04-08-96 PC Agenda
.
-
i
I
I-
>
I
I
L_
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
April 8, 1996
7pm
I.
Approval of Minutes - February 12 and 26, 1996
II.
Election of Officers
III.
Workshop Session: Discussion of Livable Communities Action Plan
Requirements and General Housing Plan Update
IV.
Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, and Board of Zoning Appeals
V. Other Business
VI. Adjournment
I
i
'I
-~- !
II
I
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.
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.
Staff will give a brief summary of the applicant's request. Commission members may ask
questions of staff.
2. The applicant 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.
e
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.
.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley
Planning Commission
February 12, 1996
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council
Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by
Chair Prazak at 7pm.
Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, Pentel and
Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Elizabeth
Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Planning Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - January 22. 1996
MOVED by Lewis, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the January
22, 1996 minutes as submitted.
II. Informal Public Hearing - Trevilla of Golden Valley P.U.D. No. 72
Applicant:
Unicare Homes, Inc.
Address:
7445 Glenwood Avenue and 7505 Country Club Drive
Request:
Creation of a P.U.D. which includes the existing nursing care facility located at
7505 Country Club Drive, the demolition of the existing structure at 7445
Glenwood Avenue and the construction of a 60-unit assisted living facility on
the 7445 Glenwood Avenue site.
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development summarized his staff report to the Planning
Commission talking about the removal of the building located at 7445 Glenwood Avenue so a 60-unit
assisted living facility can be constructed; the nursing care facility would remain. Mr. Grimes stated
that the property is correctly zoned 1-4 but the applicant is proceeding through the PUD process
because there will be two principal buildings on the site.
Mr. Grimes commented on the following issues:
. Parking Requirements. The required parking is 173 spaces. The application feels that the
proposed 124 spaces are adequate. There are approximately 100 people on site at peak shift
time, although there is some overlap when shifts change. Mr. Grimes commented that he has
been on the site several times and has always seen available parking. At present, there is a
parking agreement with Northrup King for ~dditional parking. The proposed assisted living facility
will have approximately 5 employees at peak time. The applicant does not anticipate many, if
any, of the residents to have cars on the site.
. Proposed Addition. The proposed plans indicate an addition to the nursing home on the west side
of the building. This addition would be for a new physical therapy room and new entrance to the
nursing home. This addition, when built in the future, will not create any more employees on the
site, so additional parking is not anticipated.
.
.
.
..
Minutes of the Golden Vall~y Planning Commission
February 12, 1996
Page Two
· Drainage and Utilities. Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works, has reviewed the plans and feels
present drainage will work on the site. There is adequate space for fire trucks to get around. The
proposed assisted living facility will be sprinklered.
· Building Setback. All setbacks are being met at this time.
· Landscaping. The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan which shows additional
plantings along the east and south property line.
· Traffic Generation. Staff does not believe that there will be a significant increase in traffic. There
will be fewer trips to and from the site because the pharmacy will be gone.
· Subdivision. The applicant is planning on having two separate lots - one for the existing nursing
home and one for the proposed assisted living facility.
Mr. Grimes commented that the assisted living facility is a product that has not been provided in
Golden Valley. This type of facility should work well and give the people who reside in the facility the
comfort of knowing that there is a 24-hour nursing facility next door.
Staff is recommending approval for the Planned Unit Development request.
Commission Kapsner asked staff to confirm that there would not be a substantial increase in
employees with the proposed assisted living facility. Mark Grimes confirmed that the assisted living
facility will employee about 5 employees, significantly less than the previous user of the building at
7445 Glenwood Avenue.
The applicant, Andrew Palec, representing Unicare Homes, Inc. gave a brief summary of their
nursing home business in Minnesota. Mr. Palec commented that Unicare Homes is excited about
offering a different kind of service in Golden Valley that will allow residents to remain in their
community. Mr. Palec talked about traffic generation stating that there should be minimal traffic with
the assisted living facility and is therefore requesting a ratio of 1 to 4 parking spaces per resident vs.
the required 1 to 2 ratio. The plan is to get as much parking on the nursing home site where it is
needed.
Chair Prazak asked about the green space between the assisted living facility and the residential
. neighborhood to the east. Mr. Palec commented that he sent out notices to the neighborhood
regarding a meeting to talk about the proposal. He commented that residents were concerned with
landscaping along the east and south property lines. Mr. Palec said he would submit a revised
landscape plan showing more trees when this proposal is reviewed by the City Council.
Commissioner Lewis asked if the applicant would be willing to work with the neighbors on the
landscaping issue. Mr. Palec commented that his organization would be willing to work with the
neighbors on reasonable requests for landscaping to meet their comfort level.
The commission and applicant talked about the preparation of food and layout of the living area and
communal areas of the assisted living facility.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 12, 1996
Page Three
. Commissioner Pentel asked about lighting being placed in the setback 'areas. Mark Grimes said that
lighting is allowed in the setback areas. Commissioner Pentel also asked about the signage for the
facility. Mr. Palec said the sign would be a pedestal-type in brick with some kind of illumination.
Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing.
Phil Fuhlman, 521 Kelly Drive, believes and hopes this facility will be attractive which will enhance the
neighborhood and would be a good contribution to Golden Valley. He is concerned that the mature
vegetation on the site (generally in the southeast corner), not be damaged during construction. He
would like to see two row of evergreens, 6 feet tall, planted. Mr. Fuhlman also is concerned with the
individual air-conditioning unit noise, and erosion of the soil during and after construction.
Roland C. Patton, 7442 Olson Hwy. commented on the beautiful natural state of the southeast corner
of the lot. He is concerned with garage and debris blowing into his neighborhood from the nursing
home.
Larry Knutson, 7421 Glenwood Avenue, is concerned with commercial and residential property
abutting his house and other residentially zoned property. He would like to see everyone's privacy
maintained. He would like to see the planting of more mature trees or fencing and the building
lowered so people from the proposed facility are not looking into his back yard and windows. He is
also concerned with the existing lack of maintenance along the east side of the property by Unicare.
.
Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing.
Mr. Palec addressed the landscape plan and said he would be willing to look at some changes. He
said it was in the best interest of the organization to produce an attractive site. Mr. Palec also
commented that the neighbors solutions may be good for them but does not work with their proposal.
He is not opposed do doing additional landscaping.
Mr. Palec addressed Mr. Knutson's concern on privacy in his back yard. Mr. Palec said that Mr.
Knutson's property is higher than the proposed assisted living facility and there may be windows
facing that direction that look into his back yard. He does not feel that it is his obligation to guarantee
privacy on everyone's property and there are degrees of how much can be done.
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development commented that the landscaping plan is a
preliminary plan and the Commission can request that additional landscaping be included as part of
the final plan.
Commissioner Pentel asked about the enclosed trash areas which are mentioned in the staff memo
but not shown on the design plan. Mark Grimes commented that the manager of Trevilla, Mr. Larry
Vander Poel, is now constructing fencing around the trash containers. The proposed facility and
nursing home would share the same trash area but Mr. Grimes questioned whether there couldn't be
enclosed trash areas for each building.
.
Chair Prazak commented that he was pleased that the applicant met with the neighboring residents to
discuss the proposal. He believes a facility of this nature is needed, is a good option for people, and
that this site is an appropriate use.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 12, 1996 .
Page Four
Commissioner Kapsner commented that he liked the proposal of an assisted living facility. He feels
the neighbors concerns can be addressed. Mr. Kapsner would like to see that as many trees remain
on the site as possible and asked staff if there was someone who could address the tree concern on
this site. Mark Grimes said he would contact the City Forester, AI Lundstrom, to take a look at the
existing trees and make a recommendation on the life of the trees. Mr. Kapsner also commented that
the developer should take particular care to reduce soil erosion as much as possible during
construction.
Commissioner McAleese commented that if the neighbors see soil erosion happening on the site,
they need to call the City about these problems.
Commissioner Pentel would like to see that all green space be maintained and groomed throughout
the growing season. Ms. Pentel is in favor of putting a condition in the permit with language that says
that all green space will be maintained throughout the growing season, that the landscaping will be
maintained, and more fir trees will be provided on the site.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City
Council approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for Trevilla of Golden Valley P.U.D. No. 72 with the
following recommendations: 1) As much vegetation remain on the property as possible during
construction and after, 2) all green space be maintained during the growing season, and 3) additional
screening along the east and southeast comer be provided using fir or spruce trees.
