixed use office/residential PUD's. Metro Council equivalent is part of "commercial", Commercial: Commercial uses include anything that could go into an office area, as well as retail sales/services, restaurants, hotels/motels, and for-profit entertainment/recreation facilities. Mixed use commercial/residential PUD's are also a possibility. Metro Council equivalent is "commercial", except that Golden Valley does NOT classify any residential care facilities as commercial uses. Light Industrial: This category includes offices, warehousing and storage, , assembly and light manufacturing, truck/van terminals, utility installations, and large-scale specialty retail operations such as lumber yards, greenhouses, and vehicle sales/rental lots. Metro Council equivalent is part of "industrial". Industrial: This category includes anything that could go into a light industrial area, as well as railroad uses, animal care facilities, and heavy manufacturing. Metro Council equivalent is part of "industrial", Open Space (public and private): These uses include golf courses, ball fields, playgrounds, parks, nature areas, and storm water ponding areas. Metro Council equivalent is "parks and recreation", except that the Metro Council does not specify ponding areas or nature areas. . '4-. ~-' 9 . . . Exhibit 2: Definitions...continued Schools and Religious Facilities: These include education facilities at all levels, the Golden Valley cemetery, places of worship for all denominations, and . miscellaneous religious installations. Metro Council equivalent is part of "public, semi-public" . Public Facilities, Miscellaneous: Administrative or service installations (except those otherwise classified) at all levels of government fall into this category. Metro Coun~i1 equivalent is part of "public, semi-public". Semi-Public Facilities, Miscellaneous: Residential treatment or care facilities, hospitals and surgical centers, private clubs, and other not-for-profit facilities (except those otherwise classified) fall into this category. Metro Council equivalent is part of "public, semi-public", except for residential treatment or care. Wetland: Properties in this category are generally those listed in the National Wetlands Inventory. By definition, all wetland areas are considered to be "in use". Metro Council equivalent is "wetland development constraint". Floodplain: This category includes all areas with a land elevation below the 1 DO-year flood level. By definition, all f100dway areas are considered to be "in use". Metro Council equivalent is "floodplain development constraint". Open Water: SweeneylTwin Lake, Wirth Lake, DNR "unnamed basin" #27-36", and Bassett Creek are classified as open water areas. By definition, all open . water is considered to be "in use". Metro Council equivalent is "open water". Right-ot-Way. Highway: This category includes all land reserved for highway uses in the corridors of Highways 55, 1 DO, 169, and 1-394, whether by easement or by fee title. By definition, all such right-of-way is considered to be "in use". Metro Council equivalent is "roadways, option 1". Right-ot-Way. Railroad: This category includes all land reserved for railroad uses, whether.by easement or by fee title. By definition, all such right-of-way is considered to be "in use". There is no Metro Council equivalent. Vacant land: In general, land is classified as vacant if it is a legally defined parcel with no developed or landscaped area within its limits. Scattered vacant single family lots are generally not identified, due to incomplete data and difficulties with mapping scale. In some cases, land that does not constitute a legally defined parcel has been classified as vacant if meets all of the following criteria - it is part of a privately owned or tax forfeit parcel; it is at least half of the parcel's overall size; it has NO usable structures and minimal or no landscaping; it is of a size and configuration to hold a development of the appropriate scale for its land use classification; it is not substantially encumbered by floodplain or wetland designation; and both it and the developed portion of the parcel can meet all applicable Glty code requirements if split apart. 10 . Vacant Developable land - Reviewing materials supplied by the Metro Council for this plan update, Golden Valley had a particular problem with the delineation of "vacant" land. No specific definition is provided in the Metro Council's planning handbook, but the land use map and tabulation of land areas compiled by the Metro Council include features such as parking lots, railroad rights-of-way, communications tower sites, a cemetery, City-owned ponding areas, and wetlands. The Metro Council did not consider whether an unbuilt area is a separate land parcel or whether it is of a reasonably developable configuration. Even with its very broad generalization of what constitutes vacant land, the Metro Council estimated only 6.2% (424 acres) of Golden Valley's area to be vacant as of 1995. Based on a definition that the City finds more accurate for local planning purposes, the vacant land acreage (xxx) is only xxx% of total area. . Although Golden Valley considers itself to be "fully developed", the City is aware that many parcels of land are under-used, obsolete, and/or deteriorating, thus offering opportunities for infill development or redevelopment. Working with such properties involves many more challenges than developing what most people would consider "vacant" land, so the distinction is important. . Metro Council guidelines call for local land use plans to specify areas suitable for redevelopment. Since any land use change in a fully developed community by definition constitutes redevelopment, the City assumes that the Metro Council is referring more specifically to redevelopment with local government assistance. Redevelopment plan elements are discretionary under state law. At this time, there is no complete map of under-used, obsolete, or deteriorating properties within Golden Valley; future land use plan updates might benefit from an inventory of such properties, but that must wait until the City's electronic data management capabilities are more advanced. land With Development Restrictions - The Metro Council's generic land use worksheet lists a variety of land types that might be considered developmentally restricted. Some of the listed items repeat land types already counted under . existing land uses - making it difficult to tell, for example, when cities should consider parks as land uses versus restricted development areas. Some of the suggested types of developmentally restricted land do not occur in Golden Valley at all, or are not significant enough to be worth quantifying, or require more information for comprehensive mapping than the City has available at present. . Due to its limited value for Golden Valley, the City has eliminated the "Restricted for Development" section from the completed worksheet. Four items from that section - wetlands, parks, highway rights-of-way, and floodplains - are listed as land use areas instead. Railroad rights-af-way, which the Metro Council does not consider at all, h'ave been added to the land use list as well. 11 . Shoreland setback and DNR development restrictions do apply to parts of the City. Neither is considered a substantial general planning issue at this time, so they are not listed as land use categories. Responsible design and use of the planned unit development can adequately address such limitations on the few remaining vacant or under-used sites in Golden Valley. The City's shoreland ordinance identifies all bodies of water to which it applies. The DNR is consulted . on all development matters under its jurisdiction as required in state law. Golden Valley is also affected by hydric (very wet) soils and scattered site pollution, not to mention assorted areas of "filled" land that are known to contain more than just dirt. To some extent, these are known from existing sources such as county soil maps, Pollution Control Agency records, and City building files. Again, given Golden Valley's fully developed state, the City is able to address these constraints on a site-by-site basis in accordance with various applicable laws. They are therefore not listed in the completed land use worksheet. Other constraints that the City has elected not to.quantify at this time are: forest/tree areas, land owned by non profits for passive use, historic sites, bluffs, trails, airports, other regional facilities, common open space in planned unit developments, mitigation commitments, parking lots, and Indian burial grounds. . Population, Household, and Employment Forecasts The Metro Council supplies all Metro Area communities with local population and employment forecasts based on its own regional forecasts. Golden Valley has historically accepted the Metro Council numbers rather than trying to generate independent local forecasts. Small area forecasts have less statistical reliability than regional forecasts, and the required background data are more difficult to collect at the local level. At times the City has requested adjustments in Metro Council forecasts after examining how population or employment changes might impact various locations within Golden Valley, but the City has elected not to pursue any modification of the most recent numbers (Exhibit 3). Exhibit 3: Forecasts . POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS EMPLOYMENT 1990 CENSUS 20,971 8,273 28,589 1995 ESTIMATE 20,911 8,331 28,832 2000 22,300 8,800 29,500 2005 22,500 8,900 31,000 2010 ~-.. 22,700 9,000 32,500 2020 ..~ 23,000 9,200 33,100 . 12 . Projected land Use Needs The Metro Council has supplied another generic worksheet (also in Appendix A) for cities to use in translating local forecasts into land requirements. It calls for separate calculations of each type of household increase, in vacant as opposed to infilllredevelopment areas, at five year increments. Similar calculations are to be provided for employment increases. Golden Valley understands the Metro Council's need for information to help monitor the dimensioning and expansion of basic regional systems per its state mandate. On the other hand, this worksheet seems unnecessarily detailed given the City's relatively small size and modest forecasts. The forecasts themselves have already been broken down into five . year increments; whether low density residential growth occurs faster than high density, or whether vacant land is developed before redevelopment begins, is going to depend on too many variables for the City to predict the outcome with any reliability. . . . Golden Valley has revised and filled out the worksheet for the end year of 2020 only (Exhibit 4). Given the minimal amount of vacant residential land in the City, most household growth will occur because of redevelopment or infil!. There is ample vacant land available to absorb employment growth, but the vast majority is held by a single corporate owner. That company has kept the land in reserve for many years, has beep reticent about any plans for development, and has declined all offers by others wanting to buy and develop some of the available acreage. Thus, it is entirely likely that employment growth will occur through redevelopment or expansion before the available vacant land is used up. Exhibit 4: Year 2020 Projected land Use Needs . PART A -land Needed For Residential Growth LOW MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY DENSITY DENSITY TOTAL NUMBER OF ADDED HOUSEHOLDS (HH) 300 169 400 869 DENSITY (HH/A) 2.5 6.0 15.0 NA NUMBER OF ACRES (A) NEEDED 120 28 27 175 PART B - land Needed For Employment Growth NUMBER OF ADDED JOBS (J) Not Applicable 4,268 DENSITY (J/A) Not Applicable 18 NUMBER OF ACRES(A)NEE~ED Not Applicable 237 13 . Quasi-Required Local Resource Elements These were noted briefly in the first part of this report,' along with the general finding that Golden Valley has no heed to include any of them as substantial elements of the land use plan update. For its own purposes, the Metro Council requires somewhat more specific comments about each element listed in state law. To better serve its needs, the Metro Council divides the list of quasi- . required elements into three groups: those relating to regional systems for which the Metro Council has planning responsibility, those required as part of a water resource management plan, and miscellaneous others. The City's position on each element in the three groups is stated below. . . Elements Relating to Regional Systems · "Suitability of soils and bedrock for on-site septic systems" - Golden Valley does not allow such systems in any new development or redevelopment, and has not allowed them for many years; therefore, the City sees no need to analyze soil suitability for them. · "Prime agricultural soils" - Golden Valley is a fully developed inner ring suburb; therefore, the City sees no need to plan for preservation of agricultural land. · "Groundwater recharge areas" - Golden Valley's water supply does not come from wells, so the City is not required to have a wellhead protection plan and groundwater recharge areas are not a significant concern at present; the City sees no need to address them as a land use element in this plan update. . Elements Required in Water Resource Management Plan · "Wetlands and f1oodways" -- Golden Valley's water resource management plan will be a separate element within the land use portion of the City's comprehensive plan; detailed information on wetlands and f100dways will be included in that document, which is now in partial draft form and not available for review. · "Natural watercourses and water bodies" - Golden Valley's water resource management plan will be a separate element within the land use portion of the City's comprehensive plan; detailed information on watercourses and water bodies will be included in that document, which is now in partial draft form and not available for review. · "Slopes (as they relate to erosion control)" - Golden Valley's water resource management plan will be a separate element within the land use portion of the City's comprehensive plan; detailed information on erosion control measures will be included in that document, which is now in partfal draft form and not available for review. 14 . . Miscellaneous Other Elements · "Forests and woodlands" - Golden Valley is a fully developed inner ring suburb with the majority of its wooded areas located on land in permanent City ownership; while the City may want to consider expansion of its landscaping guidelines or other regulatory controls to provide for better management of any privately-owned urban forest areas, the City sees no need for a specific tree-preservation element in its comprehensive plan at this time. · "Slopes (as they relate to land development)" - Golden Valley is a fully developed inner ring suburb with the majority of its steep slopes either already developed, already platted for development, or lying within permanent open space areas; City code prohibits the creation of new lots on very steep land unless the subdivider shows how the lot can reasonably be developed, so the City sees no need to add a specific slope preservation element to the comprehensive plan at this time. · "Historic sites" - Golden Valley has no state- or federally- designated historic sites within its boundaries, and sees no need to plan for their preservation at this time. · "Areas of unique or endangered species of plants and animals" - Golden Valley is a fully developed inner ring suburb with no known colonies of unique or endangered species in sufficient quantity to necessitate a specific protection element in the comprehensive plan. · "Sand, gravel, and mineral extraction areas" - Golden Valley had substantial deposits of sand and gravel within its limits as recently as the 1940's, but mining of those commodities ceased as affected areas were mined out and/or developed; Golden Valley has had no mining or extraction industries - or vacated mining sites awaiting development - for many years, and sees no need to plan for how to address them. · "Natural resources of particular historical significance" -- An 1895 history of Hennepin County cites the value of Golden Valley's soils for crop and dairy farming, a much more recent local history compiled by the Golden Valley Historical Society notes the importance of the 1859 "ginseng rush" on the fortunes of the community, and the City's once- abundant sand and gravel deposits were noted above; the City is not aware of any privately-owned areas of significant size where any of these resources can still be found in a natural setting. As a fully developed inner ring suburb with no designated historical sites and with the bulk of its natural areas already located on land in permanent public ownership, the City sees no need to plan for the preservation of historically,significant natural resources. ~" . ~ . 