Loading...
11-24-97 PC Agenda . . >. I. AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 GoldenValley Road Council Chambers Monday,November24,1997 7pm Approval of Minutes - October 27, 1997 II. Infol'Q'lalPubliCHearing - Amendment to the Zoning Code _ Traffic Management AdministratWe Fees > Applicant: City of Golden Valley , Purpose: To amend Section 11.56, Subd. 90f City Code regarding administrative fees that would allow. the city to periodically assess the parcels subject to the traffic management fee for the cost involved in implementing capital. improvements designed tp reduCe traffic congestion, facilitate transit use and implement traffic management plans in the 1-394 corridor. - SHORT RECESS - m. Reports onMeetingsofthe Housing and RedevelopmentAuthority, City Council and Boarc[of Zoning Appeals IV. Other Business A. > Continuec! Workshop Session on Technical Background for the Land Use Plan . B. Reschedule December 22, 1997 meeting to December 15, 1997 V. Adjournment Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The Commission 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 will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use 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 continues 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 will 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 questions/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 October 27, 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, October 27,1997. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Kapsner, Martens, and Prazak; absent were: Johnson and McAleese. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Recording Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes - September 22. 1997 MOVED by Groger, seconded by Prazak and motion carried unanimously to approve the September 22, 1997 minutes with the correction of several typographical errors and the following language change found on: Page 8, First Line. Change "She commented that the commission was aware of the solid wall" to "She commented that the commission was aware that the building would present a solid wall around the recreational space." II. Informal Public HearinQ -- Minor Subdivision (Lot Consolidation\ Applicant: LOGIS (Local Government Information Systems) Address: Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey (RLS) No. 331 (Tract A address is 5800 Duluth Street) Purpose: To consolidate Tracts A and B which would allow LOGIS to construct a two-story, 14,000 sq.ft. office building to be used as its headquarters. Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes told the commission that LOGIS (providing computer and information services to a consortium of local governments) is lOOking to construct a 2-story, 14,000 sq.ft. building in a more centralized area in the Twin Cities. Grimes said the site which LOGIS has an option to buy is on Duluth Street, directly across from the Bassett Creek Office Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 27, 1997 Page Two . Plaza and Byerly's. He reviewed the survey which showed the two lots, to be consolidated, and briefly talked about the properties abutting the site. Grimes told the commission that the proposed lots are currently zoned Business and Professional Office and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map shows the proposed lots guided for Business and Professional Office. Grimes said that these lots would be a logical place for an office building(s). He continued to say that both of the proposed lots are very small and buildings placed on each lot would end up being quite small. He said that one building would create one driveway on Duluth Street which is an advantage over the existing two lots each having driveways. Grimes referred the commission to his memo of October 21 concerning "Conditions for Approval of Consolidation" and the recommendations. Commissioner Martens asked staff if it would be appropriate to make recommendations concerning the required variances. He commented on condition one which states that the proposed subdivision must meet all the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. City Planner Beth Knoblauch said this condition is placed on subdivisions to ensure that new lots are capable of meeting zoning code requirements when a building is constructed. Grimes . told the commission that the BZA addresses variances, which are not an issue with this body. Chair Pentel asked if the Planning Commission could place conditions on the recommendation that the commission makes. Knoblauch said that because there is a Planning Commission representative on the Board of Zoning Appeals, this body could pass concerns onto that representative. Martens said that he would like to pursue this avenue. Chair Pentel said that she visited the site and asked staff whether the grove of prairie oaks could be saved, which are located in the area of the proposed ponding. Grimes said City Forester, AI Lundstrom, confirmed that there was a very nice grove of prairie oaks on the western lot. Grimes told the commission that he would have discussions with City Engineer Fred Salsbury to see if the pond could be made smaller in order to save the stand of trees. Grimes noted that an issue arises on whether it is environmentally correct to protect the water quality of the creek or save the prairie oaks. Chair Pentel pointed out the cohesiveness of the trees which flow along the creek all the way down to St. Croix Avenue. Grimes told the commission that this was an issue that staff could review. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 27,1997 Page Three Commissioner Kapsner asked if MnDOT, whose site is located to the northeast of the proposed site, has ponding. Grimes said no, that ponding is a recent requirement of the State. Kapsner asked staff if ponding could be tied to both sites and Grimes commented that an even bigger pond would be required. Pentel asked what elevation the parking lot would be constructed at and what elevation is the base of the bUilding. Grimes wasn't sure if the applicant had figured that out. Grimes said that the parking area would be approximately five feet above the road and there is a concern to maintain a safe driveway due to elevation differences. Grimes commented on an additional condition concerning an easement for an existing trail along the west side of the property. He said that these 50 feet are in the shoreland area so it would not affect the proposed buyer of the property. Grimes also said that the City never had an easement for this trail and a dedication should be done at this time. . Commissioner Martens said that the plans depict no dimensions and questioned whether 50 feet is sufficient fot the way it is located. Grimes reviewed, on the survey, where the 50 foot line would be. Grimes said that he meant to say the easement would start 50 feet from the top of the bank of the creek and not from the property line which lies in the middle of Bassett Creek. He also reviewed the survey where the easement was located and said that Park and Rec Director Rick Jacobson felt that the area shown was sufficient for the trail. Martens had some question whether the trail would fit in this area and Grimes commented that the applicant may have shown preliminary estimates of where the trail would fit in. Grimes said that the City is not anticipating anymore right-of-way being taken by Hennepin County for the widening of Duluth Street. He talked about Tract E, which is located along Duluth Street on the east side of the proposed site. . Mike Garris, Executive Director for LOGIS addressed the issue of the grove of trees saying that LOGIS would like to preserve as many trees on the site as possible. He said the building would be used 100% for office and it would be beneficial for esthetic purposes. Mr. Garris talked about the site being difficult to work with because of its size, shape and abutting Bassett Creek. He said that LOGIS would like to remain in the area and this location would put it centrally located to all the other cities which whom it works with. Garris believes this project would have a good impact on the community. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 27, 1997 Page Four . Chair Pentel asked staff what the parking requirement is for this site. Grimes said that in the Business and Professional Office zoning district the parking requirement is one space for every 250 sq.ft. of office space. Grimes noted there would be more parking on the site than required, and LOGIS would like more parking because of the training sessions which they hold. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing, seeing and hearing no one, Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Kapsner informed the commission that his company, Rapid . Graphics and Mailing does work with some of the cities that belong to the LOGIS consortium, but did not believe that there was any conflict of interest because of his work. Commissioner Groger believes that it makes sense to consolidate the two lots because they are virtually unbuildable by themselves. He also commented that he lives near the proposed site and has been a part of a neighborhood group who has cleaned up the area. Groger said he was happy to see a proposed . development for this site, whether it be LOGIS or some other development. Commissioner Prazak commented on the setbacks noting that Bassett Creek would be a good buffer on the west and that there appears to be more green space along Duluth Street because of the right-of-way. Prazak is in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Martens believes that the plan is a good one and that the use is good and appropriate for the site. Martens said when taking into account Bassett Creek and the right-of-way issues, the variances being requested are appropriate and realistic. He did comment on a way to reduce the front setback along Duluth, and by cutting the curb back along the east side of the building the landscaping on the east side could be increased. He asked staff to take these comments into consideration. Chair Pentel also commented that the lot consolidation makes sense. She said that she would leave it up to the Board of Zoning Appeals to decide upon the variances needed to develop the site. Pentel would like to see a memo from the City Forester concerning his views on the grove of prairie oaks. She said she is aware that the City does not have a preservation ordinance for trees. . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 27,1 997 Page Five MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to the City Council for a lot consolidation of Tracts A (known as 5800 Duluth Street) and 8, Registered Land Survey No. 331 with the following conditions: 1. All necessary permits for access to the site are received from Hennepin County. 2. If requested by Hennepin County, additional right-of-way be dedicated for Duluth Street. 3. At the cost of the owner, the City Attorney shall prepare a title opinion prior to final plat approval. 4. The City's forester shall submit a memo to staff regarding the grove of trees before the City Council meeting of November 18, 1997. 5. The applicant will provide an easement, as necessary, to the City on the west side of the property for trail purposes. . III. Informal Public HearinQ -- Amendment to the Vallev Square Redevelopment Plan City Planner Knoblauch told the commission that what staff is proposing is a "quick patch" to the redevelopment plan. She noted that Area 8 was the only major area of the Valley Square left to be developed. Knoblauch said that the preliminary plans are being completed so a developer can be found for the site. She also said that staff is requesting from the Legislature an extension of the Valley Square Tax Increment District, either by extending the time period for Area 8 itself for 10 years or the entire Valley Square area for five years. Knoblauch said that the extension would allow the City to acquire enough tax increment to payoff the amount of improvements being planned. Knoblauch explained that the existing plan says that there shall be no residential development in Area 8; there are residential units being proposed for this area. She said that staff believes that it is necessary, at this time, to make some small amendments to the plan as an act of faith so that the necessary steps for development can continue. Knoblauch told the commission that the entire plan would need to be review next year. She reviewed minor changes to the Plan. . Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 27, 1997 Page Six . Chair Pentel noted that she is a member of the Area B Task Force and believes that it is appropriate to have the plan match what is being asked for on Area B. She also believes that extending the Tax Increment District would be a great benefit for getting the sort of benefit the HRA is seeking on this site. Commissioner Prazak asked if the HRA had made requests for submittal of proposals. Knoblauch said not at this point. She continued to say that the HRA has submitted a grant application through the Livable Communities program to the Metropolitan Council and once the HRA knows that this will go through, and the district has been extended, then staff will be ready to go out and seek a developer for Area B. Chair Pentel said that there is another piece that will go before the HRA concerning what the Area B Task Force wanted to see regarding pedestrian connections, which is a bit out of Area Bt but a way to bring cohesiveness to the whole district. Commissioner Kapsner asked staff if they knew the amount of funds that may be awarded to the HRA through the Livable Communities grant. Grimes . commented that the application was for $750,000 which would be for a number of different elements, one of those being underground parking. Pentel said that some of the other elements were for amenities along Bassett Creek and pedestrian walkways to get people into Area B. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Prazak and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed amendments to the Valley Square Plan. IV. Reports on Meetinas of the Housina and Redevelopment Authority. City Council and Board of Zonina Appeals Director Grimes briefly reported that the BZA requested that Hennepin County revised its plan to alleviate the variance on Nevada Avenue, which it did. Commissioner Groger reported on a City Council item from October 7,1997 regarding Hennepin County's proposal for an amendment to a C.U.P. for the property located at 7151 Madison Avenue West. . . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 27, 1997 Page Seven V. Other Business A. Continued Workshop Session on Technical Background for the land Use Plan The commission spent some time reviewing the section on "Plan Elements". Chair Pentel asked if the Water Resources Management section could mention sustainable development initiatives. Pentel briefly talked about resources to be considered for inclusion in the Comp Plan and questions whether there would be mapping of plan elements. City Planner Knoblauch responded that this would be done through the Water Management Resources section. The commission continued its review of the planning requirements discussing the ability to connect planning with zoning and the appropriateness of changing the Comp Plan to satisfy someone's good ideas. Commissioner Martens briefly talked about the 1-394 corridor and minimum lot sizes. He also talked about the submittal of plans by developers and having them include as part of their submittal package elevation, landscaping and civil engineering drawings. Commission Groger commented that the review of landscaping and building plans are under the jurisdiction of the Board of Building Review and believes that the commission does receive enough information for review. Grimes asked if the commission would like staff to check with other municipalities to verify what plans are included for Planning Commission review. Groger commented that he does not feel inclined to add a burden of expense or additional paper work to those submitting plans for review. He does not believe there is any advantage to seeing building elevations, complete landscaping and engineering plans presented to the commission. Pentel commented that she believes that the commission did not have enough information, when reviewing Area C, regarding landscaping, elevations, required variances. Martens suggested that the commission keep an eye on future proposals. Knobluach commented that in the past the commission has added, by conditions or recommendations, that applicants supply additional plans. The commission agreed that it would not need to review again the technical portion of the land Use Plan. City Planner Knoblauch suggested that the Planning Commission hold another workshop session to continue its review. Staff set November 24, 1997 to continue review of the land Use Plan update after any informal public hearings are held. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning' Commission October 27,1997 Page Eight . B. Staff updated the commission on the following: · GBC Partners is pursuing another piece of property in Golden Valley, which would not require any City approvals · Len Frame, FluiDyne, has contacted the City regarding the expiration of his approved variances for his vacant lot on the frontage road of Hwy. 55 · Covenant Manor will not be asked to help physically to clean up the park area to the west of its building · Hidden Lakes and the canoe launch and access to Twin Lake from the single-family lots · Minneapolis Crisis Nursery has not yet moved into its building on Glenwood Avenue because they lack the funds, at this time to complete the update to the building. They are still planning to open at this site. VI. Adioumment . Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 8:50pm. Emilie Johnson, Secretary . . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: November 19,1997 Golden Valley Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Informal Public Hearing -- Amendment to a Portion of the "1-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance" (Section 11.56, Subd. 9 of the Zoning Code) - City of Golden Valley, Applicant . In 1989, the cities of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park each adopted a new chapter to their respective zoning codes related to traffic management along the 1-394 corridor. The two cities jointly adopted the same language for their zoning code which requires that traffic management plans be created by the owner of new, high density developments. The high density developments that would meet the criteria for the creation of a Traffic Management Plan would primarily be multi-story office buildings with more than .6 sq.ft. of gross floor area per square foot of land area. . , The traffic management plans would be prepared at the time the buildings are constructed or existing buildings are expanded. They would go into effect only when the level of service at one of the three freeway interchanges, shared by Golden Valley and St. Louis Park, reaches a certain level and/or the amount of development around each interchange exceeds a pre-determined reserve capacity. I am enclosing a copy of the "1-394 Overlay Zoning Ordinance" which describes in detail the reserve capacity, level of service concept, and land area zones which surround each of the freeway interchanges. Since this ordinance was adopted by both cities in 1989, no traffic management plans have been prepared because no buildings have been built that meet the criteria for preparing a Traffic Management Plan. (When this ordinance was adopted in 1989, there was still a booming office market. After 1989, however, the office market decreased dramatically. Due to this decrease in office construction, no new high density office buildings have been built in the 1-394 corridor.) The first building that requires a traffic management plan, since the ordinance was adopted in 1989, will soon be under construction in St. Louis Park. MEPC American Properties has already received zoning approvals from St. Louis Park that will allow construction of a large, multi-story office building next to the Travelers Express bUilding. This planned building is near the Xenia Avenue interchange. As part of the Planned Unit Development approval by St. Louis Park, MEPC has already prepared a Traffic . . Management Plan that has been approved by the Joint Task Force. As defined in the Ordinance, the Joint Task Force has representatives from both cities. The Task Force was represented by the City Manager, City Council Member Jan LeSuer, and the Planning Director. A copy of the Traffic Management Plan is attached. When the Joint Task Force met to discuss the MEPC Traffic Management Plan this Fall, a revision to the Ordinance was suggested by the St. Louis Park Task Force. The Golden Valley Task Force members agreed to bring the change to its City Council for consideration. The proposed change to the Golden Valley Ordinance is as follows (changes are underlined): 1-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance Section 11.56, Subd. 9 I. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ^OMI~J1STRATI\JE FEE AND ASSESSMENTS . Under the authority in Minnesota Statute 462.353, subd. 4, each owner of a parcel or development subject to the terms of the Ordinance shall pay a traffic management administrative fee of $.10 per square foot of gross floor area. Fifty (50)% of the fee shall e paid at the time such owner applies for a conditional use permit or planned unit development permit for such development and (50)% of the fee shall be paid at the time such owner applies for a building permit thereof. The fees shall be collected by the city and deposited as a separate fund under the authority of the Joint Task Force. The fund will be used by the Joint Task Force only for its costs incurred in reviewing, investigating and administering traffic management plans under this Ordinance. Should the costs of administering and enforcing this Ordinance require it, the city reserves the right to periodically assess such costs to the parcels within the area covered. The city also reserves the richt to periodicallv assess the parcels within the respective areas for the costs involved in implementinc capital improvements desicned to reduce traffic concestion. facilitate transit use. and implement Traffic Manacement Plans in the vicinity of Xenia/Park Place Boulevard and 1-394. Louisiana Avenue and 1-394. and Boone Avenue and 1- 394. . The proposed amendment relates to the section on traffic management fees. Currently, the fees collected may only be used by the Joint Task Force for costs incurred in reviewing, investigating and administering traffic management plans submitted to the Task Force. It cannot be used for capital improvements to reduce traffic congestion. The Joint Task Force believes that it is in the best interest of both cities to give the cities the right to assess the parcels within the 1-394 corridor for the cost involved in implementing capital improvements related to the reduction of traffic congestion. These improvements may include a .Iocal transit circulator system, improved transit stops, park and ride facilities, improved pedestrian circulation and bicycle related improvements. There are no current plans for capital improvements. 2 . It should be understood the right to assess by the City requires a public hearing process. The Joint Task Force may suggest an assessment, however, each City Council has to go through the normal assessment process. St. Louis Park is now going through the process to amend its zoning code in a similar manner. My understanding is that the St. Louis Park amendment will be before its City Council for approval in December, 1997. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the attached amendment to the "1-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance". Both the City staff and Golden Valley members of the Task Force believe that the ability for each City to assess for capital improvements to reduce traffic congestion should be an option in order to enhance the 1-394 corridor. Attachments: Traffic Management Plan for the MEPC Building Golden Valley City Code, Section 11.56, Subd. 9 . . 