III.
Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to JLO Addition P.U.D. No. 66
Applicant:
Jim Lupient Oldsmobile Company
Address:
7000 and 7100 Wayzata Blvd.
Purpose:
Change certain conditions in the existing P.U.D. Permit relative to delaying
or eliminating certain site improvements
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, gave a brief summary of his staff report to the
Planning Commission. Mr. Grimes talked about the proposed face lift to the main building, the
proposed Infiniti addition and landscaping. He said that Mr. Lupient is requesting this amendment
because he will not be able to complete certain site improvements which are outlined in the original
P.U.D. Permit approved by the City Council on April 18, 1995. The City requested Mr. Lupient submit
of Letter of Credit and personal guarantee the he would make some improvements to the site.
Director Grimes told the Commission that the planned changes to the site would be the construction
of the Inifiniti building, along with landscaping, a reduced amount of repaving and placement of curb
and gutter - new curb and gutter will be placed only around the new Infiniti building and along Market
Street. There will also be beefed-up landscaping along the west side of the lot. The lighting plan has
been scratched at this time.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 12, 1996
Page Five
.
Commissioner Pentel asked how many pylon signs will be on the site and Mr. Grimes said three
pylon signs which is what the permit now states. Mr. Grimes also said that City staff needs to review
all signage on the site to insure that it meets the city sign ordinances.
Commissioner Groger asked if the setback areas would be met. Director Grimes said the setback
will be met on the west side of the lot except where the turn around will be located in the front of the
Infiniti building. The Infiniti building will meet all setback requirements. Director Grimes said that no
other buildings on the lot meet required setbacks. Also, most of the parking areas do not meet the
setback requirements found in the Industrial Zoning District.
Doug Sailor, representative for the Jim Lupient Oldsmobile Company, talked about the proposed
Infiniti dealership and that Mr. Lupient had decided, some time ago, to wait on the upgrading of the
site until after the 1-394 construction. Mr. Sailor commented that the Infiniti dealership site is very
small and will have a low intensity use. He also commented on the main building, saying that
Oldsmobile wants to upgrade the main building by the year 2000 and this was a motivating factor to
upgrade the entire site. Mr. Sailor said that a critical mistake was made when Lupient did not factor
in all the cost for doing the site improvements as stipulated in the PUD. These total costs for site
improvements cannot be financed.
Commissioner Kapsner talked about his concern at the Market Street entrance to the site. He
believes the landscaping around the entrance should be maintained. Commissioner Kapsner asked
if some curb and gutter work would be done. Mr. Sailor commented that curb and gutter would be
placed along the west side of the lot and to the front of the Infiniti dealership and at the entrance to
Market Street.
.
Chair Prazak asked what area of the parking lot would not be repaved. Mr. Sailor said repaving
would be done around the Infiniti dealership and that the remainder of the parking lot would be seal
coated and striped. Some blacktop would have to be replaced where utility work is done.
Commissioner Groger asked about green space along Market Street. Mr. Sailor said the plan looks a
little deceiving but there will be a 35 foot setback that will be landscaped.
Commissioner Pentel asked about new lighting standards which would be located around the Infiniti
dealership. Mr. Sailor commented that no new lighting standards will be erected at this time, and in
fact, six lights have been removed. He also said that eventually all the lighting would be replaced.
Chair Prazak commented that he was concerned with all the cutbacks in landscaping. Director
Grimes said that the applicant is not cutting back on the previously approved green space along the
west side of the lot which is in the original PUD package.
Commissioner Groger asked which areas of the lot are subject to flooding. Mr. Sailor commented
that there is flooding in front of the building to the east, which has been a problem area but usually
occurs only twice a year. Mr. Sailor also said that the drainage from the site will connect to both the
MnDOT drainage system and to an existing pipe along Market Street.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 12, 1996
Page Six
. Commission Groger also asked about the traffic flow through the property which was a concern when
the application came before the Commission late last summer. Mr. Sailor said they have widened the
entrance drive to Market Street and they will be restriping.
Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works, commented that there may be a problem with the
surcharging in the pipe and that Mr. Lupient needs to understand that the City is not responsible for
water in his parking lot if the drainage system on-site over flows.
Commissioner Kapsner commented that the applicant is not proposing anything that is different from
the original P.U.D. application. He continued by saying that the land is peaty and the lot will probably
need fixing in the next 5 or 10 years.
Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Chair Prazak closed the
informal public hearing.
Commissioner McAleese feels there are two issues before the Planning Commission; a planning
issue which is relatively minor and a policy issue. Commissioner McAleese is concerned that the
system did not work correctly in that a policy was decided by making an agreement with Mr. Lupient
before the amendment came back to the Planning Commission which he feels is only a technical
housing cleaning. issue. Commissioner McAleese feels that because the City Council gave the go
ahead through the Letter of Credit and personal guarantee, the Planning Commission is bound to
approve the amended plans. Commissioner McAleese noted that the City Engineer's concern about
flooding should be added to any permit change.
.
Commissioner Groger felt that the issue before the Planning Commission had already been approved
before coming to the Planning Commission because of the Letter of Credit being accepted and a
permit issued for the Infiniti building. He is concerned with the fact that the applicant could not meet
his deadline to complete improvements to the site. He is also concerned that Mr. Lupient proceeded
to amend his PUD permit before the Commission had a chance to review the plans. Mr. Grimes
commented that the issue was that Mr. Lupient was not going to get the improvements done before
the deadline of November 15 and there was not enough time to bring the plan back to the
Commission before the deadline. The Council met with Mr. Lupient, in late 1995, and the outcome
was a Letter of Credit and personal guarantee to do certain improvements if the building permit for
Infiniti was issued. Mr. Lupient also agreed to amend the PUD indicating his reduced plans.
Director Grimes commented that Mr. Lupient is operating under the current PUD and that the
Planning Commission can recommend not to approve the amendment to JLO Addition P.U.D. No. 66.
Mr. Sailor commented that the Letter of Credit needs to be interpreted by the attorneys on what the
letter guarantees and what improvements need to be made.
City Planner Beth Knoblauch said she believes the correct action would be that the City has the right
not to issue an occupancy permit if the amendment fails.
.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 12, 1996
Page Seven
Commissioner McAleese iterated what City Planner Knoblauch said that if the amendment is denied
the lnfiniti Dealership cannot be occupied. Mr. Sailor commented that in reality, that if the City denies
the amendment, the Infiniti building construction would stop and Mr. Lupient would take the loss - he
cannot afford $700,000 in improvements.
Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works commented that the agreement provided for certain
improvements, ie landscaping and storm sewer improvements.
Commissioner Kapsner commented that he believes that Mr. Lupient did not try to pull a fast one on
the City when he came in with the PUD request and that he made an honest error in cost calculation.
Commissioner Kapsner believes this is a viable project and the City should work with him. Chair
Prazak and Commissioner Lewis agreed with Commissioner Kapsner.
Chair Prazak said that once the Infiniti building and landscaping is completed, Mr. Lupient will have
an incentive to complete improvements to the property.
Commissioner Groger said he could not support the amendment because the property is
nonconforming per City Code and aesthetically nonconforming. He continued by saying that by
creating a PUD to allow for an additional building on an already crowded lot causes a problem and
sets a dangerous precedent in the City. The applicant is getting another building on a nonconforming
building.
MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McAleese and motion carried by a vote of 6-1 to recommend
approval to the City Council for the amendment to JLO Addition P.U.D. No. 66 with the following two
conditions: 1) the landscaping plans for the west side of the property reflect the original PUD
landscape plan submitted and 2) the City is not responsible for flooding on the Jim Lupient
Oldsmobile site because of the drainage system chosen to serve the site by Lupient.
(Commissioner Lewis left the meeting at 9:20pm.)
IV. Review of Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Don Taylor, Finance Director and Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works were available to answer
questions from the Planning Commission regarding the CIP.
Commissioner Pentel asked if the City Council had already approved the spending of $895,000 for
the Schaper Property. Mr. Taylor said no that this money is budgeted through Park Improvements
found on Page 84 of the CIP. Mr. Taylor said the Council is in the process of dealing with this issue.