15 . · "Solar access for solar energy systems" - In 1982, when Golden Valley was first required to include solar access provisions in its comprehensive plan, the City was already almost fully developed. The Metro Council at that time recommended addressing solar access in the housing element of the plan, where it remains in the recent update; as indicated in the previous section of this report, the solar access statement is also likely to be copied over into the general land use plan this time around. Plan Monitoring and Amendment . State law requires Minnesota communities to review their entire comprehensive plans at least once every ten years, at which time plan elements may either be updated as necessary or certified as still current. The Metro Council wants all Twin Cities Metro Area communities to commit to an understanding that they must continuously monitor their plans, and must perform an update whenever any of the following occurs: · a particular development proposal exceeds any parameters in the adopted plan; · any land identified for commercial or industrial development (in Golden Valley, that would office or light industrial land as well) is converted to residential uses, or vice versa; or · anticipated wastewater treatment or transportation needs of commercial or industrial development change in a way that exceeds the parameters in the adopted plan. Summary The updated plan document should include: · The complete set of definitions established for use with the two state- mandated land use maps. · A policy statement adopting the monitoring and updating commitment requested by the Metro Council. Other material from this section of the Technical Background may be included as background information in the plan but is not essential plan content. . _<.~~ 16 . III. ZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONFORMITY Zoning and planning are two separate concepts, yet they are inextricably linked. In many communities, the linkage is so strong and goes back so far that the . distinction between the two has become blurred. It can be difficult to understand why a fully developed community like Golden Valley needs to spend time and money preparing and maintaining a land use plan when most day-to-day land use issues revolve around basic zoning administration. The short answer is: because state law requires it. Cities are known as "creatures of the state". Local powers, such as the ability to establish and enforce zoning regulations, are granted to cities by the state and only on terms specified by the state. The terms spelled out in current Minnesota statutes say that any community wanting to regulate local land uses through zoning must maintain a comprehensive plan, including a land use section. . Statutes tie zoning to the comprehensive plan in general rather than to any . specific portion of it. However, it is likely that most or all of the basis for local zoning regulations will be found in the land use section of the comprehensive plan, which in Golden Valley includes the separate housing and water resource management plan as well as the general land use plan. In this particular section of the Technical Background, the terms "comprehensive plan" and "land use plan" may be considered interchangeable. According to state law, zoning regulations are among the official controls that local governments may establish as "reasonable and practicable means for putting the comprehensive plan or section of the plan into effect" (MS 462.356, Subd.1). State law applicable to communities within the Twin Cities Metro Area further spells out the relationship between zoning and plan by prohibiting local governments from adopting or maintaining zoning regulations that conflict with any provisions of the comprehensive plan (MS 473.865, Subds. 2 and 3). In planning circles, the concept of being "not in conflict" is often reworded as being "in conformity", simply because the latter phrase is easier to say. Clearly, the statutory intent is that the vision of the comprehensive plan should dictate the shape of the zoning tools necessary to convert plan to reality. But what exactly is required in order to maintain conformity between local zoning regulations and the comprehensive plan? And why should the City care? For that matter, what exactly is the difference between the zoning regulations and the plan itself? This part of the Technical Background seeks answers to help strengthen both the updated plan and the zoning code for Golden Valley. . ..... --\ 17 . Plan and Code Compared As noted earlier, one main element of the plan is a map indicating long term land use areas. Before the map can be colored in, the almost infinite variety of specific uses must be grouped into manageable categories based on an evaluation of fundamental similarities and differences. Then goals, objectives, and policies must be formulated to augment the map and provide additional direction for making land use decisions. The zoning code also includes a map of use areas. Zoning districts serve . essentially the same grouping function as land use categories. A purpose statement for each district and additional requirements relating to setbacks, parking, and other aspects of property usage augment the map and district lists. No wonder people have so much trouble drawing a distinction between code and plan when there are so many obvious similarities. . There are also some key differences. First, the plan's focus is on moving the City as smoothly as possible into the future while the code is firmly grounded in the present. Also, the plan embodies a general vision of desired community characteristics while the zoning code provides a specific means of implementing and regulating the vision. As a result, the code is more detail-oriented than the plan with regard to the intensity of use considered acceptable on any property within a given district. Finally, the code is part of local law and is enforceable through the City's police power while the plan serves as documentation that the code was properly established and is properly administered in the best interest of the general public health, safety, and welfare. Why Worry About Conforming Today's Zoning to a Current Plan? So, state law requires Golden Valley fo have a comprehensive plan if the City wants to regulate the use of property through zoning. So it requires Golden Valley to keep its zoning regulations in conformity with the plan. So what? The City has had an acceptable plan for years and is now fully developed; why put any big effort into plan "updating"? Why spend time amending a future vision when most of Golden Valley's land use issues today revolve around zoning? . Even in a fully developed community, times change. Land uses change with the times in a number of large and small ways. Changes in other state or federal regulations, such as those affecting the environment or persons with disabilities, have spillover impacts on local land use. New tools, techniques, and processes alter the way people prefer to live or do business. As a community's buildings age, they reach a point where it becomes more cost-effective to tear them down and start over than th~renovate or adapt them. Some types of land use become obsolete, while others' evolve to take their place. The community faces ongoing 18 . . demands for specific changes to the zoning map or the zoning text in order to . allow local property owners to keep up with changing land use trends. Basing all zoning decisions on a well-thought-out and up-to-date comprehensive plan is the best available insurance against lawsuits that may be generated by any particular decision. Communities run the risk of having their decisions - and sometimes part or all of their zoning regulations - thrown out of court for being "arbitrary and capricious" unless they can show evidence of a solid decision- making foundation. State law says the comprehensive plan is such a foundation. Golden Valley's current plan is fifteen years old, and its general land use element offers little in the way of guidance for making decisions today. By maintaining a broad vision of how the City should look and feel and function over time, Golden Valley provides itself with a framework in which to make individual land use decisions as issues come up. Keeping an eye on the "big picture" helps ensure that each new decision fits in with others made before it rather than working at cross purposes. The vision needs to be periodically updated in order to anticipate and accommodate the changing world outside. Having a long-range vision to guide change can be more import~nt in a mature . city like Golden Valley than out on the developing urban fringe, because there are more people potentially affected by each land use decision. The vision gives residents and nonresident property owners information on the expected long- term future of their property and their neighborhood so they can make their own plans accordingly. People do ask about the City's plan when contemplating buying or improving residential or business properties in Golden Valley. Conformity: Zoning Districts With Plan Categories Zoning codes and comprehensive plans both employ established land use groupings. At minimum, conformity between zoning and the plan should involve some logical correspondence between plan categories and zoning districts; if the plan identifies "medium density residential uses" as one category, then the zoning code should include at least one district that specifically accommodates and regulates such development. In addition, there should be a correspondence between the specific usage requirements of the code for any given district and the more general vision set out in the plan. . Ensuring this correspondence requires first that all local land use categories be adequately defined in the comprehensive plan. Second, it requires adjustment of the local zoning districts until they fit the defined land use categories. Third, it requires reconciling all zoning. provisions with the goals, objectives, and policies . of the plan so that tHe; code properly supports the various plan statements. 19 . Like many other fully-developed communities, Golden Valley's zoning history is longer than its comprehensive planning history (see Appendix B for historical summary). Zoning districts have often been created or altered as an immediate response to a single, short-term issue. While the City's plans have become more formalized and detailed over time, they still have not tended to be taken as the guiding force contemplated by current state law. Instead of creating zoning districts that reflect and support a broader land use vision, the City has generally used existing zoning districts to define land use categories. Looking back, it is easy to see how the relationship between planning and zoning has evolved in Golden Valley as state law and the City itself have changed. . The current plan update offers an opportunity for Golden Valley to carry the evolution a step further by outlining some objectives and policies to guide and improve the City's performance with regard to zoning/plan conformity. The update will include definitions for all land use categories identified in the plan. One of Golden Valley's first objectives after plan adoption should be to review and update the regulations for all zoning districts and for planned unit developments as necessary to provide solid support for plan implementation. Of particular importance are the specific use lists and the "purpose and intent" paragraph that establishes why each district exists. . Some districts will probably need little or no revision of their use lists or other provisions. Others, such as the obsolete and little-used Radio and Television district, may be eliminated entirely. In looking at all residential districts and at PUD regulations, the City will want to remember to also consider ideas and concerns raised in the Technical Background report for the housing plan. With the Multiple Dwelling and Institutional districts, the City might want to look at reducing the number of individual sub-districts as well as amending their use lists or other provisions. For example, since there is only one cemetery in Golden . Valley, it hardly seems necessary to have it in a zoning class by itself. The land use plan includes the cemetery in the "schools and religious facilities" category; working from there, the cemetery would logically belong in the 1-1 Church/School zoning sub-district. If there are concerns about the possibility of new cemeteries being established on existing church and school properties, then the cemetery use could be made conditional instead of fully permitted in that sub-district. . Industrial zoning district regulations are likely to require the most extensive revision. In response to changing land use demands along the industrially- designated 1-394 corridor, the City began adding assorted commercial uses to the Industrial district list through the 1970's and 1980's as individual requests came up. This has created a conflict with the industrial designation of the corridor on the comprehensive plan map. It has also been in open conflict with "'.. the specific purpose and intent stated for the Industrial zoning district. To date, commercial uses are primarily concentrated along 1-394, but current zoning 20 . provisions make them legal at Industrially-zoned locations throughout Golden Valley. There is always the possibility that they could begin to proliferate in other industrially designated areas if the City does not bring district uses back into line . with the district's purpose. As for the 1-394 corridor itself, additional discussion and options will come up in the next section of the Technical Background. In addition to establishing objectives for bringing current zoning provisions into better conformity with the updated plan, the City might want to look at creating some guidelines for consideration of future zoning code text amendments. For example, it might be helpful to have a policy of consulting the land use plan before approving any additions to the permitted use lists for each zoning district. Conformity: Considering Time as a Factor . As discussed above, zoning districts should conform with land use categories identified in the comprehensive plan. On the other hand, conformity does not require that the zoning map and land use plan map reflect identical geographic patterns at any given point in time. State law makes it clear that plans are future- oriented. The very definition of the phrase "comprehensive municipal plan" states that it "represents the planning agency's recommendations for the future . development of the community" (MS 462.352, Subd. 5). Zoning, on the other hand, regulates land as it is occupied today. From 1985 until last year, statutes included a provision specifying that "[i]f the comprehensive municipal plan is in conflict with the zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance supersedes the plan" (former MS 462.357, Subd. 2). On careful consideration of the broader statutory picture, that provision could be understood to reflect the timing factor: cities must have the ability to legally promote and regulate viable existing uses until the time is right