3 . August 27, 19.97 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN: BUlLDING LOCATED AT 1600 UTICA A VENUE, ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA In compliance with Section 14:5-10 of the St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance (TDM Ordinance). Owner proposes this Traffic Management Plan for the 1600 Building. The Traffic Management Plan (Th1P) consists of the following elements: The Owner will designate a person on its staff as the Transportation Management Coordinator for the 1600 Ruilding (the Coordinator). Thc Coordinator will: 1. comply witb reporting requirements; 2. jrnplement parking management policies and programs; 3. provide oversight and management of the Th1P; and 4. provide transportation coordination services to implement the individual t.ransportation management elements of the program. . TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR The Owner will designate a member of its staff to act as the Coordinator. Such individual ~hall have authority to coordinate and implement TMP measures for the 1600 Building. The primary responsibilities of the Coordinator are as follows: 1. Comply,with TMP reporting requirements established by the City; 2. Develop) implement and monitor parking management policies and programs) and develop .and monitor parking operations consistent with the objectives of the TOM OrdinanCe; and 3. Oversee and manage the provision of transportation SeMces for implementation of the TIvfP and act as liaison to the City regarding all aspects of transportation elements for the 1600 Building' s operation. The Coordinator function shall be maintained for the functional life of the 1600 RuiIding to the extent required by the TDM Ordinance. . TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION SERVICES . The function and responsibilities of transportation coordination services performed by the Coordinator for the 1600 Building may be provided jointly with those provided for other buildings owned by MEPC within Minneapolis West Business Center (MWBC). particularly the building presently located at 1550 Utica Avenue. Elements of ~Tansoonation Coordination Services The primary elements of the transportation coordination services shall include one or more of the following: a) To develop coordinate and implement an overall information program for . commute alternatives; , (1) Facilitate (via 1v1EPC Concierge Update publication) rideshare with MWBC. . (2) Commuter Fairs and Campaigns. b) . To coordinate and implement public transit promotional activities; . (1) Work with Metro Transit to locate bus shelters within MWBC. . (2) Work with Metro Transit to schedule convenient routes for tenanlS . and clients. . c) To coordinate 3l1d implement ridesbaring promotional activities for all . tenants and their employees; (1) Provide convenient parking for car pools and van pools. d) To coordinate and implement bicycle and pedestrian promotional activities for all tenants and their employees; e) To collect, coordinate and disseminate flextime promotional information; f) . To coordinate and provide infonuation regarding any other technique or combination of techniques potentially capable of reducing the traffic and relate impacts of the 1600 Building; g) Act as liaison and facilitator for the City or the TDM Joint Task Force to implement any rideshare or transit programs (e.g. electronic bulletin board, new bus routes, van pools. etc.), incentives or subsidies that they wish to initiate; and h) Discuss with the cities of St. Louis Park and Goldcn Valley as well as othcr entities and property owners a financing system for transit and ; infrastructure improvements that are designed to alleviate congestion at the , intersections defined in the TDM Ordinance. . 2 Initial Management Actions , . Upon openin~ and lease-up for the 1600 Building, the Transportation Management Coordinator through Concierge Sczvices shall provide the following services: · SeII bus passes · Provide bus route and schedule information · PrQvide information on rideshare program · Use a Bulletin Board to communicate TDM information and facilitate car pools and van pools · Pr6vide shower facilities for people biking or running to work · Provide bike racks within MWBC · If a tenant leases more than 35% of the 1600 Building space, ascertain and communicate that tenant's particular transportation needs to the Joint Task Force or the City and cooperate in the Creation of a particularized IMP for that tenant if the lcnant expresses an interest in doing so · Work with the City of St. Louis Park in the development of a transit plan for the City · Work with the cities ofSt. Louis Park and Golden Valley and other large office buildings in Zone A to develop rideshare matching programs . Except for the Initial Management Action,. the TMP and transportation coordination services shall be implemented at such timo as required by Section 14:5-10D.2 of the TDM Ordinance when other building owners (if any) within Zone A of the roM District subject to the TOM Ordinance are similarly directed by the Joint Task Force established by the TDM Ordinance. . . 3 . . . SII.56 ess restrictions to parking spaces in on-site parking facilities, programs to support and encourage the utilization of alter ative ortation modes. G. Use and accessory use design options whi". reduce n single-occupancy vehicles by employees and oth;i.,;s" who will d from the proposed use, such as the prov~j on of less than that required under the provisions",._1'his chapter, arrangements, the incorporation of r. .:"ldential units proposed commercial uses) and othe,:'analogous design relianc travel t park ing a shared park (in the case features. capable of use. other technique or co ination of techniques e traffic and relate "7 mpacts of the proposed Subd. 7. Nonconforming traffic gen covered by this overlay or use and building permits the Ordinance. If a nonconformin than .6 square feet of gross. area wi thin a lot or parcel," m it ~onforms to the terms 0 is Or nconforming Traffic Generation Uses. ion use. are all uses wi thin the area nee ~ ch existed or had approved land 0;#- efore the effective date of this raffic generation use exceeds more area per each square foot of land ot be altered or modified unless Subd. 8. Joi Joint Task Force shall con- sist of eight member two elected 0 . cials from each city, each city manager and a aff member appoint by the city manager from each city. Its f ion shall be to perio ally monitor the traffic generation and a pollution in Zones A, B a C and to review traffic management pIa so as to insure their compll e with the intent and purpose of t Ordinance. It also shall ado and promulgate rules of procedur If the Joint Task Force deadlock the issue or matter shall be s itted first to mediation under the s of the American Arbi trat . Association. Thereafter, upon agreeme. of the parties, the iss or matter may be submitted under the Rule f the American Arbitr ion Association to binding arbitration by a Ie arbitrator chbs by the parties, or if they cannot agree, by the nepin County Dis ct Court. The arbitration shall proceed under th ules of the Am ,ican Arbitration Association. Subd. 9. Traffic Management Administrative Fees. Under the authority in Minnesota Stat. S 462.353, Subd. 4, each owner of a par- cel or development subject to the terms of this ordinance shall pay a traffic management administrative fee of $.10 per square foot of gross floor area. 50% of the fee shall be paid at the time such owner applies for a conditional use permit or planned unit development per- mit for such development and 50% of the fee shall be paid at the time such owner applies for a building permit therefor. The fees shall be collected by the city and deposited as a separate fund under the authority of the Joint Task Force. The fund will be used by the Joint Task Force only for its costs incurred in reviewing, investigating and GOLDEN VALLEY CC 267-8 (6-30-89) . . . Sll.56 administering traffic management plans under this ordinance. Should the costs of administering and enforcing this ordinance require it, the city reserves the right to periodically assess such costs to the parcels within the area covered by it. Source: Ordinance No. 13, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-22-89 (Sections 11.57 through 11.59, inclusive, reserved for future expansion. ) GOLDEN VALLEY CC 267-9 (6-30-89) . . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: November 19, 1997 Golden Valley Planning Commission Beth Knoblauch, City Planner DRAFT LAND USE PLAN UPDATE The draft plan (attached) is now ready for Planning Commission review, with the exception of the yet-to-be-completed map exhibit. Staff hope to get'mapping under way shortly, as the paperwork on Golden Valley's grant award has finally been received. Since final adoption must wait for map completion, you are welcome to extend your work on the draft plan over additional meetings beyond next Monday; if you choose to do so, please provide staff with scheduling instructions as part of Monday night's preliminary discussion. . Staff drafted the general land use plan in the same format as the earlier housing plan; section headings are similar or identical and the presentation of goals, objectives, and policies uses the same layout. Maintaining a uniformity of style between plans will help identify them as elements of a larger whole - the comprehensive plan. The comparison of contents between the draft land use plan and the earlier housing plan is as follows: . GENERAL LAND USE PLAN HOUSING PLAN Introduction Background 2 pages Plan/Zoning Compared Background 2 ~ pages Balancing Act 1 ~ page Livable Communities 1 page Components of Plan 1 page Components of Plan 1 page Plan Map 2 pages Plan Map < ~ page Plan Implementation Plan Implementation < ~ page For More Information 1 page Goals 1 page Goals 1 page Policies 3 pages Policies 4 pages Objectives 3 pages Objectives 2 pages Exhibits 4 pages Not Appl. Total Pages 19 Total Pages 12 The land use plan draft has ballooned to a total of 19 pages - which is several pages longer than staff originally had in mind for a document intended to be concise and reader-friendly. Luckily, there are ample options for deletions throughout the draft, since staff only took a wild guess at desired content beyond legal requirements. With the primary drafter safely removed from any work sessions, Commissioners will be able to wield their blue pencils freely and without being distracted by pitiful whines or horrified gasps. More than five pages of the draft relate to maps, which were only briefly discussed and not used at all in the housing plan. There are two map exhibits, plus the two-page exhibit of land use category definitions and one page establishing guidelines for how the City will determine whether a proposed rezoning is in conformity with the plan. Miscellaneous other explanatory comments expand the "Plan Map" section by another half-page beyond the short cross-reference paragraph provided in the housing plan. All three exhibits must stay. Staff have amended the definitions exhibit slightly, based on earlier discussion by the Commission; the definitions are still open to modification, but please try to maintain reasonable conformity with Metro Council guidelines and reasonable expectations about how much detail Golden Valley might be able to get mapped at this time. The proposed conformity guidelines and other explanations can be amended or cut down until the Commission is satisfied that they establish a sound practice for map use, but the final plan must include some form of statement addressing map interpretation. Three other sections have undergone modest expansions~ The housing plan's "Background" section is now split into three parts, adding a half-page to overall length; the finished plan should include an explanation of the difference between planning and zoning, but the staff dissertation on the subject could easily be cut in half, and all background material is fair game for amendment or obliteration. There is now a "Balancing" discussion instead of a "Livable Communities" section, again with a half-page increase in length; each paragraph here relates directly to a draft goal statement, so this section will have to be amended on the basis of what the Commission decides to do with the goals. Finally, "Plan Implementation" has been changed slightly and "For More Information" has been added to it, for another half-page increase; the key points in those two sections should be retained but could probably be pared down. The section on "Plan Components" is only slightly different from its counterpart in the housing plan. The definitions must all stay. The construction metaphor used to explain them is entirely subject to the blue-pencil treatment. . . Although "Objectives" grew by one page, "Policies" decreased by the same amount. In each case, the last page only has a single item on it, so it would be easy to condense those sections onto fewer pages by simply tossing out one of the suggested statements or trimming several others. To eliminate any possible doubt that the plan meets the intent of state law, the Commission should try to retain at least two goals, two objectives, and two policies. For the Commission's . 2 . review purposes, staff have included every point raised in the Technical Background, but several of those suggestions were completely discretionary. Staff also have added two policy statements from a recently-received Metro Council directive regarding the "regional growth strategy", both of which are relatively harmless and will make the City look good from a standpoint of maintaining a cooperative attitude. In summary, with only a few exceptions Commissioners should feel free to amend or delete sentences or entire paragraphs until the plan meets expectations or preferences. After editing, the document should still include the following: 1. both map exhibits and the two-page map definitions exhibit; 2. basic guidelines for how rezonings will be decided and any other important explanations of how the plan map is to be used 3. all of the "Plan Components" definitions; 4. a basic explanation of the relationship or difference between the plan and the zoning code; 5. some sort of discussion explaining the rationale for each goal area; 6. reference to additional information and plan implementation; and 7. at least two goals, two objectives, and two policies. . Of course, Commissioners are invited to add material as well as deleting it, but please remember that the final plan should not be too long-winded for easy reading by a wide audience with varying information needs. If you choose to add a goal, objective, or policy- or to amend one - please keep in mind the established definitions of those types of statements as you draft them. Attachments: Draft Land Use Plan Update . 3 GOLDEN VALLEY: A BALANCED APPROACH TO THE 21 ST CENTURY -- land Uses, 1997-2027 -- . . . DOCUMENTATION OF APPROVALS Plan recommended by Planning Commission for City Council approval - xxx. Plan received by City Council - xxx. Plan authorized for forwarding to Metro Council and neighboring communities for review and comment (CC Resolution xx-xx) -- xxx. Plan approved by City Council (CC Resolution xx-xx) - xxx. CONTENTS . INTRODUCTION 1 PLAN AND ZONING COMPARED 1 BACKGROUND Exhibit A: 1997 Existing Land Use Map 2 3 THE BALANCING ACT 4 COMPONENTS OF THE PLAN 6 THE PLAN MAP Exhibit B: Land Use Plan Map 8 Exhibit C: Definitions of Key Land Use Terms 9 7 . PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 12 FOR MORE INFORMATION 12 LAND USE GOALS 13 LAND USE POLICIES 14 LAND USE OBJECTIVES 17 . ii . . . GOLDEN VALLEY: A BALANCED APPROACH TO THE 21sT CENTURY -- Land Uses, 1997-2027 -- INTRODUCTION This document forms the core of the state-mandated Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Golden Valley, better known as the "general land use plan". It provides a broad outline of how the City intends to deal with land use issues and opportunities in the years ahead. State law says a complete Land Use Element must also include detailed discussions on housing and water resource management; Golden Valley addresses those subjects in separate documents that will be used along with this core plan. For the purposes of state law, parks and open space fall under public facilities planning efforts rather than land use, but Golden Valley's park plan has a strong land use orientation and is locally considered to be a fourth component of the overall Land Use Element. PLAN AND ZONING COMPARED Land use planning and zoning are separate but related concepts. Zoning is part of local law, enforceable through the City's police power, while the plan serves as documentation that the zoning regulations were properly established and are properly administered in the best interest of the general public health, safety, and welfare. The plan embodies a broad vision of desired community characteristics, while zoning provides a specific means of implementing and regulating the vision; as a result, zoning is much more detailed with regard to the type and intensity of use allowed on any given property. The plan's focus is on moving a community as smoothly as possible into the future, while zoning is firmly grounded in the present. . 