He requested that this issue be left in the CIP because staff must anticipate what is going to happen
with the property. Commissioner Pentel believes that the Schaper Property is more of a
Comprehensive Land Use issue.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by McAleese to remove this issue from the CIP.
.
.
.
'Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 12, 1996
Page Eight
Commissioner Kapsner commented onthe shortfall of money for the schools and asked Mr. Taylor
what he sees for the future of city regarding state funding in the next two to four years. Mr. Taylor
commented that homestead and HACA helps reduce the tax levy burden on tax payers. He believes
the revenue picture is looking better but the City can expect to see reductions in the amount of state
aid received.
Commissioner Kapsner said he was concerned with the motion that Commissioner Pentel made to
remove the Schaper Property item from the CIP. Mr. Taylor said he would like to remain in the CIP
so the property can be planned for. Mr. Taylor also said that the Planning Commission can make the
City Council aware of their concerns through this review process.
Commissioner McAleese asked staff what purpose the Planning Commission played if the
Commission isn't making any changes. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development,
commented that the CIP is a planning document and therefore needs to be reviewed by the
Commission. Commissioner McAleese said that if he believes that the document is not consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, then the document should not be approved.
MOVED by Groger, seconded by Johnson and motion carried by a vote of 4-2 to recommend to the
City Council approval of the Capital Improvement Plan.
Commissioner Pentel asked about expenditures on sidewalk improvements. Fred Salsbury
commented that there are problems with constructing sidewalks because there are many areas in the
City where residents do not want sidewalks.
V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. City Council. and
Board of Zoning Appeals
No reports were given due.
VI. Other Business - Visit with Mayor Mary Anderson and Council Member Jan LeSuer
Mayor Anderson and Member LeSuer talked with the Planning Commission about Commission
meetings being cable cast which will begin sometime in 1996.
Mayor Anderson and Member LeSuer briefly talked about the Hidden Lakes Planned Unit
Development with the Commission.
VII. Adjournment
Chair Prazak adjourned the meeting at 10:05pm.
Jean Lewis, Secretary
.
.
.
. "'
Minutes of the Golden Valley
Planning Commission
February 26, 1996
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, .Council
Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by
Chair Prazak at 7:05pm.
Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, McAleese, and Prazak; those absent
Kapsner, Lewis and Pentel. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development;
Elizabeth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Planning Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - February 12. 1996
Not available.
II Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, and
Board of Zoning Appeals
Chair Prazak gave a report on the City Council meeting of 2/6/96.
III. Other Business
A. Discussion of rezoning the property located at 5400 Glenwood Avenue
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development told the commission that the discussion to follow
would be to inform the proposed applicant whether the property located at 5400 Glenwood Avenue
should be rezoned or should staff consider a text amendment of the Zoning Code to permit office
uses in the Institutional (1-3) Zoning District. Director Grimes gave a brief summary of the history of
the property. He talked about the parking for clinics vs. offices whereby clinics having a much higher
parking ratio than office use. The problem with a text amendment to the Zoning Code is that office
buildings may not fit into some districts and may be too close to residential areas.
City Planner Beth Knoblauch briefly talked about the City's concern of not wanting medical office
buildings in the B&PO District because of the higher need for parking. City Planner Knobluach also
commented that the building at 5400 Glenwood Avenue has residential to the south of it and the
entire lot is non-conforming. Director Grimes stated that the City does not encourage rezoning of lots
that are non-conforming and that this has never been done in the City.
Kay Harris, Kay Harris Real Estate Consultants, requested staff to review the issue of whether this
site could be rezoned. She gave a brief history of the building use commenting that the immediate
use for this building in today's market would be for office use, and by rezoning the site there should
be less traffic generated than a medical office building.
Commissioner McAleese asked staff if this discussion would decide whether to hold a hearing for a
text amendment or a rezoning. City Planner Knoblauch commented that either the owner of the
building or Kay Harris would be coming in request a text change to the zoning code or a rezoning of
the property at 5400 Glenwood Avenue.
Chair Prazak said he was concerned with changing the language of the zoning code.
.
.
.
,..-~ ~" .
. '
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 26, 1996
Page Two
Commissioner Groger commented that the 1-3 District has a wide range of uses and is concerned
with this. He continued by saying that he would not want to have an office building located next to' a
nursing home. Commissioner Groger said that he is leaning toward a rezoning of the property vs.
changing the uses of the 1-3 District.
Commissioner McAleese said that the City can't make changes every time an owner has a difficult
time selling a building due to market instability.
Director Grimes commented that the people who should buy this building would be the school district.
Kay Harris said that the district is looking for funding -- they have no money to buy the building.
Chair Prazak thanked Kay Harris for her time.
No action was taken.
B. Review of Attendance
Chair Prazak reviewed the attendance of the Commissioners.
IV. Adjournment
Chair Prazak adjourned the meeting at 7:40pm.
Jean Lewis, Secretary
.
.
e
MEMORANDUM
Date:
April 2, 1996
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mary Dold, Planning Secretary
Subject:
Election of Officers
According to the Planning Commission By-Laws, Section 1, the annual meeting of the
Planning Commission should take place at its first meeting in March. Due to the lack
of agendas in March and the Council not making appointments until their first meeting
in April, election of officers was delayed.
Section 11 states that Commission shall elect a Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary and such
other officers as it may deem necessary at its annual meeting.
mkd
i,.
e
MEMORANDUM
Date:
April 2, 1996
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
Subject:
Housing Plan/Livable Communities Action Plan
Please find attached a draft version of the long-awaited (not to mention just plain long)
staff report on housing in Golden Valley. Staff expect this report to provide the source
material for the housing plan update. The map exhibits are in somewhat more of a
draft state than the rest of the report at this point; Mark Grimes is still looking into
options for producing more polished versions, since the City's Engineering staff are
pretty well tied up in public works projects. Several portions of the statistical analysis
section do not exist except as headings; staff determined that the types of analysis
involved were not particularly useful for a community like Golden Valley and/or could
not be cost-effectively undertaken.
e
Comments regarding the adequacy of the report are expected to be available from the
Metro Council by the time of next week's workshop session. They were originally
promised for a month ago, but Metro Council staff are running a little behind schedule
on many things. Final updated guidelines for required content of housing plan
background studies were supposed to. be available from the Metro Council a year ago
but still have not been seen by staff. The good news is that, despite the number of
omitted statistical analyses in staff's report, preliminary Metro Council comments
indicate that "very few substantive changes will be required."
The City must approve a Livable Communities Action Plan by June of this year, and
forward it to the Metro Council. Staff and Metro Council agree that it would be
desirable to complete the entire housing plan update at the same time, but staff
realize that such an endeavor may be too ambitious for the time frame involved. Mark
Grimes will be attending a Metro Council meeting on Action Plan content later this
month, and will then be able to report back on how much of the general housing plan
update absolutely must be finished by June. At next week's workshop session, Mark
will provide background on Golden Valley's Livable Communities activities to date.
.
With less than a week to prepare for the workshop session, staff do not necessarily
expect all commissioners to fully absorb the entire housing report by then. Luckily, a
large chunk of the report consists of appendices that support and expand on the main
sections but are not vital to an understanding of the conclusions and recommenda-
tions in the report. Please try to get through the main sections and be prepared to
discuss any information that appears inadequate, incorrect, or confusing, as well as
e
e
.
any conclusions or recommendations that staff may have missed. Proofreading or
style corrections will be accepted as well. Sharp eyes will probably catch quite a few.
Finally, please be prepared to begin discussions of how the Planning Commission
would like to proceed with the housing plan update now that the staff end of the
projectis substantially complete. For example, should ongoing planning sessions be
scheduled on nights separate from public hearings, and if so, how often and when?
Would the Planning Commission like to schedule a joint meeting with the City Council,
and/or possibly the Human Rights Commission, to discuss the plan update, and if so,
at what point in the process?
EAK:mkd
Attachment: Draft Version of Housing Plan/Livable Communities Action Plan
-2-
J ?
.
.
.
..~
.