to implement changes by rezoning properties per the comprehensive plan. Unfortunately, in some communities - including Golden Valley, until about eight years ago - the language was misinterpreted to mean that local governments could actually rezone properties without any regard for appropriate future land uses as identified in the comprehensive plan. In one background report on a proposed rezoning that clearly conflicted with the land use plan map, staff commented that the City could simply change the latter designation to match the rezoning whenever the next general plan update was undertaken. Such actions sidestep the entire purpose of having a comprehensive plan, and Golden Valley . no longer operates that way. . To better promote the broader statutory intent, state law was reversed in 1996. Now it specifies that'ttte plan supersedes the zoning regulations. The new language still leaves many people confused. Where they used to believe that 21 . . . rezonings could occur at any time without considering the comprehensive plan at all, they now think the zoning map must precisely match the plan map at all times. Following such an extreme interpretation would force premature land use changes in many areas, making otherwise viable properties nonconforming and thus inciting their obsolescence and/or deterioration before the community is able to reasonably accommodate the proposed change. Some legislators are already considering another statutory flip-flop, to go back to the old language. It should be easy enough to clear up the confusion by re-emphasizing one of the fundamental differences between zoning and the plan: the former is grounded in the present while the latter looks to the future. Regardless of how that single sentence in state law is worded, Golden Valley will not have to make any significant changes in the way it has handled land use decisions in recent years. The City will continue to support the legal use - including expansion and reconstruction - of properties in accordance with their current zoning but will prohibit any rezoning and/or redevelopment unless it would conform with the land use category indicated in the plan. One thing the City should do is establish a policy framework in the updated plan to indicate approximately when plan implementation - rezoning of a property to match its land use plan designation - could be expected to occur. There are some guidelines that the City generally follows when rezoning issues come up, but they have never been formalized as policy statements. Perhaps the most basic is that the property owner usually must apply for rezoning; the City rarely initiates it without an owner's request. Rezoning has also been denied if the subject property cannot meet the development requirements of the new zoning district; even if the requested zoning does match the land use plan designation, other action - such as combining two or more land parcels or demolishing nonconforming buildings - must occur before rezoning is possible. Although the specific conformity issue has not been tried in the courts since the . statutory language change, related legal decisions in the past have tended to emphasize that property owners have a right to know what would be required in order to develop their land in a certain way. Establishing guidelines for how the City determines zoning/plan conformity will help to uphold that right and thus to reinforce future land use decisions. A model policy framework establishing zoning/plan conformity is included in Appendix C for discussion purposes. Conformity: Concurrent Plan Amendment and Rezoning Golden Valley's standard method of maintaining conformity between the plan map and the zoning map may be due for an evaluation. As already noted, the plan map adopted b~t~he City in 1982 anticipated only a few areas where future land use changes would occur, so today it is very unlikely to see a rezoning 22 . . . application for a development that does not also need a plan amendment. The City's decade-old practice in such cases is to allow concurrent consideration of the plan amendment and rezoning. Initiated in reaction to the realization that Golden Valley could no longer continue to ignore the comprehensive plan when . approving rezonings, this practice has never been formally reviewed to determine whether it is the best available alternative. In addition to maintaining the legally required conformity between comprehensive plan and zoning code, consideration of concurrent applications has allowed Golden Valley to respond quickly to market changes that may occur between major plan updates. It may even allow the City to wait longer before undertaking a full update, since the ability to make quick "patches" to the map reduces the impact of operating with an inadequate plan. Having a particular development proposal in mind when plan amendments are considered can also make it easier to envision exactly how the proposed category of use might impact surrounding properties. These are clear benefits of the practice, but there are also certain drawbacks, some of which have only become apparent in recent years. Minnesota state law does not prohibit concurrent plan and zoning changes, but it also does not accommodate them particularly well, nor does it intend to. As established earlier, the comprehensive plan is supposed to take a long, broad look into the future, while zoning is meant to regulate specific uses of property today. Once the desired future land use category of a property has been . established through careful study and discussion, an application for rezoning in conformity with that desired future use should'be a pretty straightforward matter. The planning process is therefore set up to allow ample time for consideration and debate. In addition to hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council, a plan amendment is subject to outside review by adjacent cities and other agencies including the Metro Council. Final approval cannot be granted by the City until all outside reviewers have had time to respond. The Metro Council does not even see a proposed plan amendment until after it has undergone preliminary consideration by the City Council, and then the statutory Metro Council review period can extend to sixty days; the review may note that a proposed amendment would impact regional infrastructure systems under Metro Council planning authority, in which case more time may have to be spent making supplementary amendments in other plan elements. For adjacent cities and affected school districts, the 1995 changes in state planning legislation allow up to six months to contemplate the potential impacts of any proposed plan amendment (some experts believe legislators intended a six-month review only for major updates; clarifying that point will require another statutory amendment). The rezoning process, on the other hand, is sharply constrained in the amount of time cities can spend''Contemplating a decision. Consideration of rezoning applications is restricted by the sixty-day limit established in the 1995 legislative 23 . amendments, yet the law clearly says a rezoning cannot be approved unless it conforms with the comprehensive plan designation for the subject property. This creates a definite problem for the concurrent application practice: since passage of the 1995 legislation, it has become difficult to keep related rezonings and plan amendments on the same time schedule without either requiring an automatic extension of the sixty-day limit for every rezoning or cutting the corners on the plan amendment process, or occasionally having to combine both strategies. State law is not the only force working against Golden Valley's concurrent application practice; the City's own adopted procedures also fail to support it. The zoning chapter of City Code addresses both rezonings and comprehensive plan map amendments, outlining who may apply and how the process will unfold in each case. There is no discussion of how concurrent applications will be handled in view of their different processes, and the code section on plan . amendments supports the intent of state law that the plan describes "future development and zoning actions" (emphasis added). . The City has not been following the specified plan amendment process, which includes no instructions for preparing or submitting applications, and makes no provision whatsoever for initiation by a property owner or by anyone other than the City Council itself. . Based strictly on what is written in the Code, an individual desiring a plan amendment should begin by petitioning the City Council directly as to whether the City would be willing to entertain the idea, and then letting the Council instruct the Planning Commission on whether to begin consideration. Needless to say, that approach would make the plan amendment process run even longer than it does now, and it leaves entirely in limbo the issue of when an accompanying rezoning request should first be introduced in the process. If the City chooses to continue its concurrent application practice, a suitable joint process should be developed and formally established in City Code. Changing public attitudes also run contrary to the practice of considering concurrent plan amendment and rezoning applications. Golden Valley's citizens are becoming more aware of the existence and purpose of the comprehensive plan, and they are consulting it more often for information on the long-term future of their neighborhood or other locations of interest to them. At several hearings in recent years, owners of properties near a subject site have stated that they felt they had inadequate time to adjust to an imminent development proposal because there was no indication of it in the comprehensive plan; for them, the concurrent application practice creates a concern that long-term planning may be sacrificed for the sake of immediate development interests. . Some citizens are also showing an increased desire to participate in long-term planning for areas they feel may affect them or their families. While formal public hearings are not the "most conducive forums for citizen involvement, adding informal discussion or "visioning" sessions to the planning process for a specific 24 . site amendment would create a greater time conflict with any accompanying rezoning application. Golden Valley may wish to evaluate some alternatives to its concurrent application practice, to see if - and under what circumstances - the public interest might be better served by separating the consideration of plan amendments from the consideration of rezoning applications. . Finally, the concurrent application practice has been known to generate a certain amount of confusion for the City, applicant, and general public. As discussed earlier, planning and zoning share the same overall purpose - to protect the public health and welfare -- and there are strong similarities between the physical structure of a zoning code and its supporting plan. Because the direct function of the zoning code is different from that of the plan, there are different issues and requirements involved in the consideration of proposed changes to each, but the distinctions sometimes fall along a very fine line. For the City, it can be difficult in a combined review to maintain the necessary separation between. the broad- based and long-range concerns that affect a plan amendment and the specific requirements for approving or denying a rezoning. The applicant is interested only in a particular development proposal, and may not fully comprehend or accept the extent to which approval of that proposal can be complicated by its failure to conform with the comprehensive plan. Citizens at a combined public hearing may not understand the fine distinctions between planning and zoning issues; when they are unable to grasp the reasons for doubled - and to them repetitive - votes on what they view as a single development proposal, they lose their trust in the entire process. Several other states prohibit or sharply limit the consideration of individual requests for site-specific comprehensive plan amendments, the idea being that they violate the intent of the comprehensive planning process. Many cities not bound by a statewide prohibition have adopted similar provisions in their own local codes. By limiting the number and type of site-specific plan amendments that individuals are allowed to request, a community automatically reduces the likelihood of having to deal with concurrent applications for plan amendment and rezoning; therefore, the practices established by those states and cities could provide useful models for Golden Valley to study if the City decides to explore alternatives to concurrent application. . The most restrictive processes adhere strongly to the idea that all community planning should indeed be "comprehensive": they provide for amendment of the plan map only in the course of overall plan updates. Limited exceptions may be made upon demonstration that either the map itself reflects an erroneous designation for a particular property, or circumstances affecting the property have undergone a substantial change since the last overall update. Individuals who cannot demonstrate that their property fits within an "exception" category . must wait until the ne~ overall plan update to have their sites considered for amendment. Where the plan amendment process is this difficult to initiate on a 25 . site-by-site basis, it is important to ensure that overall plan updates are considered at relatively frequent intervals -- perhaps every three to five years -- or that there is an established mechanism for triggering an update after a certain number of individual site requests are made. Another way of approaching the idea of comprehensiveness in plan amendments is to allow consideration of individual site changes only if the subject property is located right at the edge of a sufficiently-sized area already designated for the desired use. Since a land use plan map is considered to be general in nature, it stands to reason that the boundary of a particular use area could be shifted by a single property-width in any direction without causing a significant impact on the plan's intended outcome. Again, this amendment process would only be available to a limited number of prospective applicants, while all others would have to wait for an overall plan update. . . As an alternative to, or in combination with, strategies to reduce the number of site-specific plan amendments the City would allow, Golden Valley might want to consider establishing a basic policy to prohibit concurrent applications. For example, the City could state that it will continue to allow individuals to request site-specific plan amendments at any time, but that no rezoning application will be accepted for a site unless and until it has been properly designated on the plan map for at least six months. Such a policy would remove all time constraints from the plan amendment process, and would furthermore provide a six-month "cooling-down" period between approval of the amendment and the earliest point at which a developer could ask to proceed with the next step. It may turn out that none of the drawbacks of Golden Valley's concurrent application practice outweigh its obvious benefits at this time. On the other hand, the City may decide that circumstances have changed enough since the practice was first initiated to warrant modification. Before making any decisions to either formalize the practice within the zoning code or adopt modifications to it, the City should definitely take some time to think about the pros and cons. . Summary To improve conformity between the zoning code and the comprehensive plan, the following items should be addressed in the plan update: · Any necessary updating of the regulations for all zoning districts and for planned unit developments should be cited as a top priority objective. Of particular importance are the specific use lists and the "purpose and intent" paragraph for each district. . 