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. Specifically, according to state law, zoning regulations are among the official controls communities may establish as "reasonable and practicable means for putting the...plan into effect". Additional statutes applying only to the Twin Cities Metro Area further define the relationship between zoning and plan by prohibiting communities from adopting or enforcing zoning regulations that conflict with any part of the plan. Clearly, the law intends that the vision of the plan should dictate the shape of the zoning regulations necessary to turn plan into reality. BACKGROUND Golden Valley was incorporated in December 1886. Seven years later in 1893, the annexation of 0.6 square miles of land on its north side represented the only significant boundary change in the City's history. Entirely surrounded by other incorporated cities for many years, Golden Valley is unlikely to see any substantial future expansion of its 10.5 square miles of area. . The City's land use planning history goes back to the 1930's, when Golden Valley adopted its first zoning code to regulate the development and use of property. In those days, zoning regulations themselves were considered to make up a "comprehensive plan" as long as they divided an entire community into identified land use districts. Total population was less than 2,000 - about 550 families. There were virtually no local business areas. The City first adopted an actual land use plan document in 1959. Population by then had ballooned to 14,500. An estimated thirty percent of Golden Valley's land area was still undeveloped. General Mills and Honeywell, two of the City's largest corporate citizens today, had only recently come to town. Completely updated comprehensive plans followed at approximately ten-year intervals in the 1970's and 1980's. The City's development boom leveled off as the supply of developable land dwindled. Today Golden Valley is almost entirely developed for a variety of urban and open space uses (Exhibit A). The number of households continues to increase modestly each year, but total population remains at about 21,000 as the average household size gets smaller. . 2 . THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK FOR EXHIBIT A: 1997 EXISTING LAND USE MAP . . 3 Even in a fully developed community, times change. Land uses change with the times in a number of large and small ways. Changes in 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 buildings age, they may reach a point where it becomes more cost-effective to tear them down and start over than to renovate or adapt them. Some types of land use become obsolete, while others evolve to take their place. The community faces ongoing 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. . By maintaining a broad vision of how.Golden Valley should look and feel and function over time, the City provides itself with a frame of reference for making 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 also 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. In other words, the plan offers a means for local government to join in partnership with individual and corporate citizens to manage the speed and direction of change in Golden Valley. . THE BALANCING ACT As Golden Valley enters the twenty-first century, managing land use changes in a way that promotes the City's continued health and vigor can be seen as a balancing act between potentially conflicting interests on several fronts. Balancina Different Uses- Across its 10.5 square miles of area, Golden Valley reflects a mosaic of varied land use groups in close proximity to each other. Supporting a variety of uses is an excellent way to keep a community healthy and vital. On the other hand, each use group has different occupancy traits and differing needs for long-term viability; many can be complementary under the right circumstances, but some are mutually exclusive. When conflicts occur at the borders between land use groups, they can have negative impacts on the immediate neighborhood or the whole community. A balanced distribution of different use areas and a regulatory system designed to minimize conflicts between uses can greatly enhance the flavor of city life. Balancina Quality and Diversity - Attractive, well-constructed buildings and landscaped, well-groomed properties in all land use groups are definite community assets, contributing to an appearance of high quality homes and businesses. Respect for basic property rights and individual freedom of . 4 . expression are also important assets, as is keeping the community affordable to households and businesses of modest means; those assets contribute toward community diversity and inclusiveness. Too much regulation of appearance for its own sake can have the unintended side effect of stifling diversity, while too much permissiveness in the name of diversity can result in simple blight. Somewhere between those extremes lies an acceptable balance. Balancina Existina DeveloDment and RedeveloDment - Golden Valley no longer has the option of adding new development in a rural fringe area with few existing uses to be impacted; the only way the City can accommodate change is by renewing already-developed properties in already-developed neighborhoods. Aging properties are subject to decline and eventual obsolescence, which hurts the owners, the neighborhood, and the community in general. Renovation, re- use, or redevelopment offers an opportunity not only to give a property new life, but to make it better than when it was first developed. The more extensive the change, however, the more it affects neighboring properties. Too much change, too quickly, with too little advance planning can strain a neighborhood's ability to adapt. In some cases, the strain could also impact the whole community - for example, by overloading roads or utilities. For best results, land use changes should be integrated carefully into Golden Valley's existing mosaic over time. . Balancina Natural and Man-Made Environments - America's rise has traditionally been viewed as ,a matter of man mastering nature in the name of economic achievement. Development was progress, and progress was good. Today there is an increasing awareness that man needs to temper the forces of development with a respect for the natural resources and natural systems that make life possible; the long-term health of individuals, communities, and the Earth as a whole depends on it. Like several other states, Minnesota has launched an effort called the Sustainable Development Initiative to establish and promote ways of fostering environmentally sustainable development in communities across the state. Even a fully developed community like Golden Valley can still find opportunities for improving the local balance between man and nature by establishing policies and practices for the environmentally sustainable use and redevelopment of land. . Balancing Local and Regional Interests - Finally, cutting across all other considerations above, there is the regional perspective. Golden Valley is one small part of a large, interdependent urban area. To some extent, the City's health will always be tied to the health of the Twin Cities region because city limits are not impenetrable walls. At an even higher geographic level, the City's planning efforts are sometimes limited by land use priorities established in state or federal regulations. Regional needs and state or federal imperatives are not always in complete harmony with local desires and preferences. Finding ways to reconcile the different viewpoints is not easy, but a cooperative approach, creative problem solving, and a strong education component can help. 5 . COMPONENTS OF THE PLAN As required by state law, Golden Valley's general land use plan is composed of goals, policies, objectives, programs, and standards that serve as guides to how the City will maintain and renew itself now and into the future. The following paragraphs outline Golden Valley's definitions of these terms and how they are used in the plan. Since the land use plan deals with the "built" community, it might be helpful to draw a parallel between planning terminology and basic construction terms like foundation, structural framework, building blocks, tools, and structural specifications. GOAL: "An idealized end state that serves as a focus for planning efforts. Goals reflect situations toward which to strive without necessarily expecting full attainment." The foundation of Golden Valley's general land u.se plan rests on five goal statements distilled from the "balancing of interests" discussed in the preceding section. Policies and objectives build upon this foundation. The City's land use goals are listed on page 13. POLICY: "An ongoing guide or set of criteria for undertaking legislative or administrative actions in conformance with plan goals. Policies are specific enough to provide direction in a decision-making context, and are intended to be used whenever applicable throughout the life of the plan." . In other words, policies provide the structural framework for making land use decisions that will properly implement the general land use plan by building firmly on its goal foundation. The City's land use policies are listed on pages 14 - 16, along with references to the primary underlying goal or goals for each policy. 