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
FOR THE GOLDEN VALLEY
HOUSING PLAN
. c
. Contents
Introduction iv
I. REVIEW OF GOLDEN VALLEY'S EXISTING HOUSING PLAN
AND OVERVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 1
:
Legal requirements 1
Definitions 2
Goals, Objectives, and Policies 2
Programs and Standards 3
II. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC HOUSING GOAL
AREAS 4
Affordability 6
Nondiscrimination 9
Variety 11
III. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF GOLDEN VALLEY'S HOUSING
STOCK 14
. Types of Housing and Occupancy 14
IV. ANALYSIS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING EFFORTS IN
GOLDEN VALLEY . .' ~ 'It";- . 16
City Code Provisions 17
Projects and Programs 20
V. LAND AVAILABLE FOR HOUSING IN GOLDEN VALLEY 30
Infill Sites 31
Miscellaneous Plan Amendment Options 38
Potential Loss of Existing Multi-Unit Housing 38
VI. SUMMARY STATEMENTS 42
AdditionalComments on Specific Housing Goal Areas 42
Analysis of Affordable Housing Efforts 44
Land Available for Housing 48
.
i
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY LISTING OF GOAL, OBJECTIVE,
ACTION AND POLICY STATEMENTS IN EXISTING (1982)
HOUSING PLAN A-1
As Currently Stated A-1
With Suggested Changes A-4
APPENDIX B: ANALYSIS OF AFFORDABLE-SIZED LOTS
IN GOLDEN VALLEY B-1
APPENDIX C: BACKGROUND ON GOLDEN VALLEY'S
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS C-1
Dover Hill PUD Project
Single Family Home Rehabilitation Program
Scattered Site Housing Project
Calvary Square Senior High Rise PUD Project
Medley Park Townhouse PUD Project
Ewald Site - Early Efforts
Mallard Creek Apartment PUD Project
Duluth and Douglas Senior Housing Project
Laurel Ponds Apartment Project
Minimal Frontage Subdivision Program
Ewald Site-Schatzlein Project
First-Time Home Buyers Program
Ewald Site - Habitat for Humanity Project
C-8
C-11
C-13
C-17
C-21
C-24
C-27
C-29
C-31
C-33
C-35
C-38
C-40
, .
.
.
.
, <
,
'"
. Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Housing Goals Agreement, Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act 5
Exhibit 2: Federally Subsidized Housing in Fully-Developed
, Metro Area Communities, 1994 8
Exhibit 3: Multi-Unit Developments in Golden Valley 12
Exhibit 4: Type and Occupancy of Golden Valley's Housing Stock 15
Exhibit 5: Selected Single Family Infill Areas 33
Exhibit 6: Designated Multi-Unit Development Areas 35
Exhibit 7: Existing Multi-Unit Developments Not Shown on
Comprehensive Plan Map 40
Exhibit 8-1 : Areas of Affordable Sized Lots in Golden Valley 8-2
. Exhibit 8-2: Subdivisions Containing Lots of 8,500 S.F. or Less 8-4
Exhibit C-1 : Locations of Golden Valley's Affordable Housing
Projects and Programs C-2
.
iii
} ,
r
}O
.
INTRODUCTION
This technical report serves as the basis for updating Golden Valley's 1982
housing plan. The plan itself will remain a separate document, shorter and
more to the point than earlier versions. It will contain the legally required
elem~nts for local housing plans, along with a very brief synopsis of key
information. Those readers looking for additional background information and
analysis will be directed to this report.
This report, in contrast, contains a broader review of existing conditions, legal
requirements, past housing efforts, and opportunities for future efforts. It is
broken down into a number of sections concentrating on various types of
issues. At the end of the report is a summary of the major findings for each
section and accompanying lists of suggested policy and objective responses. A
certain number of identical or substantially similar suggestions appear from
section to section, because different avenues of study tended to lead back in
the same direction. It is not intended that the City should necessarily adopt all
of the suggested items, or that any suggestion must be adopted exactly as
presented, but they are all options worth considering now or at the time of some
future update. No new goal areas are discussed; it is assumed that any .
updated housing plan will still be organized around the four established goal
areas of variety, afford ab i1ity, nondiscrimination, and quality in housing.
The two-document system is expected to provide several benefits over a
combined-document format. First and foremost, it will allow for a more
readable plan. With only the most important information being covered,
readers will find it easier to locate what they need. 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 be satisfied with just the plan,
which will minimize copying costs and wasted paper. Many cities are using this
pared down approach for their plans.
On an administrative level there are benefits as well. The increasing age of the
statistical data in the 1982 plan causes some readers to needlessly question
whether the plan itself is still valid; removing or minimizing such background
information will return the focus to the plan's goals, objectives, and policies,
where it belongs. Updating the statistical background itself will be a more
streamlined process when it doesn't get bogged down in the mandated
statutory process for plan updates; if all the City wants to do is substitute a
more current value in a table, and the new number doesn't generate any
concern over existing housing goals, there is no reason for it not to be an
administrative action.
.
;"
,
"
.
.
.
) ~
This technical report will still be a public document. It is important to be able to
explain the basis for the City's housing 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.
v
I. REVIEW OF GOLDEN VALLEY'S EXISTING HOUSING PLAN
AND OVERVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Under state law, a housing plan is a required comprehensive plan element for
all communities in the Twin Cities Metro Area. Golden Valley has maintained a
housing plan since 1973. The existing plan was adopted in 1982 and has
remail1ed unchanged for over a dozen years.
What most people notice first about the plan today is that its background data
are no longer current; however, such data are not a required p.art of the plan
under state law. A matter of much greater concern should be the clarity and
applicability of those plan statements that are legally required. As long as they
remain current and understandable, the plan itself can be considered valid.
The former point must be settled by the Planning Commission and the City
Council after due deliberation. With regard to the latter point, experience has
demonstrated over the past dozen years that the plan suffers somewhat from
poor organization, incorrect classification of statements, and unclear language.
Legal Requirements
Golden Valley is subject to planning requirements established for all Minnesota
cities and to additional requirements applicable only within the Twin Cities
Metro Area. Generally speaking, state law identifies a comprehensive plan and
its elements as consisting of "statements of policies, goals, and standards"
(MS 462.352, Subd. 5). It further specifies that Metro Area communities must
have housing plans "containing standards, plans, and programs for providing
adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and
regional housing needs, including but not limited to the use of official controls
and land use planning to pfomote the availability of land for the development of
low and moderate income housing" (MS 473.859, Subd. 2).
State law does not offer any legal definitions of the terms "goal", "policy",
"program", or "standard". "Objective", another term beloved by planners
everywhere - and used in Golden Valley's housing plan - does not appear in
state law at all. On the other hand, statutes do refer to plan implementation; a
plan's objectives generally provide the basic blueprint for its implementation, so
their inclusion in this discussion is appropriate.
) (
,.
...
.
.
.
.
Definitions
Before proceeding with a review of Golden Valley's existing housing plan, it will
be useful to establish definitions of the five key terms identified above. The
City's overall comprehensive plan does include an appendix with definitions of
terms used in various plan sections, but it offers no guidance on these
particular terms. The following definitions have been compiled from standard
dictionaries and planning references specifically for use in this report. It is
recommended that they also be used to guide the formatting of any new
material added to the plan through this updating process.
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.
Objective - An intermediate milestone on the way toward a goal; objectives a[e
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
Golden Valley presently has just one specified housing goal (Appendix A). It
offers a composite ideal based on variety, afford ability, nondiscrimination, and
quality in housing. There are then four listed objectives, which appear to be
nothing more than expanded re-statements of the four criteria embodied in the
goal statement. They fail to meet the definition of "objective", which would
require that they reflect measurable and contained actions. The plan's Clarity
would be much improved by eliminating the existing, composite goal statement
and renaming the four objective statements as the City's housing goals.
Additional clarification would be gained by refining the statements regarding
. variety and affordability, to better distinguish between the two.
2
....
r ,
,
,
.
Affordability is the only one of the four goal areas that is mandated within state
planning legislation. Nondiscrimination fits in neatly with other state and federal
regulations for fair housing practices. Variety is an important component of the
state's recently-passed Livable Communities legislation. Quality is generally
the area of greatest concern at the local level. Thus, it makes sense to keep
each of the four goal areas in the plan. Separating them into individual
statements will help to ensure that adequate emphasis is given to each
element.