1.r~~ ~- 26 . · At least one policy statement should be established to require consultation of the comprehensive plan before approving any proposed text changes for the zoning code. . · A policy framework should be established to indicate approximately when plan implementation could be expected to occur for any given property. Furthermore, to improve - or at least clarify - the way the City often deals with the conformity issue for individual development proposals, the following step should also be included in the update process: · The City's method of maintaining conformity between the plan map and the zoning map by allowing concurrent application for plan amendment and rezoning should reviewed to determine whether it is the best available alternative. Depending on the outcome of the review, appropriate follow-up might include: · formulation and establishment in City Code of a suitable joint application process; and/or · formulation of one or more policies limiting the circumstances in which the City would allow site-specific plan amendments betWeen regular plan updates; and/or · formulation of a policy to prohibit concurrent applications. . . .~.. ~, 27 . . . IV. MISCELLANEOUS LAND USE ISSUES Like any other mature community, Golden Valley is subject to signs of aging. The fact that the City is fully developed does not mean that it cannot or should not plan for change in order to keep pace with the times. Ongoing monitoring of potential land use issues and a pro-active approach to community renewal will help the City remain healthy and vigorous. In fact, because change is so much more difficult to accommodate in a fully developed community than out on the developing urban fringe, it may in some ways require even more plan' ing effort. Land use issues and opportunities specific to housing, open space, a d water resource management are addressed in their respective plan elemen s. This section will attempt to raise potential land use issues not brought up Isewhere. The City may decide not to take formal action at this time on some of the points raised in the following pages, but all of the identified issues are situat ons that . bear watching. Redevelopment Golden Valley established a Housing and Redevelopment Authority ( RA) in 1978, to expand the range of development tools available to the City. The City Council saw the HRA as a vehicle for renewing deteriorated areas th t otherwise might begin to erode Golden Valley's tax base. Two of the HRA's pri ary tools over the years have been the power to acquire properties for redevel pment by condemnation, and the ability to pay for redevelopment by establishi g tax increment financing (TIF) districts to capture increased taxes generat d by the new development. The City currently has three official redevelopmen areas within which the HRA has focused its activities for several years: Vall y Square, North Wirth, and Golden Hills. Also, from time to time, the HRA has een asked for assistance with private redevelopment efforts at scattered locatio s outside of the designated redevelopment areas. Golden Valley's three redevelopment areas are all reaching the end f their TIF . district life. Changes in TIF legislation over time have made it more ifficult for cities to rely on TIF as a main source of redevelopment funding. Oth r forms of financing often fail to fill the gap for a variety of reasons. Future H -assisted redevelopment efforts may therefore have to take place on a more Ii ited scale than in the past. It may be worthwhile for the City to explore alternati e ways of channeling the limited public funds to obtain the greatest impact, and of encouraging private investment in areas where it can do the most go d for the community as a whql_e. ." 28 . In 1987, the HRA formally adopted a "redevelopment philosophy" (Appendix D) as a policy for addressing unsolicited proposals from private developers seeking HRA assistance. That philosophy has not been discussed much in recent years, but it does remain in effect until amended or rescinded by the HRA. First and foremost, it calls for all proposals to be in conformity with the comprehensive plan before the HRA will even discuss them. It specifies that: "[d]uring periodic reviews of the Comprehensive Plan, areas for redevelopment shall be identified based on issues such as deterioration, conflicting land uses, inadequate infrastructure and changing community needs. Redevelopment may occur to create development in any land use category, including office, industrial, retail, commercial, warehouse, housing and mixed uses." The 1982 plan does not identify any "areas for redevelopment", nor has Golden Valley undertaken a more recent city-wide inventory of properties reflecting the types of redevelopment issues described in the philosophy. The time constraint on the current plan update does not lend itself to the detailed study necessary for identifying redevelopment candidates, and the City's computer capabilities do not yet include maintaining a geographic data base to facilitate such an endeavor. The philosophy, however, does make provision for redevelopment areas to be identified on a site-by-site basis between major plan updates. . Specifically, the philosophy says Golden Valley "has the option" of considering a comprehensive plan amendment to target a given site for redevelopment, but approval of the amendment does not ensure approval of a particular proposal or developer. Following plan amendment by the City, the HRA reserves the right to . decide on appropropriate redevelopment timing and to select the best developer for any project. Very few developers are interested in going through the time and effort of a plan amendment unless they have an up-front guarantee that their proposal will go forward with them in charge; instead of following the protocol established in the philosophy, they go straight to the HRA for project approval without first giving the City an opportunity to determine whether the subject site is a priority for redevelopment. . Should the City put more effort into establishing a data base for mapping of potential redevelopment candidates, so that developers can be guided to appropriate sites before they begin assembling a proposal? Should the City/HRA be defining conformity with the plan to mean that unsolicited proposals will only be considered for HRA assistance if the subject property is actually labeled as a potential redevelopment area on the land use plan map, or would it be enough for a proposal to conform with the basic future land use designation? Should the City ask the HRA to consider amending the philosophy so it more closely matches the y!'ay developers prefer to do business? Should the redevelopment philosophy - as is, or with appropriate amendments - be 29 . T incorporated as a policy statement in the comprehensive plan, where it can be seen and understood by a wider audience? The time frame for the current update is too tight to allow extended discussion on these questions, but they could be included as objectives to be.completed before the next update. 1-394 Corridor Even before its reconstruction as part of the federal interstate transportation system, land uses along old Highway 12 had become an issue for the City. The area on the north side of the highway, lying between Turner's Crossroad and Pennsylvania Avenue and extending up to Laurel Avenue was of particular concern. Zoned primarily for Industrial uses since 1947, the area has also been designated as industrial on all of the City's comprehensive plans since 1959. It is a major entry to Golden Valley for many travellers, and is visible to many others passing through on 1-394. . Most development in the area occurred in the 1950's and early 1960's. At that . time, there were no on-site parking requirements specified in the zoning code. There were setback requirements, but a rather peculiar clause in the code said that, if an Industrially zoned property was surrounded by other Industrially zoned properties, and the owners of those adjacent properties did not object, then the owner of the subject property could disregard the setback requirements as long as minimal emergency access to the rear of the lot was available somewhere nearby. Substandard parking and setbacks characterize the area to this day. As long ago as the 1960's, changing land use demands along the highway corridor began exerting pressure on Golden Valley to allow more commercial uses - particularly those with a strong automobile orientation - in the area. It would have been appropriate to reclassify part or all of the area in either the 1973 or 1982 land use plan and then rezone for commercial use or establish a new zoning district specifically to accommodate auto-oriented uses. Instead, the City began to add certain individual commercial uses to the Industrial district provisions as requests came up. Not only has this caused a conflict with the comprehensive plan designation of the area for industrial use, it has also been in open conflict with the specific purpose and intent stated for the zoning district. . In more recent years, nonconforming uses have proliferated in addition to the area's other problems. Unlike the handful of commercial uses that have actually been added to the permitted use list for the Industrial zoning district, these are retail outlets that are not allowed per the code. For the most part, it appears they came in as legal industrial uses and then evolved to something more commercial in nature. Menard's, for example, was permitted as a "lumber yard"; the store still offers an array oHumber and semi-finished wood products, but large portions of its floor area feature merchandise that could as easily be found at Target or K 30 . Mart, retail stores that would not be permitted in Golden Valley's Industrial zoning district. In several other cases, businesses came in as wholesalers or distributers and were allowed to set aside a small portion of the building for display or servicing; over time, that floor space expanded until it achieved the scope of a retail outlet, complete with advertising to the public. The area's problems prompted the City to include part of it, extending from Turner's Crossroad to Colorado Avenue, in the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area in 1984. The Colonnade block, which still has one vacant lot set aside for . hotel development, was the first redevelopment success. Immediately west of the railroad tracks, the Holiday Inn Express and the CyberOptics building were also redevelopment projects. The HRA is working on two more development agreements, one for the properties lying south of the frontage road between the Colonnade and the railroad tracks and another for the properties to the west of Holiday Inn Express and CyberOptics; however, time is running out on the TIF district for Golden Hills. The future of HRA-assisted activities within the redevelopment area after the district expires, or in the part of the 1-394 corridor lying outside of the redevelopment area, is uncertain. . The Planning Commission undertook a study of the 1-394 corridor in 1989-1990. Among other things, it found a broader range of existing uses than in any other Industrially zoned area of the City. Nonconformities were so prevalent that attempts to catalogue them in any detail were abandoned; inadequately screened outside storage, multiple structures per lot, and substandard construction of parking areas/driveways joined the list of known types of nonconformities. Much of the area was once wet and low, wi'th pockets of "fill" that would not be acceptable by today's standards. Scattered incidences of soil or groundwater pollution had been documented, and others were suspected. The outcome of the 1-394 corridor study was a recommendation to wait until after the interstate was completed and any disruption caused by the construction effort had time to settle out. Meanwhile, the HRA has remained active within the part of the area that is designated for redevelopment. Elsewhere, the City has continued to address issues on a case-by-case basis, considering individual requests for variances, rezonings, or PUD designation as they come up. Perhaps the time has come to look again at options for the area as a whole. . First, the City must consider whether part or all of the area would be better served by amending the comprehensive plan to indicate commercial or office uses rather than industrial. If so, then the trickier issue of dealing with zoning must be addressed. One of the biggest stumbling blocks uncovered during the 1989-1990 study was that simple rezoning for commercial use could not be accomplished without substantially increasing the nonconformities of existing properties, particularly with regard to parking. 31 . . Given the intermittent congestion caused by on-street parking even under the current Industrial zoning, allowing intensification of use without some sort of mitigation does not seem like a good idea. One alternative that might be explored is a zoning overlay district that would allow commercial uses only for certain qualifying properties as specified in the code (a concept proposal for such a district is provided in Appendix E). Another is expanded off-site parking opportunities. The already-existing 1-394 zoning overlay district could provide an added complication to any alternative, and would have to be considered before making any changes to area planning or zoning. Highway 100 Reconstruction The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has been studying Highway 100 reconstruction options for several years. Improvements from Golden Valley's south city limits up to and including the Glenwood Avenue interchange were completed in the early 1990's as part of the 1-394 construction project. The stretch of Highway 100 extending from Glenwood to Duluth street is now funded for 1999 and 2000. The stretch from Duluth street to 36th Avenue . North is funded for 2000 and 2001. . - Road construction is a transportation planning issue rather than a land use issue, and state highway construction in particular is not wholly under the control of local governments anyway, so why discuss it here? The answer, quite simply, is that transportation improvement projects can have an impact on adjacent land uses. Condemnation of property for widened right-of-way, altered access provisions, altered visibility, and increased traffic all have the potential to change the public perception of appropriate adjacent uses. The question of how any planned Highway 100 improvements might affect a specific property has come up more than once with regard to land use plan amendments proposed in recent years. Some of the proposals have made it into the formal application process, while others have been dropped or held off by developers after informal discussions with staff and/or meetings with MnDOT officials. All proposals have been handled on a case by case basis, since roadway design and target construction dates have been in a state of flux until fairly recently. Potential condemnation has been the main concern to date, but the situation could change as highway construction plans are finalized. . Highway 100 improvements are not expected to have the same degree of impact' as the 1-394 project, because the scope of work will be smaller. On the other hand, it would not be reasonable to assume that adjacent land uses will be completely unaffected by the reconstruction. As with 1-394, it may be difficult or .