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." Objectives are the building blocks that fill in the structural framework as it rises upward from the foundation. This term does not appear in state law, but statutes do require cities outline specific actions toward plan implementation, which comes to much the same thing. The City's current land use objectives are listed on pages 17 -19, again with references back to primary underlying goals: . 6 . 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." Programs provide the tools for erecting the structural framework and setting the building blocks in place, while standards form the structural specifications. The City has identified land use programs and standards within policy and objective statements as appropriate rather than listing them separately. THE PLAN MAP . A final required component of the general land use plan, the land use plan map (Exhibit B) provides a vision of future land use distributions throughout Golden Valley. Like most visions, it should not be taken too literally. The boundaries of different land use areas are broadly sketched; where they fall in mid-block, for example, a certain freedom of interpretation is allowed in pinpointing their exact location. land use categories are rather broadly drawn as well; while general descriptions (Exhibit C) are provided as part of the plan, they do not cover every possible use or situation, leaving room for interpretation when a specific use is not clearly listed anywhere or occurs under special circumstances. The future-oriented nature of the land use plan map is important to remember: existing uses in areas planned for eventual change are not always inappropriate for today. Now that Golden Valley is fully developed, it faces a greater challenge than ever before in balancing the needs of the present against the desires for the future. There are areas where a change in use is desirable at some point in time, but 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. Zoning is the main tool available to cities for implementing the comprehensive plan. If the zoning map and the plan map reflect differing land use groups for a particular property, the zoning map must be legally amended before the planned use can occur; the rezoning process thus serves as a gateway between present and future. 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 supports current zoning as being entirely appropriate for any given property until it is found to be ready for plan implementation through redevelopment. . (Note: text continues on page 11.) 7 , I . THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK FOR EXHIBIT B: LAND USE PLAN MAP . . 8 . . . Exhibit C: Definitions of Key Land Use Terms Residential, Low Density (Less than 5.00 homes per aross acre of land area): 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 aross acre of land area): Medium density residential uses include two family attached homes in clusters of more than ten units, or town homes, 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, Hiah Density (12.00 homes or more per aross 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. O~ce areas may include mixed use officelresidential PUD's. Metro Council equivalent is part of "commercial". Commercial: Commercial uses include retail sales/services, restaurants, hotels/motels, and for-profit entertainment/recreation facilities, as well as anything allowed in an office area. 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. Liaht Industrial: This category includes warehousing and storage, assembly and light manufacturing, truck/van terminals, utility installations, offices, and large-scale specialty retail operations such as lumber yards, greenhouses, and vehicle saleslrentallots. 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. 9 Exhibit C: Definitionsmcontinued Schools and Reliaious 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 Council 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 (in Wirth Park, along the creek north of Highway 55), 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". Riqht-of-Way. Hiahway: This category includes all land reserved for highway uses in the corridors of Highways 55, 100, 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". Riaht-of-Wav. 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 it 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 City Code requirements if split apart. 10 I . , . . . . A property's readiness for rezoning in accordance with Golden Valley's land use plan map will be evaluated according to the following terms, which do not have to be weighed equally in all cases: 1. All owners of the property should jointly petition for rezoning to a district that matches the land use category identified on the plan map; 2. The property should meet minimum development standards for the desired change in use, which may include zoning specifications, subdivision specifications, and/or duly adopted goals, policies, and objectives of the comprehensive plan; 3. Any existing property improvements that would be nonconforming under the zoning necessary for the desired use should be removed, or financial and legal guarantees should 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 should be permanently discontinued; 5. Where a proposed rezoning involves only a portion of an area that is planned for change, the proposal should 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; and 6. Unique circumstances affecting the property, its surroundings, or some other aspect of a particular request may be compelling enough to result in a different outcome than what might otherwise be indicated, but in such cases the City must clearly list and explain the circumstances underlying its decision. . Until a property is found ready for rezoning according to the above terms, its existing use will be considered to conform with Golden Valley's comprehensive plan -- regardless of whether it matches the category of use identified on the plan map - as long as it meets current zoning regulations and other applicable requirements of City Code. The same rule also applies to any alteration of site improvements or change from one permitted use to another within the same district: the altered site or changed use will be considered to conform with the comprehensive plan as long as the property continues to meet all applicable code requirements and is not yet ready for rezoning per the established terms. . 11 . PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Policies, objectives, programs, and standards all contribute toward turning this plan into reality. Local regulations having an impact on plan implementation can be found in City Code - primarily in the zoning and subdivision chapters - and in the State Building Code, adopted by reference in City Code. Some policies adopted by separate resolutions over the years may also act as implementing devices, even though they are not officially part of the general land use plan. The main responsibility for implementation lies with the City Council as Golden Valley's formal decision-making body. The City's Planning Commission plays a strong supporting role in its capacity as advisor to the Council. The Human Rights Commission and other Council-established bodies may also be involved from time to time. The City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority provides added power to acquire land for redevelopment, secure financing, and eliminate blighting conditions, should any of those actions become necessary. To achieve any particular objective, Golden Valley may turn to state or federal agencies, the Metro Council, Hennepin County, neighboring communities, or other public or private entities for expertise, funding, or development partnerships. . FOR MORE INFORMATION More information on land use plan requirements and on the research underlying Golden Valley's general land use plan can be found in a separate report known as the Technical Background for the Golden Valley Land Use Plan. Along with other documents relating to all aspects of the City's overall comprehensive plan, that report is available for purchase at City Hall and a reader copy is kept with the City publications on file at the Golden Valley Library. . 