If the existing objectives are reclassified as goals, where does that leave the
City with regard to objectives? The plan identifies eight "action" statements,
some of which meet the definition of "objective".. Others would be more
appropriately reclassified as policies. The usefulness of some of these eight
statements is open to debate. For most, there is no record of any serious
attempt at execution. Those action statements that are determined to be still
current should be retained and renamed as either objectives or policies, with
any rewording that may be necessary to improve clarity or specificity.
There are fifteen policy statements in the existing housing plan. Several of
them fail to meet the requirements of the term "policy", in that they are not .
specific enough to offer any guidance in the decision-making process. Some
statements do nothing more than repeat a goal statement in somewhat different
words. Other statements are adequate for use as policies, but may actually go
too far in their specificity. All existing policy statements should be reviewed for
clarity and specificity, and subsequently reworded or deleted as appropriate.
Programs and Standards
Neither programs nor standards are grouped into a separate statement
category in the existing housing plan. This does not necessarily mean that they
are not represented as required by law.
There are several statements, in the form of both policies and objectives, that
convey Golden Valley's intent to rely primarily on housing programs already
available through other agencies. To the extent that such statements are clear
and realistic, and refer to programs that still exist, they would fulfill the
requirement that housing plans must identify programs to help meet planning
goals. All applicable goal and policy statements should be reviewed with this
thought in mind.
The plan is weak in its inclusion of standards. There is a policy adopting HUD
standards for housing quality, but those standards are not enumerated in or
appended to the plan, nor can a copy be found anywhere in City Hall. There
.
3
,
,
.
.
.
, <
are no standards established for variety, afford ability, or nondiscrimination.
Where such standards are found necessary or desirable in order to help
measure specific policy or objective criteria, or general goal progress, they
should be spelled out.
Summary
There "7s no tabular listing of findings, potential policy implications, and
suggested action plan components for this section, since it deals only with
already-existing goals, policies and objectives. A summary of suggested
changes to the various plan statements is provided in Appendix A.
II. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC
.., HOUSING GOAL AREAS
It was noted in the preceding section that the goal areas of affordability,
nondiscrimination, and variety are all impacted to some extent by state or
federal legislation, and that one benefit of splitting the 1982 composite housing
goal into its four component areas is easier assessment of whether appropriate
attention is being given to each area. It may be useful then, to look at changes
that have occurred with regard to affordability, nondiscrimination, and variety in
housing since the 1982 plan was adopted. Altered circumstances may call for
new policies or objectives.
One piece of legislation passed in 1995 is expected to have an impact on both
affordability and variety: the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act ("Livable
Communities"). This act establishes a program through which Metro Area
communities become eligible to apply for certain types of project funding by
formally agreeing to make serious effort toward providing a fair share of
affordable and Iife-cycle housing for the region. The Metro Council is charged
with overseeing the program; it will report annually to the state legislature on
the participation and progress of each community. The Golden Valley City
Council passed a resolution stating its intent to participate in the program's first
year, which began on January 1, 1996.
Six housing indicators have been selected as appropriate measures of
affordable and Iife-cycle housing (Exhibit 1). Using a sector and ring approach,
the Metro Council has grouped all communities into clusters; Golden Valley
shares a cluster with Hopkins and St. Louis Park. The Metro Council has also
identified "benchmark" ranges in each cluster of communities for each of the six
selected housing indicators. Finally, the Metro Council has calculated where
each community ranks today with regard to each indicator. Participating
4
Exhibit 1:
DRAFT
HOUSING GOALS AGREEl\'IENT
METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
PRINCIPLES
The city of Golden Valley supports:
.
1. A balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels.
2. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and
location of housing within the community.
3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life-cycle.
4. A community orwell-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership
and rental housing. r,:J
5. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while
striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs.
6. The availability or a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the
improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment.
GOALS
To carry out the above housing principles, the City of Golden Valley agrees to use
benchmark indicators for communities of similar location and stage of development as
affordable and Ufe-qcle housing goals for the period 1996 to 2010, and to make its best
efforts, given market conditions and resource availability, to remain within or make
progress toward these benchmarks.
CIrY INDEX
BENCHMARK ill
GOAL
AfTordabmty
Ownenhip
Rental
60%
60-77%
62%
45%
37~1%
45%
Ufe-Cyde
Type (Non-single family
detached) .
37-41%
18%
31%
Owner/renter Mix
(64-67) I
(33-36)%
79121%
79/21 %
Density
Single-Family Detached
1.8-2.9/acre
2.21acre
2.2Iacre
Multifamily 10lacre 14-1S1acre 121acre.
(11/acre - City Estimate)
To.achieve the above goals, the City of Golden Vaney elects.to participate in the
M~tropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Program, and will
prepare and submit a plan to the Metropolitan Council by June 30,1996, indicating the
actions it will take to carry out the above goals.
CERTIFICATION
Mayor
Date
} ,
r
,
.
.
.
, ,
,
,
.
communities were required to negotiate goals with the Metro Council, aimed at
attaining or remaining within all established benchmark ranges. The next
required step is to draw up an action plan for moving toward the negotiated
goals; when finished, it will be considered part of the community's housing plan.
Key Livable Communities terms do not match the terms and definitions
established for this report. Livable Communities benchmarks, for a fully
developed community such as Golden Valley, come closest to being goals as
defined here: idealized end states that in most cases the City is not realistically
going to meet any time soon. Then there are Livable Communities goals,
which appear to fall somewhere between goals and objectives as defined for
this report; they are specific and measurable, like objectives, but are intended
to run for a longer period of time and may be impossible to fully achieve if
market forces are not cooperative. Finally, there are references in the Livable
Communities guidelines and other literature to goals in some sort of yearly
sense. Metro Council advisors say those are not the same as the goals to
which Golden Valley has committed itself by participating in the Livable
Communities program, but no definitions are provided in the literature and the
distinction in context is often quite vague. This report will attempt to specify the
Livable Communities program whenever referring to "goals" affiliated with it.
. Affordability
Golden Valley must consider two separate aspects of affordability. The Livable
Communiti~s concept of "affordable" is oriented toward modest, but still market-
rate, housing opportunities. Participating in the Livable Communities program,
however, does not exempt cities from earlier state legislation requiring local
provision of housing for low- and moderate-income individuals and families.
The bulk of that housing generally must have some sort of publiC subsidy in
order to remain affordable to its target population.
Livable Communities - Two of the indicators selected for use in this program
are affordability of rental housing and affordability of ownership housing. The
Metro Council's benchmark for rental housing in Golden Valley is that 37 to 41
percent of all rental units should be affordable to households with incomes at
one-half of the regional median income. The Metro Council has determined
that, in actuality, 45 percent of the City's rental housing is affordable under this
definition. Golden Valley is therefore comfortably above the entire benchmark
range, meaning that there is no immediate need for the City to be seeking
affordable rental development projects for the purpose of participating in
Livable Communities.
.
6
In the area of ownership housing, 60 percent of Golden Valley's residences are
considered by the Metro Council to be affordable to households with incomes at
80 percent of the regional median. The established benchmark range is 60 to
77 percent. With the City barely meeting the benchmark on ownership
affordability, there will probably be a need for increased efforts to promote
afforda.ble new construction. Golden Valley is experiencing slow but steady
infill home-building, but it tends toward the higher end of the market; even this
trickle could be enough to push the City out the bottom end of the benchmark
range in a few years unless it is balanced by more affordable units. Smaller lot
size or multi-unit structural types are the most common ways for local
governments to control ownership affordability.
Subsidized Housing - As explained above, participation in the Livable
Communities program does not exempt cities from the pre-existing state
mandate regarding local provision of low- and moderate-income housing. The
current law has not changed since Golden Valley adopted its 1982 housing
plan; however, its administration - again under the charge of the Metro Council
- has undergone some changes in response to changing economic conditions.
As with Livable Communities, goals for the older legislation have been based
on a "fair share" concept.
Originally, the Metro Council established specific allocations of affordable
housing units for each community to provide over a certain period of time. In
1985, the Metro Council moved away from that quota system because of the
sharply reduced availability offederal housing subsidies and the increase in
housing construction costs. In place of the quotas is more of a "best effort"
system, with a variety of recommended policies and actions identified by the
Metro Council to help communities keep housing at an affordable level.