- impossibla to predict the exact nature or extent of any potential impacts. Therefore, Gelden Valley should establish an objective of studying planned land 32 . uses all along the Highway 100 corridor after all highway-related improvements are in place, with an eye to determining the need or desirability of area-wide land use plan amendments to accommodate altered land use demand. The City may also want to think about establishing a policy of deferring consideration of any proposed land use plan amendments for individual properties within a certain distance of Highway 100 until after construction is complete and the broader corridor study is undertaken; expansion or reconstruction of properties that are already in conformity with the plan would not be affected by such a policy. Community Facilities Golden Valley's current (1982) comprehensive plan includes a separate element titled "Community Facilities". A scant eight pages tucked away at the back of the book, it is rarely remembered, much less consulted. At times, its text confuses the idea of "facilities" with that of "services", and it does not give equal attention to all of the types of public and private facilities that its introduction identifies. It also suffers somewhat from faulty or poorly documented reasoning and improper use of standard planning terminology. Much Of its descriptive information is very outdated, particularly with regard to City-owned facilities. . All of those problems aside, it raises at least one very important point: as Golden Valley ages, its public and private institutional land uses are also aging. Since this is true of all categories of land use in the City, why should community facilities come in for any special consideration? Perhaps the most important reason is that the zoning categories regulating institutional uses are much more narrowly drawn than most of Golden Valley's other zoning districts. Assuming it is correctly zoned in the beginning, a drug store or factory that becomes obsolete has many re-use options within its current district, while a church or school must . almost always be rezoned before it can be put to any other reasonable use. Unless the comprehensive plan establishes some guide to the preferred alternative use of institutional properties that may become obsolete, the City will end up entertaining any and all individual requests for comprehensive plan amendments each time an old church building comes on the market. . Right now, the community facilities element says that the City will take a lead role in researching alternatives for obsolete institutional facilities, but only after they have been "closed and abandoned". Most public and private institutions, on the other hand, are reluctant to just walk away from a site until after making every reasonable effort to find another user, for economic reasons ~f not through any sense of civic-mindedness. Therefore, if Golden Valley wants to playa pro- active role in determining how institutional sites can be re-used or redeveloped in the best interests of the community as a whole, the City's involvement cannot be left to wait until after"~ facility is vacated. 33 . . . It might be a good idea to spend some time reviewing Golden Valley's institutional land uses and considering their long term viability and/or options for . alternative use. In some cases, such as most or all City-owned facilities, long- term viability can be safely assumed. Facilities surrounded by single family neighborhoods, as many of the City's churches are, would probably be best suited for some level of residential use if they become obsolete a, institutional sites. Facilities in mixed-use areas or on main roads may be more difficult to eValuate. There is no need for Golden Valley to maintain a separate community facilities element in the comprehensive plan; to the extent that its contents or its intent might still be valid today, this element can be comfortably accommodated within the general land use plan or one or more elements of the state-mandated public facilities (utilities and infrastructure) plan. --.; -~ .:.,; 34 . . . Appendix A: Land Use Worksheets and Definitions -- Prepared by Metropolitan Council -- . The following five pages contain the Metro Council's standard worksheets for tabulating local land uses by category and acreage and projecting future land use needs, as well as the Metro Council's standard definitions for land use categories. The City of Golden Valley used this information to prepare the modified worksheets and land use categories that appear in the Technical Background to the Lans Use Plan. In the course of modifying the material to make it more appropriate for local use, Golden Valley took all reasonable care to accommodate the information purposes and needs of the Metro Council as well. '4-. ~'. Worksheet · Existing Land Use (in acres) Category No. of Acres Total Acrea1!e 'Within the Current Urban Service Area Existing land uses within the urban service area (in acres) Single-family residential Multifamily residential Commercial Industrial Mining/extractions Public and semipublic Airports Parks and recreation Roadwavs Open water Land within the urban service area that is restricted for development Environmental protection: e.g., wetlands. hydric soils, shoreland setbacks, bluffs/slopes. forests, floodplains, mitigation commitments, etc. Public/semipublic use: e.g., parks and trails, highway/street rights-of-way. airports. utility. easements. etc. Historic preservation: e.g., historic sites, cemeteries/burial grounds. etc. 0 Vacant developable land within the current urban service area (not restricted) . Single-family residential Multitamily residential Commercial Industrial Public and semipublic Total Land Acreage Outside the Current Urban Service Area (if applicable) Existing land uses outside the urban service area (in acres) Single-family residential Rural estates Multifamily residential Commercialfmdustrial Agriculture Green Acres Agricultural Preserves Unprotected agriculture land outSide the urban service area that is restricted for development by ordinance or other legal means .~.. Total Land Area of Community .~ . May 1997 Local Planning Handbook . . . Worksheet · Projecting Future Land Use" A. Future Development Within the Current Urban Service Area Forecasted Projected Household Density Acres Vacant Acres Households (acres~ousehold) Developable Infiill &: Land Redevelopment Single-family Multi-family 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Forecasted Projected Household Density Acres Vacant Acres Employment (acres~ousehold) Developable Infiill &: LaIid -. Redevelopment 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 8. Future Development in Urban Service Area Expansions (if-applicable) Forecasted Projected Household Density Acres Households (acre~ouseholds) Sin~le-familv Multi-familv 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Forecasted Projected Household Density Acres Employment (acre~ouseholds) 1990 1,.. 1995 ~... 2000 2005 Local Planning Handbook May 1997 Worksheet · Projecting Future Land Use 2010 2015 2020 , 2020 . C. Future Rural Development Forecasted Projected Household Density Acres Households (acreslhouseholds) Single-family Multi-family 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 - 2020 Forecasted Projected Household Density Acres Employment (acreslhouseholds) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 I . -it-. ...~ May 1997 Local Planning Handbook . . . Land Use Category Definitions Communities vary widely in the ways that they define and monitor land use within their borders. To arrive at an aggregate picture of land use across the seven-county region, a set of consistent definitions is neces- sary. The following definitions represent a minimum data base to represent existing developed land uses in the region. Communities that use different definitions should so indicate, as appropriate, on Worksheet A . If there are questions or problems with the definitions below, please call the Councilis GIS staff listed on page 8.4. Single-family Lots or parcels of five acres or less containing single-family detached housing, including manufactured homes. Multifamily Lots or parcels containing multiple dwelling units such as duplexes, bungalows, twin homes, town houses, quad homes and apanment complexes. Rural estate Lots or parcels of five acres or more, containing single-family, detached hdusing, not used for commerciaVagricultural purposes. -. Commercial Lots or parcels containing retail sales, services (including professional), hoteVmotels and all recreational services that are predominantly privately owned and operated for profit (for example, theaters, bowling alleys, and riding stables). Included are private institutional uses (convalescent homes and rest homes in which medical or surgical services are not a main function of the institution), but not hospitals. Golf courses are classified as iparks and recreation.i Industrial Lots or parcels containing the buildings and the !iSsociated and adjacent landscap- ing, recreation facilities and parking for uses that include the following: horticultural specialties (e.g., greenhouse), general contractors (building construction and all non building construction), manufacturing of all kinds, goods movement facilities, com- munications, utilities and wholesale trade. . Mining Extraction of nonmetallic minerals (except fuels), quarrying sand and graveL Public, semipublic Buildings and land adjacent to schools (p1;lblic and privat~), hospitals, churches, cemeteries, ice arenas and all facilities of local, state and federal governments, including public convalescent homes, mental institutions and penal facilities main- tained by any level of government. Include the entire boundaries of existing schools, parks and hospitals. Airports Airpon sites and any restricted land or buffer area where qevelopment is prohibited. Parks and recreation The entire boundaries of parks Oocal, regional and state), playgrounds (not includ ing sch~l yards), zoos, gun clubs, golf courses and similar areas. Local Planning Handbook May 1997 Agricultural . Restricted Development Roadways Open water . Mixed use . Lots or parcels of five acres or more used for agricultural purposes, including lands enrolled in Agricultural Preserves and Green Acres, as well as iunprotectedi agricul- tural uses. Includes sod and tree farms. -, Land on which development is prohibited through ordinances or other legal means for enVironmental protection, historic preservation, publidsemi-public use or other public purposes. Does not include restrictive covenants, deed restrictions, or other private development restrictions. Option 1 - Used by the Metropolitan Council For major highways, include land used for all controlled-access highways and all four-lane divided highways of 200 feet or wider and the right-of-way on both sides of the highway. Assign land used for other highways, streets, alleys and related easements to the adjacent property use. Option 2 - Map all rights-of-way for existing highways, streets and alleys and docu- ment the acreage. . Any public waters of the state as defined by Minn. Stat. 103G.005, Subd. 15 (the state's coumy-by-county inventory of lakes, rivers and other public waterways in the public domain). Areas with more than one land use ( either istackedt (e.g., multilevel with residen- tial above and commercial below) or iintegratedi (e.g., planned unit developments intentionally designed to integrate land uses). Indicate on the map and/or accompa nying key or legend the relative proponions of residential and nonresidential uses (using cat~gories and definitions above). ,,-. ~ May 1997 Local Planning Handbook . Appendix B: Highlights of Golden Valley's Zoning and Planning History For the first fifty years of Golden Valley's existence, development took place without benefit of either a comprehensive plan or a zoning code, though there were assorted "nuisance" regulations to curtail some land uses. On the other hand, there was very little development going on at all during that interval, so the lack of planning or zoning had little lasting impact. Between 1886 and 1930, the number of households in Golden Valley increased from 140 to 360 - only 220 . new homes in forty-four years - and business development trailed way behind that. From 1930 to 1940, though, the number of households increased by another 215, almost as much growth in ten years as in the previous four-and-a- half decades combined. Things were beginning to look up. . Early Zoning Code - Golden Valley took a preliminary stab at zoning in 1936. That code turned out to be unenforceable because of certain legal technicalities, like the fact that it only covered residential areas. The City's first comprehensive zoning regulations were adopted in 1938, based on a model previously used by the Village of Edina. The new code divided all land uses into three districts for regulatory purposes: industry, commerce, and "everything else". The latter category was formally designated as the Open Development district, a remnant of which remains in the code to this day. Back then, as long as a zoning code applied to all uses in the entire community, it apparently was considered to be based on a master plan. The Planning Commission asked for a clarification on that point in 1941. The gist of the response was that both the state attorney general's office and the MinDesota League of Cities considered the applicable statute to be unsatisfactory; nobody . really wanted to venture a legal opinion on whether a comprehensive zoning code was the equivalent of a master plan as intended by law. The code was put to its first legal challenge in 1945, when the City denied a property owner's application for an industrial building permit in the Open Development district. The outcome: zoning in Golden Valley was found valid by the court. . 1948 Master Plan - The City's 1948 "master zoning plan" was simply a city-wide map indicating about a dozen areas where future commercial or industrial rezoning would be considered appropriate. The Radio zoning district had been added to the code in 1948 as well, but the map reflected only the three existing Radio district properties. It took the Planning Commission a year to identify proposed commercial and industrial areas, including at least one City Council turn-back of the prop~sal for additional work. . . . It isn't clear whether the Council ever formally approved this master plan, or to what extent it may have governed the Planning Commission's land use recommendations after it was completed. Indications are that compliance with . the plan was spotty at best. For example, two men appeared at a Planning Commission meeting in 1955, with the stated intent of getting "the solution of the zoning problem started". They asked the Commission to "restudy the Village . Master Plan and adopt such a plan in the Zoning Ordinance so that it can be relied on by the present and future homeowners." 