12 . LAND USE GOALS Maintain a balanced distribution of different land use areas, and a regulatory framework designed to minimize potential conflicts between land uses. . Accommodate land use diversity and inclusiveness while advocating quality in construction and property maintenance. Integrate public and private redevelopment efforts gradually into Golden Valley's existing development mosaic by maintaining a land use plan and ongoing planning process that make sound provision for the long-term future. Promote Golden Valley's economic and social health through environmentally sustainable practices and policies for land use and redevelopment. Reconcile local preferences and desires with regional needs and legislative imperatives by adopting a cooperative approach, seeking creative solutions to points of conflict, and maintaining ongoing education efforts. . 13 LAND USE POLICIES The policy framework established in the plan map section of this general land use plan shall constitute the City's guide for determining when implementation - rezoning in conformity with the general land use plan - could be expected to occur for any given property. As appropriate, and in addition to consulting this general land use plan, the City shall consult the housing plan, the water resource management plan, the park plan, and any other plan that may be identified as part of the overall Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan prior to making any land use-related decision. Before approving a proposed text change to any provision of the zoning chapter of City Code, or to other land use- related regulations, the City shall first evaluate the potential impact of the proposed change on land use plan goals, policies and objectives, and on the plan map if applicable. The City shall accommodate energy conserving technologies and construction techniques, including active and passive solar energy features, by advocating their use in applications for new development and by amending City Code or City policies as appropriate to allow property owners to take advantage of new approaches. 14 . ..,J ~ c - . C; U) !! a; G) i) c U) G) c .9 :J > "C i5 ca C) .... G) ~ Q) c ~ 0:: 0:: e ~ - a; Ii. C; !E C; :::::I > - U :::::I Q) ca 0 c a c z ..J C) C) C) C) C) c c c c c .- 'u 'u 'u 'u u c c c c c ca ca ca ca ca - c; c; c; c; ca In In In In . . . LAND USE POLICIES Before adopting or amending any development-related or construction-related regulation, the City shall consider any potential diversity or environmental impact. Negative impacts shall be balanced against concerns for the general public health, safety, or welfare. Where possible, strategies for mitigating negative impacts shall be identified. . The City shall defer consideration of all proposed land use plan amendments for individual properties within xxx feet of Highway 100 until after highway construction is complete and the corridor planning study has been undertaken. The City shall monitor ongoing Sustainable Development Initiative research and accomplishments at the state level The City shall remain open to new partnership opportunities with Hennepin County, the Metro Council, and state or federal agencies in its efforts to implement this plan. Per the Metro Council's regional growth strategy, the City shall continue to support job creation and economic development within and near the 1-394 corridor, especially in concentrations serviceable by transit. Per the Metro Council's regional growth strategy, in making all land use-related decisions the City shall seek reasonable ways to foster efficient, connected land use patterns; accommodate mixed use developments; and increase the density and intensity of existing development throughout Golden Valley where appropriate. . Per Metro Council recommendation, the City commits to an 15 ,.J .5 b . rn or! Q; ca CD CD > c .!! >.!c 0 - w ca om .... c CD :i CD ! ~ ~ '! ~ Q; ca J!! ca > = u - = CD'; 0 CGcz ..J en en en en en c c c c c .u .u .u .u .u c c c c c ca ca ca ca ca ca ca ca ca ca In In In +J . ~ .5 . c; m f! 'a) > c en CD CD C 0 ::::) ,~ "C ca '0, .... c CD :E CD c } D:: - D:: ! ""': ! - !E c; 'a) ::I c; LAND USE POLICIES > .... U ::I CD ca 0 c a c z ..J C) C) C) C) C) c c c c c 'u 'u 'u 'u 'u c c c c c ca ca ca ca ca c; c; c; c; c; III III III III understanding that it must continuously monitor this plan, and must perform an update whenever: a particular development proposal exceeds any parameters in the plan; any land identified for commercial, office, or industrial development is converted to residential uses or vice versa; or anticipated transportation or wastewater treatment needs of commercial, office, or industrial development change in a way that exceeds the parameters in the adopted plan. 16 . . . LAND USE OBJECTIVES . Update provisions for all zoning districts and for planned unit developments as necessary to conform with identified land use categories and to properly support plan implemen- tation; of particular importance are the specific use lists and "purpose and intent" paragraph for each district. Review the present method of maintaining plan map/zoning map conformity via concurrent application for plan amendment and rezoning; follow-up should include: formalization in City Code of a suitable joint application process; establishment of one or more policies limiting the circumstances in which site-specific plan amendments would be allowed between regular plan updates; and/or establishment of a policy to prohibit concurrent applications. Re-examine the existing HRA "redevelopment philosophy", to address questions raised in the Technical Background for the Land Use Plan. Establish a list of qualifying criteria to serve as a selection standard on occasions when targeting Community Develop- ment Block Grant or other redevelopment funds to one or more particular areas is desirable or necessary. . 17 ,.J .5 b. _ en 'r! "; as CD CD > Co ~ >-!C._ -0 CD~ i' ~~!!i~ e: - "; c; ......CD_ c; > .a u III- ~ CD as 0 Q a Q Z .oJ en en en en en C C C C C 'u 'u .'u 'u 'u C C C C C as as as as as c; c; c; c; c; mmmmm LAND USE OBJECTIVES Invest in an address-linked computerized land use data base capable of providing data on the size, age, value, and other circumstances of all City properties, for better tracking of issues such as need for rehabilitation or redevelopment of any particular area. Study the suggested strategies of the Sustainable Devel- opment Initiative's local guidebook, when available, for possible local application. Study the 1-394 corridor, to determine whether part or all of the area would be better served by amending the plan to indicate commercial or office uses rather than industrial. Explore the possible establishment of a second 1-394 zoning overlay district to allow commercial uses only on certain qualifying properties as specified in the code. Study planned land uses all along the Highway 100 corridor after all highway-related improvements are in place, to determine the need or desirability of area-wide plan amendments accommodating altered land use demand. Review all institutionally designated properties to consider their long term viability and/or options for alternative use. I I Define various approaches and/or incentives to promote a City beawtification program. Establish a process for citizen involvement in planning for change ~t the neighborhood level. 18 ~ .5 l:'. _ m .~ ~ ~ UJ CD CD C .S:! ::J > "C C'CS C) J ~ ~ ~ ~ - a; ca J2ca >.a u .... ::s CD C'CS 0 cacz~ C) C) C) C) C) c c c c c 'u 'u 'u 'u 'u c c c c c C'CS C'CS C'CS C'CS C'CS ca ca ca ca ca mmmmm . . . . LAND USE OBJECTIVES Research techniques used in alternative dispute resolution processes such as mediation for assistance in formulating citizen involvement guidelines that channel discussion of development proposals along a productive course. . . 19 ~ . !R .~ Q; - C1) > :! > ~ c _ C C1) ~ e ~ e; 2! Q; .ec; >.a - := C1) ca c a Q Z = = = = c c c C au .u .u au C C C C ca ca ca ca C; C; C; C; m m m m ...; .5 C; c .2 = CD e: C; u o ..J = C .u C ca C; m