Nevertheless, federally subsidized housing projects remain the major source of
housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households in most Metro
Area suburbs.
According to the Metro Council, 3.9 percent of Golden Valley's 1994 housing
stock was federally subsidized (Exhibit 2). This translates to 332 housing units,
of which 213 are reserved for senior citizens. Region-wide, the average is 5.8
percent of all units. If Golden Valley compares itself to its fully developed
suburban neighbors, it holds a three-way tie with Robbinsdale and St. Louis
Park. Neighboring New Hope comes closer to the regional average, but Crystal
has not done as well.
J .
r
,
.
.
.
, ,
.
Exhibit 2: Federally Subsidized Housing in
Fully-Developed Metro Area Communities, 1994
Rank Community Percent B.ank Community Percent
1 St. Paul 10.0 14 Roseville 3.2
2 Minneapolis 8.7 15 New Brighton 3.1
3 South St. Paul 7.6 16 Fridley 3.0
4 West St. Paul 6.8 17 Bloomington 2.8
5 Hopkins 5.5 18 Edina 2.6
6 Brooklyn Center 5.1 19 Mendota 2.6 .
7 Columbia Heights 4.7 20 Crystal 1.3
8 New Hope 4.7 21 St. Anthony (Henn Co) 1.0
9 Spring Lake Park 4.7 22 Falcon Heights 0.6
10 Golden Valley 3.9 23 Hilltop 0.5
11 Robbinsdale 3.9 24 Fort Snelling 0.0
. 12 St. Louis Park 3.9 25 Lauderdale
13 Richfield 3.3 26 Lilydale
27 St. Anthony (Ramsey Co)
Source: "Opening Doors to Affordable/Life Cycle Housing"
Metropolitan Council, March 1995
The biggest concern for Golden Valley at this time is that its subsidized units
were all constructed by private developers under agreements that only required
them to remain in a subsidy program for a specified number of years. Those
developments are now at or approaching the end of the required subsidy
period. If they are converted to market rate units, Golden Valley will be left with
a serious deficiency in housing that is affordable to the poorest segment of the
population. As documented elsewhere (Appendix C), the City's subsidized
developments were not easy to site even at a time when Golden Valley still had
vacant land available and federal dollars were abundant. As a fully-developed
community looking at limited federal assistance, the City could find those
subsidized units impossible to replace.
.
8
One alternative might be to return to the scattered-site concept, where smaller
developments ~ usually with townhouse or duplex style construction rather than
apartments - are located on widely dispersed parcels of land as they become
available. It may also be possible to convert some existing apartments or
currently nonresidential buildings to a subsidy program. Some experts have
recommended that the entire federal subsidy system be reoriented to more of a
vouch~r basis in place of the current project-based programs, but managers of
many market-rate developments find participation in a voucher program
undesirable; if the use of vouchers is likely to increase, the City might want to
open discussions with local property managers and attempt to learn what it
would take to raise their comfort level. The best possible alternative, of course,
would be for existing subsidized units to remain in a subsidy program; there
again, it might be helpful for the City to sit down with the affected property
owners and talk about their plans and any options that may be available for
keeping the units affordable.
Nondiscrimination
Golden Valley was one of the first Metro Area communities to establish a
Human Rights Commission (HRC). Now more than thirty years old, this body is
charged with monitoring and implementing the City's policy of encouraging "the
establishment and development, both publicly and privately, of equal
opportunity and fair treatment and practices in employment, housing, public
transportation, public accommodations and education for all individuals without
regard to race, color, creed, sex, religion, affiliations, national origin, or
ancestrY' (City Code Sec 2.53). During the 1970's and early 1980's, when
Golden Valley was building its subsidized housing stock, the HRC was very
active in housing matters. In more recent years, the HRC's involvement in that
area has decreased along with the overall decline in housing activity. Today,
given increasing concerns about such issues as group homes and the possible
loss of subsidized housing units, the City may want to again expand the HRC's
housing role. .
Group Homes - Increasing state and federal protection of a variety of group
living situations is of growing concern as a discrimination problem. Broadly
speaking, a group home, referred to in state law as a "residential facility", is a
standard dwelling owned by a public or private business venture and used to
provide common shelter for varying numbers of unrelated adults or minors
affected by some physical or mental disability or other characteristic that would
otherwise make it unlikely or impossible for them to enjoy the benefits of normal
household living. Residents may stay at a group home for anywhere from a
few days to many years, depending on the purpose of the facility. They may be
locked in during their stay, or may have varying degrees of mobility. Full-time
staff support is provided for the residents, in the form of live-in or regular or
rotating shift employees.
Q
I ,
.
.
.
.
Golden Valley City Code defines the term "family" to include five or fewer
unrelated individuals if they live together as a common household. The legal
interpretation of this definition is that it also covers group homes as long as no
more than five people live in the residence, including staff as well as clients.
There are some Golden Valley residents who feel that such arrangements are
inappropriate, and they would like to see City Code made more restrictive.
For seVeral years, state law has required cities to accept certain types of
residential facilities as normal, single-family neighborhood uses. The size limit
under state law is six or fewer residents, counting clients only. Earlier versions
of the law specified only facilities having program licenses issued through the
Department of Human Services. Since 1990, that language has been
generalized to the point where it is impossible for cities to determine exactly
what types of facilities the law covers today.
.
There have been changes on the federal fair housing front as well. Federal law
prohibits discrimination against persons in a variety of categories with regard to
housing occupancy. Discrimination under the law has been determined to
extend to cities if they refuse to make "reasonable accommodation in rules,
policies, practices or services." Determining the precise meaning of terms such
as "person" and "reasonable aCCQmmodation", and establishing the extent of
any legitimate exclusions to the legislation, has taken several years and a
number of court challenges. Some points remain unresolved today. In a 1995
decision, the U. S. Supreme Court determined that cities cannot use zoning
restrictions (such as Golden Valley's limitation on the number of unrelated
individuals who may constitute a family) to keep group homes out of
neighborhoods unless reasonable alternative accommodation has been made.
While state and federal regulations are aiming toward greater mainstreaming of
group homes in residential neighborhoods, Golden Valley's housing plan
makes no mention of this issue. There is ample evidence from the City's own
experience that the opening of a new group home is a disturbing event for the
surrounding neighborhood. The knowledge that the facility in question is state
or federally mandated, or in some instances is fully permitted in accordance
with City Code, does nothing to allay the natural fear of the unknown or
unfamiliar. If such facilities are going to continue to proliferate, it may be time
for Golden Valley to consider options for providing some sort of bridge between
long-time residents and their new neighbors. First steps could include getting a
better grip on the number and types of facilities already in Golden Valley, their
initial impact on the neighbors as opposed to their long-term effect, and the full
extent of state and federal regulations as they stand today. An ongoing
education process might also be useful as a means of reducing the fear factor.
.
10
Subsidized Housing - As noted earlier, Golden Valley is required under state
law to contribute its fair share of low-income housing for the Metro Area. This
is another issue that tends to generate a high level of concern when long-time
residents learn that their neighborhood is being considered as a potential site
for a new development. As with group homes, hearing about fair share
requir~ments does nothing to allay fears of possible negative impacts from
such a development. If the City is going to look at expanding its supply of
subsidized housing units, or at replacing units that have been converted to
market-rate rentals, it would be beneficial to first investigate methods of
bringing the public into the project siting and development process at an early
stage; that way, they can become accustomed to the idea on their own terms
and can make suggestions about improvements to increase their comfort level.
Ongoing education might also be helpful here.
.
Variety
Promoting a diverse housing stock. is at the core of the Livable Communities
program. In addition to the previously-discussed affordability indicators, there
are four others that measure progress toward this end: the proportion of non- .
detached housing. the proportion of rental housing. the density of single-family
housing. and the density of multi-unit housing. Of those four, the Metro Council
has determined that Golden Valley meets its benchmark range only in single-
family density.
Based on the benchmarks, the City needs to add more multi-unit housing and
more rental housing, as well as increasing the overall density of its multi-unit
developments. Because Golden Valley is basically a fully developed com-
munity. the City will need to identify areas suitable for redevelopment in order to
meet Livable Communities goals for its deficient indicators. By focusing on
high-density projects. Golden Valley could maximize its ability to improve its
rating in all three deficient areas with minimal land assembly needs. On the
other hand, higher density also translates to greater environmental concerns,
greater strain on existing infrastructure, and greater neighborhood resistance.