1950's: More Districts With Fewer Uses - The broad-ranging permitted uses of the Open Development district were whittled down considerably over the next decade. Golden Valley had entered its peak growth years. The small farms and other rural land uses that once dominated the Open Development district were dwindling. An increasing variety of nonresidential uses began to rub shoulders with expanding single family neighborhoods. The Railroad district was separated out in 1950, when the Minneapolis Northfield and Southern Railway Company requested approval for a maintenance facility; the City felt it needed more control over such facilities than any existing district would allow. Light industrial uses were defined in 1952. The Residential district was created in 1955 to offer greater protection for . residential neighborhoods. At that time it allowed a variety of agricultural, recreational, and institutional uses along with single family homes and duplexes, all of which also continued to be allowed in the Open Development district. As part of a broader zoning policy issued that year, the City vowed that it would not contemplate any proposals for rezoning properties in the new Residential district, but similar properties remaining in the Open Development district were subject to possible future rezoning for commercial or industrial uses. Offices and institutional uses each got their own zoning district in 1956, though institutional sub-districts did not appear until later. Institutional district uses were pulled from the Open Developmentand Residential districts when a development proposal by Lutheran Bible Institute generated discussion of the need for better control over all such uses. The Office district was born out of the Commercial district when the City wanted to approve a proposed clinic at a location declared inappropriate for commercial uses because of an adjacent residential neighborhood. Some years later, the City would decide that clinics were really institutional in nature and thus did not belong in the Office district, but that issue never came up in 1956. . Multiple dwellings were given their own district in 1958, again with the various sub-districts appearing at a later date. The debate over multiple dwellings had begun with neighborhood opposition to a proposal for an apartment cooperative back in 1951. The City's first inclination was to relegate such developments to B-2 . the Commercial zoning district, but that idea was later abandoned. In 1957, a proposal for an apartment development to be located a half-mile from the earlier contested site lit the fire again. The new district was then researched and approved in record time. 1959 Guide Plan - Golden Valley first produced something like today's comprehensive plan in 1959. That "guide plan" comprised several reports and exhibits, including a future land use map. The plan was prepared over a period of about eight months by a planning consultant working with the Planning Commission. It was voted on by both the Commission and City Council, but there were no public hearings or outside review agencies involved. , No complete copies of the plan remain in City files today. Partial records . indicate that it was only to be considered as one of many factors affecting land use decisions rather than as the main determinant. One of the Planning Commission's 1959 recommendations was that the plan map should be updated annually to reflect "necessary deviations" occurring through .actual development during the preceding year; no such updates are in evidence today, but there is evidence of the "necessary deviations" as zoning changes were approved over the years with little or no reference to the plan. In fact, it was so rarely consulted that within a decade the City appears to have forgotten the 1959 plan entirely. . 1973 Comprehensive Plan - Efforts initiated in 1970 were mistakenly hailed as yielding the first-ever plan for Golden Valley. It would be correct to say, though, that the "comprehensive plan" adopted in stages between 1973 and 1977 was the first to be prepared under standards established by the fledgling Metro Council. The 1973 plan was also the first one to be adopted in an environment where the Planning Commission had ongoing access to professional planners who could assist with plan implementation, first as contracted consultants and later as permanent staff. The plan included a discussion on implementation and on the importance of . evaluating all development proposals in terms of the plan's vision. Curiously, it completely omitted the zoning code from its list of implementation tools. Perhaps that omission had something to do with the City's failure to follow through on some necessary implementation activities. . There was only one direct reference to zoning regulations in the entire land use section; that was a comment about industrial performance standards to be included in the "proposed zoning code". Neither performance standards nor anything else that the proposed code might have been intended to contain ever materialized after plan adoption. Three commercial land use categories were established in the plan for future development, with no mention of the fact that the City had only on~~II-encompassing commercial zoning district. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) was introduced as a new planning concept, but not B-3 . . . . identified as a form of zoning; the PUD regulations had already been added to the zoning code in 1970, another instance of getting the code before the plan. 1982 Comprehensive Plan - The 1982 plan was the first in Golden Valley to be . drawn up entirely in-house. Like the current update, it was prepared under state mandate rather than by local choice. Like both the current update and the 1973 plan, Metro Council oversight was involved. The zoning code was specifically listed as a plan implementation tool for the first time. However, the City went through a section-by-section revision of the zoning code before the plan was even finished instead of ~asing the code changes on an adopted plan. There was little or no definition of land use categories within the plan. The fact that the term "zoning district" was consistently substituted in place of "uses" throughout the plan's text gives a pretty good idea of how the land use categories were derived. The PUD remained a featured concept, but still was not discussed as a zoning mechanism. As noted in the plan, Golden Valley was substantially developed by 1982; rather than taking a proactive approach to redevelopment that would keep pace with changing needs or desires, the plan was expressly based on the assumption that little or no change would take place for at least twenty or thirty years. The 1990's - As the matter of zoning/plan conformity has taken on increasing legal significance in recent years, the City has continued to address it by basing . each land use category on an approximately equivalent zoning district instead of the other way around. For example, most people agree that restaurants are clearly commercial uses; in Golden Valley, however, a restaurant could be considered an industrial "use" just because the City allows restaurants in the Industrial zoning district. This practice fails to meet the intent of state law, which requires communities to formulate a desired land use plan first, and then make changes in zoning and other regulations as necessary to carry out the plan. Golden Valley has been attentive to requiring that rezonings conform with the land use plan map. Unfortunately, it seems that most of the properties being proposed for rezoning are located in the vast majority of the City that falls under the 1982 plan assumption of "little or no change". Therefore, in order to allow redevelopment while still remaining in conformance with the plan, the City has ended up processing concurrent plan amendment and rezoning applications in almost all cases. While simply ensuring that the Council votes on the plan amendment before the rezoning does meet the strict letter of the law with regard to conformity, it puts a strain on statutory intent with regard to planning being future-oriented rather than immediate. On occasion, it has also caused confusion for members of the public and for elected and appointed officials as . they try to sort out the various issues involved in the two types of requests. .-, ..:...:. 8-4 . Appendix C: Model Policy Framework For Establishing Conformity Between. The Zoning Map and The Land Use Plan Map (Note: this text, or other language as considered appropriate, should be included in the land use plan document. A policy statement within the plan should specify that all rezoning requests will be considered in light of the established framework.) . As part of Golden Valley's comprehensive plan, the land use plan rriap provides a vision of desired future land use distributions throughout the City. There are . areas where, over the long term, a change from existing use categories is desirable. It is important to remember, though, that the land use plan map is future-oriented; the existing uses of areas planned for change are not necessarily inappropriate as of today. Now that Golden Valley is fully developed, it faces a greater challenge in balancing the needs of the present against the desires for the future. The City is committed to a program of change that occurs incrementally and on a rational basis, so as not to unduly disrupt community stability. Timing is the key to such a program. Zoning is one of the official controls that cities are empowered to use as a means of implementing the comprehensive plan. Where the zoning map and the plan map reflect differing land use categories for a particular property, the zoning classification must be changed before the planned use can be installed; the rezoning process thus serves to regulate the timing of plan implementation. Differences between the zoning map and the land use plan map at any given time do not automatically indicate conflicts between zoning and plan. Golden Valley specifically endorses current zoning as being entirely appropriate until a particular property is found to be ready for plan implementation through . redevelopment. . A property's readiness for redevelopment in accordance with the land use plan map shall be evaluated on the basis of the following terms: 1. All owners of the property must jointly petition for rezoning to a classification that matches the land use category identified on the plan map; 2. The property must meet minimum development standards for the desired change in use, which standards may include zoning specifications, subdivision specifications, and/or duly adopted goals, policies, ana objectives of the comprehensive plan; . . . 3. Any existing property improvements that would be nonconforming under the zoning necessary for the desired use must have been removed, or financial and legal guarantees must be in place to ensure removal by the time any rezoning request receives final approval; 4. Any existing use that would be nonconforming under the zoning necessary for the planned use must be permanently discontinued; and 5. Where a proposed rezoning involves only a portion of an area that is planned for change, the proposal must not involve property so situated as to create a disconnected "island" of change within the larger area, or completely bisect the larger area and create divided "pockets" of the older use, unless it can be demonstrated that any individual sub-area thus created can reasonably be redeveloped on its own and that the resulting discontinuities of use within the larger area will not accelerate the decline of otherwise viable existing uses not immediately included in the proposed rezoning. Until a property can be considered ready for redevelopment according to the above terms, its existing use shall be found t.o conform with the comprehensive plan as long as it meets zoning regulations and any other applicable requirements of City code. The same rule also applies to any change in use or alteration of site improvements: the new use or altered improvements shall not be considered in conflict with the comprehensive plan as long as the property . continues to meet code requirements and is not yet ready for redevelopment. Golden Valley understands recent changes to state legislation, which specify that comprehensive plans "supersede" zoning regulations. Golden Valley also understands existing provisions of state law, which establish that comprehensive plans direct lithe future development of the community". Zoning codes, on the other hand, apply to present use. The framework outlined here is intended to serve as the bridge between present and future. "'. .... C-2 . . . Appendix D: Redevelopment Philosophy of the Golden Valley . Housing and Redevelopment Authority -- Adopted by Resolution of the HRA on August, 1987- Part 1: Resolution #87-2. Adopting a Redevelopment Philosophy WHEREAS the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Golden Valley has been instrumental in initiating and supporting redevel'opment in the City; and WHEREAS the Commissioners wish to adopt a Redevelopment Philosophy which will guide consideration of future redevelopment proposals in the City; . NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the attached "Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority Philosophy is hereby adopted as a guide for consideration of future redevelopment proposals. Part 2: Redevelopment Philosophy Attachment The Comprehensive Plan is the City's guide for orderly development. It illustrates how the City should look, feel and operate in order to best serve its citizens now and in the future. If the Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is to be involved with the redevelopment of property, it is important that all such redevelopment plans be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If a redevelopment plan is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the goals and policies of the Plan are undermined, and it would be inappropriate for the HRA to provide financial assistance. In cases where a proposed redevelopment project is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council has the option of considering an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. During periodic reviews of the Comprehensive Plan, areas for redevelopment shall . be identified based on issues such as deterioration, conflicting land uses., inadequate infrastructure and changing community needs. Redevelopment may occur to create development in any land use category, including office, industrial, retail, commercial, warehouse, housing and mixed uses. At a time when redevelopment is most appropriate and in the public interest, the HRA shall take a pro-active role in obtaining the best developer for a redevelop- ment area. The HRA shall determine criteria for developer selection that may include experience, financial capabilities, creativity, timeliness, ability to work in ." cooperation with the City, and preliminary ideas for a redevelopment area. . . When a developer has been selected that the HRA believes has the ability to complete the redevelopment of an area, the HRA shall review the developer's proposed plans and prepare preliminary cost projections to determine if public financing is feasible. The plans shall be reviewed within the context of the following two criteria: Enhancement of the Community: Is the City better off after the proposed project is completed? · Does the proposal meet an unmet need for housing or other types of uses that are identified in the Comprehensive Plan? · Does the proposal eliminate blighted property? · Are there additional jobs created and at what level of pay? · Does the proposal consolidate underutilized property or alleviate/eliminate overutilization/overcrowding of property? · Is there a minimal disruption of existing businesses and housing? · Are there public improvements proposed that are a benefit to the entire community? Cost/Benefit to the Community: Is the amount of public assistance (both "hardn and "softn costs) justified for the proposed project? · Does the HRA staff have the time to work on the project without the need for added staff? · Are there adequate infrastructure and services available to serve the proposed development? · How will the proposed redevelopment affect the tax base of the City? · For every public dollar put into the redevelopment, are there adequate private dollars invested? (Leveraging) If it is determined that a proposed redevelopment project enhances the community and provides the community with benefits that adequately outweigh public costs, the redevelopment project should continue with examination of financial feasibility in greater detail and negotiation of a development agreement. HRA acquisition of property for a redevelopment project shall be found to be in the public interest once a proposed project meets all of the above tests of consistency with the City Comprehensive Plan, credible developer, enhancement of the community, justification of any public subsidy, financial feasibility, and negotiatio~ of a satisfactory agreement with the developer. If it is impossible to negotiate the . purchase of a prope~ the HRA would then use its powers of condemnation. 