Using aerial photos and generalized land use maps. the Metro Council has
calculated Golden Valley's present multi-unit density at 10 units per acre, while
the benchmark range is set at 14 to 15 units per acre. The Metro Council's
estimate of density does not quite match an in-house analysis based on a
complete list of appropriate developments and their exact acreage (Exhibit 3).
By either calculation, though, the City's Livable Communities participation will .
entail new developments that provide more units per acre than most of the
existing multi-unit developments include. This almost certainly means
apartment-style construction.
11
Exhibit 3: continued .
Name/Location Units Acres U1A Description
South Wirth 60 5.8 10.3 Apartments; built as condos but
501 Wirth Parkway N. mostly forced to rental due to market
Vallee D'or PUD 46 13.9 3.3 Townhouses; ownership basis
7501-7655 Harold Av.
Valley Creek 36 1.8 20.0 Apartments; rental
1370 Douglas Dr.
Valley View 72 5.7 12.6 Apartments; rental
6533-6543 Golden Valley Rd.
Valley Village 111 16.1 6.9 Apartments; rental
600 N. Lilac Dr.
Village Terrace 79 7.4 10.7 Apartments; rental
241-273 Yosemite Circle
Westbrook Manor 21 2.6 8.1 Apartments; rental; currently being
6200 Golden Valley Rd. used as a Residential Facility
(No Name) 6 1.5 4.0 Townhouses; subsidized rental
2100-2122 Douglas Drive
Overall 1908 164.4 11.6
King's Valley pun 154 27.3 5.6 Large-scale duplex development;
Mendelssohn Av. N. ownership basis .
Revised Overall 2062 191.7 10.8
Note: The Metro Council's research notes indicate that no duplex units were included in the
calculation of multi-unit density; King's Valley has been added by the City because it is a
fairly substantial duplex development, and It helps to bring the City's density calculations
closer to what the Metro Council estimated. Two small-scale duplex PUD's have been left
out
The Metro Council's calculation of Golden Valley's current proportion of rental
units at 21 percent, and proportion of non-detached units at 28 percent, are
assumed to be correct since those indicators are not measured as subjectively
as density. The respective benchmark ranges are 33 to 36 percent and 37 to
41 percent. Any type of multi-unit development will help to improve the City's
rating with regard to non-detached housing, but the most efficient way to
increase the proportion of rental units is to build apartments. Townhomes and
duplexes are gaining popularity as suburban rental properties, but they
generally require more land assembly and raise more management concerns
than rental apartments.
Summary
.
The tabular summary of findings, potential policy implications, and suggested
action plan components applicable to this section begins on page 42.
1~
III. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF GOLDEN VALLEY'S HOUSING
. STOCK
Neither the State Planning Act (MS 462.351 - 462.364) nor the Metropolitan
Land Use Planning Act (MS 473.851 - 473.871) specifies statistical analyses as
required components of a city's housing plan. However, state law does require
each M.etro Area community to submit all portions of its comprehensive plan to
the Metro Council for review and comment. The Metro Council recommends
that local housing plans contain a variety of statistical information.
Golden Valley is committed to cooperating with the Metro Council in its efforts
to strengthen and coordinate local government planning in the Metro Area. On
the other hand, the City finds after due consideration that much of the
recommended analysis would be of minimal usefulness in view of Golden
Valley's particular circumstances at this time.
.
As a mature community, Golden Valley has only limited opportunity to
significantly alter its housing profile in a cost-effective way, rendering some of
the more detailed types of analysis superfluous. As a smaller community,
Golden Valley's housing characteristics are impacted as much by the
employment/shopping/services characteristics of nearby communities as by its
own, and vice versa, making it unrealistic to consider the City as an
independent unit when analyzing the linkages between those characteristics
and housing. The detailed housing data base required in order to properly
conduct some of the recommended analyses is out of Golden Valley's reach
until the City's computer capabilities can be brought up to speed. In terms of
recommended comparisons between Golden Valley and other communities, its
regional sector, and the region as a whole, much of that analysis is already
available through a variety of other sources.
Some of Golden Valley's basic housing statistics are included in this section.
Others, such as subsidized housing totals, housing densities, and land
available for additional housing, have been incorporated into one or more other
sections of this report, though not always in a statistical format.
Types of Housing and Occupancy
.
By far the largest proportion of Golden Valley's housing stock is in the form of
traditional, detached homes. All other housing types combined account for only
27.6 percent of the total stock (Exhibit 4). The City has no manufactured home
parks; though there are instances of manufactured or modular construction
homes on scattered lots around the community. Townhouse developments are
14
also relatively rare, representing only 6.1 percent of the total stock even when .
counted together with duplex units (most of which are in the form of double
bungalows). One type of housing for which Golden Valley has no reliable count
is the accessory apartment. Such mini-units are not strictly legal under the
zoning code, so property owners are not likely to broadcast their existence,
though they are known to have a presence in the community.
Exhibit 4:
Type and ~ccupancy of Golden Valley's Housing Stock
Occupied
Total Units (%) Owned Rented Vacant
Single Family Detached 6,177 (72.4) 5,929 163 85
Townhouse or side-by-
side Duplex 524 ( 6.1) 346 161 17
Multi-Unit, 2-4 per bldg. 116 ( 1.4) 39 70 7
Multi-Unit, 5 or more
per bldg. 1,673 (19.6) 343 1,181 149 .
Misc. Other ~ ( 0.5) 22 19 -1
8,532 6,679 1,594 259
Percent of Total 78.3 18.7 3.0
Source: 1990 U.S. Census of Housing
The proportion of rental stock in Golden Valley is also quite low. Ownership
accounts for over three-quarters of all occupied housing. It also represents
one-third or more of each type of housing except for large apartment buildings.
Two of Golden Valley's senior citizen high-rises are the source of most owned
apartments, with the laurel Hills Condominium making up the rest. less than 5
percent of the City's traditional single-family homes are rented out.
Golden Valley's housing vacancy rate is so low as to be considered unhealthy.
Various sources indicate that a rate between 5 and 10 percent is necessary in
order to ensure adequate choice in housing selection. Only the City's
apartment developments have a rate within the recommended range. None of .
the identified housing types has a vacancy rate that would be considered
11;
.
.
.
, ,
unhealthily high. This shows that the housing stock in Golden Valley remains
very desirable despite its increasing age. It might be valuable to know,
however, whether the vacancy rate varies significantly by neighborhood within
the City.
Housing Cost
Staff have not been able to identify a comprehensive or meaningful approach to
this analysis that is also within the reach of in-house resources.
Household Composition and Needs
Staff have not been able to identify a comprehensive or meaningful approach to
this analysis that is also within the reach of in-house resources.
Housing Age and Condition
Staff have not been able to identify a comprehensive or meaningful approach to
this analysis that is also within the reach of in-house resources.
Comparisons With Others
Staff have not been able to identify a comprehensive or meaningful approach to
this analysis that is also within the reach of in-house resources.
Summary
The tabular summary of findings, potential policy implications, and suggested
action plan components applicable to this section begins on page 45.
IV. ANALYSIS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING EFFORTS IN
GOLDEN VALLEY
Golden Valley has been involved in efforts to provide and maintain affordable
housing since the early 1970's. These have included a variety of changes to
City Code as well as assisting in the siting and financing of specific projects
and programs. Some of the City's activities have been more successful than
others. All have been impacted to varying extent by factors such as:
16
· the degree to which the City was already developed before the issue of
affordability came up;
· the apparent desirability of otherwise modest housing because of Golden
Valley's desirable location;
· the scarcity of available land;
· the high cost of removing older development or remediating difficult-to-
develop site conditions;
· the high cost of any new construction; and
· the varying availability of outside financing necessary to counteract the
other factors.
.
When asking what Golden Valley can do today, it is important to first examine
the scope of effort that has occurred to date. In the following pages, the City
Code discussion will take a somewhat different direction than the projects and
programs discussion. For code provisions, fairly specific regional
recommendations have been established to help cities maintain codes that
promote the state's affordable housing agenda. It is a relatively straightforward
process, then, to evaluate what Golden Valley has already accomplished and to
see what steps remain to be taken.