0-2 . . . Appendix E: Concept Proposal For An 1-394 Mixed Use Alternative Zoning District (Note: this concept is still in a "rough draft" state. There are as-yet unexplored issues that could eventually make the concept unworkable. One area of particular concern at this time is the fact that the concept would be implemented as a zoning overlay district; given the already existing 1-394 traffic management provisions, that would make two different overlays simultaneously affecting properties within the 1-394 corridor. The dual overlays are likely to cause some confusion, and there could also be problems with conflicting goals and outcomes.) o Purpose of District The 1-394 Mixed Use Alternative District (MUA District) is hereby established as an overlay zoning district in recognition of the changing character of the 1-394 corridor throughout the western Twin Cities suburbs due to highway improvements. A mature, fully developed community, Golden Valley's existing development along the corridor is generally not appropriate for the customer- oriented types of uses increasingly seeking to locate there. Even as currently zoned for primarily industrial uses, many properties in the corridor fail to conform to zoning and building code regulations; the City finds that the public interest is not well served by making expanded use options available to such properties. However, in order to promote the preservation and upgrading of those few sites on which existing development may be able to meet minimum acceptable requirements, and to encourage the redevelopment of obsolete properties, Golden Valley wishes to accommodate customer-oriented businesses. The MUA District identifies alternative minimum requirements and permitted uses for qualifying properties. Relationship to 1-394 Overlay District The MUA District provisions shall in no way be taken to supersede provisions of the 1-394 Overlay District adopted by the City in 1989 for traffic management purposes. Wherever the provisions of the earlier overlay would apply under standard zoning, they shall also apply under the mixed use zoning alternative. If there should appear to be any conflict between the two sets of provisions with '0. '""'" . . . regard to a particular property or proposal, the regulations established for traffic management shall overrule those established for mixed uses. Relationship to Standard Zoning District Provisions Owners of qualifying properties may at any time elect to follow the MUA District regulations rather than those of the applicable standard zoning district. However, once there has been any change in physical site improvements or in . use based on the alternative zoning provisions,' the affected property may not revert back to standard zoning. Properties that fail to meet the qualifying requirements, or that do so only because one or more variances have been granted to waive otherwise disqualifying situations, shall not be eligible for alternative zoning. Application Required In order to take advantage of the alternative zoning provisions, application must be made by the owner of the property on forms available from and submitted to the Department of Planning and Development. At minimum, the application shall. include such information as necessary to identify the property and to demonstrate its compliance with the qualifying requirements. City approval or denial shall be by administrative staff review, with appeal to the City Council if denied. C~pies of each application and staff determination shall be kept on file in the appropriate property address files of the Building Department. Qualifying Requirements In order to qualify for MUA District zoning, a property must fully meet all of the following conditions: 1. It must lie entirely within a distance of xxx feet of the [center line/edge of outside travel lane/other?] of 1-394. 2. It must lie within an Industrial, Light Industrial, or Commercial zoning district. 3. It must be at least xx, xxx square feet in area. 4. It must comply with established setback requirements as follows: . Along any public street except for the main line of 1-394 and except for locations where the zoning on the other side of the street is Residential, R-2 Residential, Multiple Dwelling, or any Insti~utional sub-district, the structure setback shall be twenty- E-2 . five feet and the parking setback shall be forty-five feet from the property line. · Along a public street where the zoning across the street is as identified in the above bulleted item, the structure setback shall be xx feet and the parking setback shall be xx feet. . Along non-street property lines or directly adjacent to the main line of 1-394, the structure setback shall be twenty feet and the parking setback shall be ten feet. 5. Structures must not exceed three stories or forty-five feet in height, exclusive of necessary rooftop mechanicals [or communications towers?]. 6. Parking and loading availability must meet requirements for the same use as provided under standard zoning. 7. There must be only one principal structure per lot or parcel of land. 8. [Et cetera, et cetera?]. Permitted Uses . (Note: this section is entirely open for discussion. The only recommended ground rule would be to avoid - or at least sharply restrict - the number of conditional uses. If the alternative zoning concept is going to work, the City needs to make it as painless as possible. Otherwise, property owners may continue to defer redevelopment and take their chances on increasing nonconformities under the standard zoning regulations.) Modifying Conditions (Note: this section is included for discussion purposes. There are benefits to be gained by providing incentives for redevelopment that incorporates contemporary design and/or planning principles. Today, the only way to accommodate such give and take in Golden Valley is through the PUD process, which requires a great deal of time and effort to complete and has not always yielded results that . met the City's expectations. A section like this could provide for some design flexibility by right, if there is a desire for such a thing.) . Certain of the qualifying requirements as established above may be modified under the following conditions: 1. Side or rear parking setbacks may be reduced or eliminated, provided that "~ E-3 . · the adjacent property abutting any reduced setback area has done the same and both or all affected properties have submitted a joint parking and access plan/agreement to be approved by the City Engineer; · equivalent landscaping elements are included elsewhere on the properties; and · there is a reduction in the number [and/or width?] of curb cuts per lot or parcel. 2. Architectural features may exceed the height restriction for structures, provided that · they contain no interior space intended to augment the principle use of the property; · they do not exceed a height of xxx feet as measured from the base elevation of the principle building; · they do not extend horizontally more than xx linear feet, xx square feet, and/or xxx square feet [percentage of building footprint area ?]; · they are not used to display any type of signage, or any logo or symbol identifying the principle use; and · they obtain design approval by the Building Board of Review. 3. There may be more than one principle building per lot or parcel, provided that · all buildings on the property shall be in the same architectural style; · the City Engineer shall review and approve site circulation plans; and . there shall be a unified design for the site as a whole, which shall obtain design approval by the Building Board of Review. 4. [Reduced parking stall provisions?] 5. [Et cetera, et cetera?] . . .-. .." E-4 - 1990 Land Use for City of Golden Valley -l !" J -0 .~~, \ - Golden Valley Metropoltm CouncIl 0c:tcJt8 30. 1995 Scale lIho_ 1/4 mIe 1ncr8ll1lll1lll 19,90 Land Use The 1990 land use data was developed by the Metropolitan Council using aerial photos taken at an elevation of 19,200 feet. Land use change between 1984 and 1990 was deUneated on 36' x 36' . I mylar overlays on top of existing 1984 land use d818. This information was then digitized Into . the Councils computer system using PC ArcInfo. Each of the 251 individual photos tiles were edgernatched. Additional registration corrections were performed using the Minnesota Department of Transportation Road Center Une data as a reference. The resulting land use data Is presumed to meet national map accuracy standards at a scale of 1 :24,000. FTl LJ . D D . ~ N RESIDENTIAL 1 Single family homes and assoc:iated yard area MULTIFAMILY 2 Multi-family housing Including duplex, triplex, townhomes and apartment buDdlngs, associated parking and adJacent grounds COMMERCIAL 3 Commercial retaD and office uses and their associated parking and adjacent grounds INDUSTRIAL 4 Industrial buildings, storage areas and mining extractive uses PUBLIC/SEMIPUBLIC Public Institutions, schools and government facilities (except outdoor recreation areas) AIRPORT 8 Public and private airports and associated buildings and facilities PARKS 7 Nature preseNes, parks, golf courses and outdoor recreation lands NON URBAN 8 Open land or agricultural lands with out buildings ROADS 9 Four or more lane divided highways with more than right-of-way WATER 10 Open water areas 200 foot FARMSTEAD 11 Single family homestead and bundlngs associated with agricultural production VACANT INDUSTRIAL 41 Vacant land f8S8Ned for Industrial development VACANT PUBLIC/SEMIPUBLIC 51 Vacant land held by public or semi public organizations OUTSIDE CITY Areas outside the boundaries of a city but completely surrounded by the city being mapped ". WETLANDS NatIonal Wetland Inventory Wetlands MUM LINE MetropolltM Urban ServIce Area boundary as of Dee. 1992 . . . Golden Valley Land Use (In Acres) 197C' 1975 1980 1984 1990 Change MUSA Tota 1970-7~ 1975-8C 1980-84 1984-9C RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 2,958 3,013 3,099 3,145 3,135 3,135 55 86 46 (10 Single Family 2,916 2,935 2,916 2,916 19 (19 Multifamily 183 210 219 219 27 9 '.Isolated Fann 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMMERCIAL TOTAL 161 229 257 278 299 299 68 28 21 21 INDUSTRIAL TOTAL 531 564 629 647 675 675 33 65 18 28 Industrial 675 675 Airports 0 0 PUBLIC & RECREATIONAL-TOTAL 1,505 1,529 1,531 1,531 1,543 1,543 24 2 0 12 Public 357 357 358 358 0 1 Recreational 1,174 1,174 1,185 1,185 0 11 HlGHWA YS TOTAL 302 302 302 302 340 340 0 0 0 38 LAKES & STREAMS TOTAL 163 163 163 163 165 165 0 0 0 2 NONURBANIZED TOTAL 1,101 921 740 655 597 597 (180 (181 (85 (58 Wetlands 156 156 Nonurbanized Net 441 441 Vacant & Agricultural (no wetlands) 371 371 Industrial Vacant (no wetlands) 70 70 Public Vacant (no wetlands) 0 0 TOTAL 6721 6721 6721 6721 6754 6.754 0 0 0 33 8/16/95 .. MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: . -. September 17, 1997 Planning Commission Members Beth Knoblauch, City Planner Work Session on Land Use Plan Update Please find attached for your reading pleasure a mostly-complete draft of staffs background research for the land use plan, in thirty-four not-short-enough pages, plus appendices. Staff promised to keep it down to half the bulk of the earlier housing plan background, and it looks like that promise will be kept. The handful of items still missing at this point are: · Title page, table of contents, and introduction, which will be pretty much the same as for the housing plan background - outlining the material covered and the purpose of this document in relation to the actual plan document that we will now begin to hammer out; · Specific land use category acreages and comments in Section \I (Metro Council requirements), for which we must wait until our grant comes through so the consultant can undertake the mapping - staff have included a separate attachment with the Metro Council's map and tabulations, so that the Commissioners can see why it was considered inadequate for the City's purposes; · A summary of suggested actions for Section IV (Miscellaneous Issues) - the suggestions are all included within the text for that section, staff simply haven't pulled them out into a list yet; and · Any additional material the Planning Commission might feel is necessary for preparing the land use plan. Staff have taken a somewhat different approach to this Technical Background report than the one for the housing plan, because the City's needs are a little different this time around." With the housing plan, the current (1982) version meets the requirements of state law fairly well, and the main concern was to identify potential strategies for fulfilling Golden Valley's Livable Communities commitment and the state's mandate to provide housing for the poorest segment of the metro area's population; therefore, the Technical Background for the housing plan concentrated on a wide range of "issues and opportunities", resulting in a le\igthy table of mostly discretionary strategies that the City might consider adopting. . The current land use plan, on the other hand, is substantially inadequate in terms of meeting statutory requirements, and the present state statutes themselves have raised a great deal of local government concern and debate about how a land use plan is supposed to be used in Minnesota; therefore, staff have concentrated on outlining basic needs that the updated plan will have to meet and on ways to clarify the purpose and use of the plan as well as its relationship to the zoning code. The resulting lists of suggestions - which have not been pulled together into a combined table this time around - are much shorter and contain fewer discretionary items. Most of the suggestions deal with goal, policy, or objective statements to be included in the updated plan. Staff have intentionally stayed away from recommending specific amendments to the land use plan map, though Section IV does go into some issue areas that may lead to consideration of map amendments, as does the earlier Technical Background report for the housing plan. Staff believe that, for the most part, applying colors to a land use plan map is best done by the Commission itself, which state law specifies as the "planning agencyb responsible for charting the City's future. Staff do not expect this first land use plan work session to run very long, since there will be an informal public hearing on Monday night's agenda, and since this is the first chance the Commission will have to contemplate the scope of work necessary to complete the plan update. Basically, staff hope the Commission will accomplish just three things at this particular session: · Discussion and approval of staffs proposed definitions of land use categories (see Section II in the TB report), so staff will be ready to turn the consultant loose on the mapping as soon as the grant money is available - it would be helpful if the Commission could be prepared to do a complete review of Section II at the same time, as long as we're in the neighborhood, so to speak, but staff will not push it; · Discussion of, and instructions for correcting, any particular deficiencies in content of the Technical Background - in other words, what else should staff investigate to better assist the Commission in completing the plan update; and · Discussion and tentative scheduling of frequency, length, and material to be covered at future work sessions - staff realize that the scheduling to some extent will depend on: a) obtaining necessary information from the park plan update, for which the Open Space and Recreation Commission is responsible, b) obtaining the mapping information from the consultant, c) obtaining any additional analysis the Commission may request from staff, and d) how crowded the Commission's regular slate of business might be in upcoming months. . . Attachments: · Draft Technical Background to the Golden Valley Land Use Plan Update · Metro Council Map and Tabulation of Existing (1990) Land Use Areas 2 .. M' E M 0 RAN DUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: . . October 8, 1997 Planning Commission Beth Knoblauch, City Planner Cancellation of October 13 Meeting imd. Land Use Plan Update Progress Report Okay, first the good n~ws: there will be no Planning Commisslon meeting on October 13. Now please keep reading; staff want to talk about plari update business for just a few minutes. ' Per the instructions of the Commission, staff are assembling a :draft plan document that incorporates some of the recommendations from the draft Technical Background. While writing the background report, staff came to view the land use plan as basically a balancing of potentially conflicting interests - business districts and residential neighborhoods, state mandates and local preferences, development and environment, et cetera. Having now been charged with the task of formulating some goal statements for discussion and review, staff are working with the "balancing" concept as a source of i~spiratiof'l' If anyone has a better idea, staff would love to hear it. ; Coincidentally, one of the sessions at the recent state planning conference fits right in with the balancing-of-interests concept. The subject was the Minnesota ' Sustainable Development Initiative (SOl), which was launched in 1993. Staff had been following it pretty closely through the early stages, but lost track after proposed legislation failed to pass in 1995. It now turns out that the legislation was successfully revived and pass~ in 1996, and several state agencies are busily working on SOl projects that could eventually impact localgovemments. Two Commissioners and one staff member attended the SOl session, so there should be plenty of "instant experts" available to discuss why and how it might be worked into the plan update. Staff did not manage to get all of the session handouts, but at least one Commissioner did; if others are interested in learning about SOl in detail, staff would be happy to run additional copies ()f the most informative materials. Meanwhile, a summary write-up on SOl has been prepared for inclusion in Section IV ("Miscellaneous Land Use Issues") of the Technical Background so everybody will at least have a grasp of the ~asics. The SOl summary is attached to this memo, along with a cover page and other introductory material that was not ready in time to go out with the bulk of the . , Technical Background report. Please add them to your collection. At some point, staff will be asking you for any final additions, deletions, or revisions to the Technical Background. Remember that it is the plan update's foundation; both Planning Commission and City Council will be expected to endorse it as such. At this time, it is not clear how long it may take staff to get a discussion-draft of the plan ready. There also is no word yet on when the grant money will be released for GIS. Staff will keep you posted through periodic memos like this one or under "other business" at Commission meetings. If a one-item agenda comes up in the near future, you should expect another work session on the Technical Background, though staff promise to keep it short and to provide specific instructions on what section(s) will be under review for what purpose. If any of you have comments, suggestions, or materials from other communities that you want to pass along between meetings, please feel free to call, stop in, or send mail or e-mail (BKNOBLAUCH@CI.GOLDEN-VALLEY.MN.US); be aware, though, that City Hall's e-mail program works fine with other PC-based systems but has a poor interface with anybody using a Mac -- plain messages come through, but attachments usually result in disasters. . Attachments: · Cover Page and Pages I-IV of Technical Background Report · Pages 33-35 of Technical Background Report (discard pages 33 and 34 of the copy you received earlier; staff shuffled a couple of paragraphs in the Community Facilities discussion when adding the new Sustainable Development material) . 2 . TECHNICAL BACKGROUND FOR THE GOLDEN VALLEY LAND USE PLAN October 1997 . . . CONTENTS INTRODUCTION III HISTORY OF APPROVALS IV I. OVERVIEW OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND REVIEW OF CURRENT LAND USE PLAN 1 Legal requirements 1 Definitions 2 Goals, Objectives, and Policies 2 Programs and Standards 3 Maps 3 Plan Elements 4 Summary 5 II. METRO COUNCIL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS 6 Current Land Use Inventory 6 Population, Household, and Employment Forecasts 12 Projected Land Use Need 13 . Quasi-Required Local Resource Elements 14 Plan Monitoring and Amendment 16 Summary 16 III. ZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONFORMITY 17 Plan and Code Compared 18 Why Worry About Conforming Today's Zoning to a Current Plan? 18 Conformity: Zoning Districts With Plan Categories 19 Conformity: Considering Time as a Factor 21 Conformity: Concurrent Plan Amendment and Rezoning 22 Summary 26 IV. MISCELLANEOUS LAND USE ISSUES 28 Redevelopment 28 1-394 Corridor 30 Highway 100 Reconstruction 32 Community Facilities 33 Sustainable Development 34 Summary 36 . . LIST OF APPENDICES A: Land Use Worksheets and Definitions - Prepared by Metropolitan Council A-1 B: Highlights .of Golden Valley's Zoning and Planning History B-1 C: Model Policy Framework for Establishing Conformity Between the Zoning Map and the Land Use Plan Map C-1 D: Redevelopment Philosophy of the Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority D-1 E: Concept Proposal for an 1-394 Mixed Use Alternative Zoning District E-1 . LIST OF EXHIBITS 1 : Current Land Use Acreage in Golden Valley 7 2: Definitions of Key Land Use Terms 9 3: Forecasts 12 4: Year 2020 Projected Land Use Needs 13 . " ~ . INTRODUCTION This Technical Background report serves as the basis for updating Golden Valley's 1982 general land use plan. The plan itself will be a separate document, with a tight focus on the legally required land use plan contents along with a very brief synopsis of key information. This document, in contrast, presents a broader review and analysis of existing conditions, legal requirements, land use planning issues, and opportunities for future efforts. The two-document system is expected to provide several benefits over a combined-document format. With only the most important information being covered, readers will have an easier time understanding the vision embodied by the plan. There will be room to add photographs or other graphics to make the plan more reader-friendly without expanding it to a daunting bulk. Since many readers are not all that interested in long-winded background discussions, most will find the shorter plan document sufficient for their purposes, allowing the City to minimize copying costs and wasted paper. Those readers who do want the additional information and analysis will be directed to the Technical Background document. Many cities are using this pared down approach for their plans. . The Technical Background will still be a public document. It is important to be able to explain the basis for the City's land use goals, objectives, and policies on demand. Also, the Metropolitan Council, having been given limited powers of oversight in local planning matters, requires evidence that cities have studied certain characteristics or issues while developing their plans; this report will provide such evidence. Official endorsement of this document and any future updates, in the form of a City Council resolution, is therefore recommended. Such action could easily be combined with the recently-mandated periodic review of all comprehensive plan sections, which is required to result either in plan amendments as necessary or in some form of certification that no amendment is necessary . III . HISTORY OF APPROVALS Background research for this report was initiated by staff and Planning Commission in May, 1997. Issues and options identified in the report were reviewed and discussed by the Planning Commission, beginning on September 8, 1997. Recommended for endorsement by City Council on xxx. First public hearing by Council on xxx. Council resolution, clearing report for forwarding to Metro Council and other outside review agencies, adopted on xxx. . . IV . uses all along the Highway 100 corridor after all highway-related improvements are in place, with an eye to determining the need or desirability of area-wide land use plan amendments to accommodate altered land use demand. The City may also want to think about establishing a policy of deferring consideration of any proposed land use plan amendments for individual properties within a certain distance of Highway 100 until after construction is complete and the broader corridor study is undertaken; expansion or reconstruction of properties that are already in conformity with the plan would not be affected by such a policy. Community Facilities Golden Valley's existing (1982) comprehensive plan includes a separate element titled "Community Facilities". There is no need to maintain this particular element in the updated plan; to the extent that its contents or its intent might still be valid today, it could be comfortably accommodated within the general land use plan or the state-mandated public facilities (utilities and infrastructure) plan. . A scant eight pages tucked away at the back of the 1982 plan, the Community Facilities element is rarely remembered, much less consulted. At times, its text confuses the idea of "facilities" with that of "services", and it does not give equal attention to all of the public and private facilities that its introduction identifies. It also suffers somewhat from faulty or poorly documented reasoning and improper use of standard planning terminology. Much of its descriptive information is very outdated, particularly with regard to City-owned facilities. All of those problems aside, it raises at least one very important point: as Golden Valley ages, its public and private institutional land uses are also aging. Since this is true of all categories of land use in the City, why should community facilities come in for any special consideration? Perhaps the most important reason is that the zoning categories regulating institutional uses are much more narrowly drawn than most of Golden Valley's other zoning districts. Assuming it is correctly zoned in the beginning, a drug store or factory that becomes obsolete has many re-use options within its current district, while a church or school must almost always be rezoned before it can be put to any other reasonable use. Unless the comprehensive plan establishes some guide to the preferred alternative use of institutional properties that may become obsolete, the City will end up entertaining any and all individual requests for comprehensive plan amendments each time an old church building comes on the market. . The Community Facilities element says that the City will take a lead role in researching alternatives for obsolete institutional facilities, but only after they have been "closed and abandoned". Most public and private institutions, on the other hand, are reluctant to just walk away from a site until after making every reasonable effort to find another user, for economic reasons if not through any 33 . sense of civic-mindedness. Therefore, if Golden Valley wants to playa pro- active role in determining how institutional sites can be re-used or redeveloped in the best interests of the community as a whole, the City's involvement cannot be left to wait until after a facility is vacated. It might be beneficial to spend some time reviewing Golden Valley's institutional land uses and considering their long term viability and/or options for alternative use. In some cases, such as most or all City-owned facilities, long-term viability can be safely assumed. Facilities surrounded by single family neighborhoods, as many of the City's churches are, would probably be best suited for some level of residential use if they become obsolete as institutional sites. Facilities in mixed-use areas or on main roads may be more difficult to evaluate. Sustainable Development In 1993, the Governor's office and the state's Environmental Quality Board embarked on a venture known as the Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative. In a nutshell, the aim of SOl is to establish a set of strategies for promoting economic development across the state while protecting the environment at the same time. A 1995 report, Challenges for a Sustainable Minnesota, notes: . "Because all economic and social activity depends on healthy and renewable natural resources, the goals of environmental quality and economic development must be considered together. To be sustainable, development must become inherently compatible with the environment it depends upon. Public policies and market incentives must reward such development. " The sustainable development concept is not new, nor is it limited to Minnesota or even the United States. For decades, scientists and activists around the globe have tried to convey the message that society must learn to live within the limits of what Earth's natural systems can reasonably support. Going back long before that, civilizations since the dawn of time have had to learn that long-term survival and advancement depends on intelligent use of natural resources. The exact meaning of "sustainable development", however, has varied considerably among its many supporters. Some extreme views, for example, advocate strategies such as an immediate ban on privately-owned automobiles, complete conversion to solar or other easily replenished energy sources, and siting of subsistence- level neighborhood farms throughout every urban area. . For Minnesota's purposes, a more moderate stand has been adopted. From the beginning, SOl has involved a partnership of business, civic, and environmental leaders collaborating on sustainable solutions to current problems in agriculture, 34 . energy, forestry, manufacturing, minerals, recreation, and settlement. Where conventional wisdom says that society must choose between jobs and ecology, human and natural systems, social wealth and environmental health, SOl seeks a balance of interests. To qualify as "sustainable" according to 1996 state legislation, de.velopment must maintain or enhance economic opportunity and community well-being while protecting and restoring the natural environment; it must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. At present, state economic development and environmental agencies are reviewing their programs and policies with this definition in mind. The State Planning Agency is taking a broader look at ways to better coordinate the work of individual agencies, so their efforts complement rather than conflict with each other. Coordinated state-level programs and policies will help communities promote more sustainable development on the local front. State Planning Agency staff are assembling a guidebook of sustainable development resources and strategies appropriate for local government use as well. . This year the state legislature passed the Community-Based Planning Act, which builds on SOl. The act makes planning grants and technical assistance available to communities interested in pursuing cooperative, participatory, diversified and sustainable development. The Metro Council has been instructed to amend its metropolitan development guide to incorporate community-based planning goals as outlined in state law, and local comprehensive plan amendments beginning in July 1999 will have to be reviewed for their compliance with such goals. Golden Valley's development boom days may be in the past, but ongoing public and private renovation and redevelopment efforts still provide opportunities to address environmental sustainability issues. For example, landscaping standards are one construction plan component that the City handles on a fairly regular basis; recent years have brought many advances in the scientific understanding of urban ecology, and Golden Valley now has a full-time forester to provide information on current best practices, yet the policy establishing minimum landscaping requirements for new development has not been revised since its adoption fifteen years ago. . Given the growing emphasis on sustainable development at the state level, Golden Valley might want to include some sustainable development considerations in the current land use plan update. The City could draft one or more goal statements based on the balancing-of-interests approach of SOl. The SOl local guidebook is not yet available, but the City could easily establish an objective of studying its suggested strategies for local application when it does come out. A policy of monitoring ongoing SOl research and accomplishments at the state level would also be appropriate. 35