.
How to go about implementing projects and programs has never been clearly
defined. Even in the days when Metro Area communities were given specific
fair share affordable housing quotas to meet, they were basically on their own
in terms of how those quotas were reached. The projects and programs
discussion will therefore concentrate on identifying what has seemed to work
best for Golden Valley in the past, and how it might be used to facilitate the
consideration of new proposals in the Mure.
City Code Provisions
Although Golden Valley adopted its first zoning code back in 1938, there was
no exclusively residential category for almost two decades after that. Initially,
the code segregated only those uses considered to be the most disruptive (Le.
retail and industrial operations), with all remaining uses grouped together in a
common category encompassing most of the community. Over the years, other
types of use were also segregated out, and in 1955 the residential zoning
district was established. It allowed both single family and two-family homes,
with varying degrees of restriction on the latter, until a separate district was
established for two-family dwellings in 1982. In addition, all forms of residence,
including apartments, were allowed in the original common use district until .
1958, when apartments were segregated out into their own district.
17
.
The history of subdivision in Golden Valley is less clear. The first
comprehensive subdivision code does not appear to have been established
until some time in the 1940's. As early as 1924, however, there was a
minimum required lot size for residential uses (sixty feet wide) and a minimum
street right-of-way width (also sixty feet). Earlier plats created lots and/or
streets as narrow as forty feet in width. Residential lot size went up to 100 feet
in width in the 1950's and remained there until 1981, when it was reduced to
eighty .~eet (or 100 feet for two-family).
As part of the 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act, the state legislature
directed the Metro Council to establish a committee for the purpose of
investigating and making "recommendations for ensuring an adequate supply
of modest cost private housing." Recommendations were to cover lot
size/development density, floor area, and garage/parking requirements for both
single family and multifamily zoning districts. The first, and still among the most
specific, recommendations were released to local governments in 1977 in two
joint publications by the Metro Council and the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities.
.
Other reports have followed over the years, with expanded recommendations to
encourage consideration of the affordability impact of any code provisions
relating to aesthetic and environmental concerns or to the development
approval process itself. Some of the most recent recommendations can be
found in the Metro Council's 1995 publication, "Opening the Doors to
Affordable/Life Cycle Housing: Baseline Data." They are less specific and more
broad ranging than the earliest recommendations, but not greatly different from
what has already been said over the years.
In general, it appears that Golden Valley's development codes today meet or
exceed most Metro Council recommendations for promoting affordable
housing. Some types of code provisions for which the Metro Council
recommends modifications, such as tree preservation and other construction
regulations, are not even used in Golden Valley except as required by state or
federal laws. Golden Valley also does not have as many costly and time
consuming development review boards as other suburban communities. Some
of the Metro Council's affordability options, such as cluster housing, are
available under the general umbrella of planned unit development zoning and
thus are not specifically addressed elsewhere in City code. The City's basic
code-related affordability efforts are detailed in the following paragraphs.
.
Residential Density. Single Family and Two-Family - The variation in
applicable city regulations over the years has resulted in equal variation of
existing residential densities. Golden Valley's main residential construction
boom ~xtended from the mid-1940's to the mid-1970's, when residential lot size
requirements were at their maximum. For most of that time, owners of two or
18
, ,
more adjacent, older lots that did not individually meet code requirements were
alternatively required to consider those lots nmerged in titlen to whatever extent
necessary to bring them up to acceptable size. Still, many older lots were not
owned in series, and owners of many of the merged lots made sure that their
homes were built far enough to one side to allow a second house in the future if
regulat.ions should ever relax.
Part of the reason for downsizing residential lots in 1981 was a response to
Metro Council guidelines for promoting affordable single family housing. The
Metro Council advocates minimum lot sizes of 6,000 to 8,000 square feet in
area. Golden Valley's 1981 changes did not fully meet that range, reducing
single family lots from a previous minimum of 12,500 square feet to the current
10,000 square feet, and reducing two-family lots from 18,750 to 12,500 square
feet. Still, the code changes represented a twenty percent reduction for single
family lots and a thirty-three percent reduction for doubles. At the same time, .
the old nmerger of titlen provision was taken out of the code, making the City's
stock of older, smaller lots potentially available for more intensive infill
development. Many of those lots do meet the Metro Council guidelines
(Appendix B), and City Code specifies that they are all legally buildable, even
though they could not legally be created today.
.
In addition, Golden Valley's minimum lot size for two-family use is well within
the range advocated by the Metro Council if considered on a per-unit basis.
Each half of a duplex structure would be allocated 6,250 square feet of lot area
on a minimum-sized lot. The City created a process known as "minor
subdivision for double bungalow" in 1987 for the express purpose of providing
an individual home ownership option for residents of duplex units.
.
Housing Density. Multiple Family - Under standard zoning in Golden Valley,
the highest density attainable for multi-unit developments would be 24 units per
acre, which would require a structure of six to eight stories in height. In
actuality, no multi-unit development of such a height has ever been approved in
the City through standard zoning. To date, no area has ever been rezoned for
a density greater than 20 units per acre and four stories in .height.
On the other hand, since 1970 Golden Valley has offered an alternative zoning
process known as "planned unit development" (PUD). The need for affordable
housing was an important consideration in establishing this process. The City's
1973 housing plan noted that ''the PUD's higher densities reduce land and
development costs per unit, which may in turn lower prices and rents,n and ''the
PUD can provide housing for families of a wide range of incomes and thus help
create a less stratified population." Most of Golden Valley's subsidized housing .
units today are in PUD's, with densities of up to 54 units per acre. The Metro
1Q
.
.
.
Council advocates a multi-family density of twenty units per acre for a three
story building "in areas suitable for such housing ", with higher densities "where
the level of service is adequate."
Garages - Prior to 1965, Golden Valley's zoning code was silent on the matter
of garages. Many of the City's older homes, both single family and duplex,
were built without garages; it is known that there are homes without garages
even today, but no exact inventory has been taken. In 1965, the City's zoning
code was amended to specify that for single family uses no garage need be
built as long as a site survey identifies adequate space for eventual garage
construction in accordance with setback requirements. For two-family uses,
one garage stall was required to be built per unit. Those requirements remain
in City Code today, more or less in conformance with Metro Council guidelines.
Contrary to Metro Council recommendation, garage stalls are required for
multi-unit developments under standard zoning. The requirement is one stall .
per unit plus one-half stall for each bedroom in a unit after the first one. This
would result in a maximum of two garage stalls for a three bedroom apartment,
which is in keeping with the surface parking recommendation of the Metro
Council; however, Golden Valley requires an additional outside parking space
for each apartment along with the garage stalls, again putting the City over the
advocated limit. As with the issue of density, however, the PUD process offers
a mechanism for reducing or eliminating the garage requirement in multi-unit
developments.
Floor Areas - In keeping with Metro Council guidelines, Golden Valley
eliminated all minimum floor area requirements from City Code in 1981. This
includes requirements for multi-unit developments. The requirements had
been in place for about 25 years before they were eliminated, but many of
Golden Valley's older homes are quite tiny. As with the garage issue, no exact
inventory of smaller homes has been made, but examples can be found in
several parts of the City.
Projects and Programs
Eliminating code provisions that generate unnecessary costs, and adding code
provisions that allow higher density and/or design flexibility, help to make a
community more housing-friendly to a broader range of people. Ensuring
construction of affordable housing, however, usually requires a greater
commitment in terms of public financing and political support by local
government. Even where affordability is not a major issue, higher density and
nontraditional home designs can run into opposition within a community.
Reasonable code provisions can set the stage for variety and affordability in
20
housing, but it invariably takes public approvals in the form of comprehensive
plan amendments, rezonings, and/or PUD designations to actually accomplish
anything.
.
Golden Valley has participated in a variety of affordable housing projects and
programs over the years, with varying degrees of success. Summaries of past
affordable housing efforts are provided in Appendix C. As used in this
discussion, a IIprojectll is a specific physical development at a targeted location,
while a IIprogramll is a funding source or cost-reduction process that is available
for use anywhere in the City as long as the application criteria are met. The
division becomes somewhat blurred in that all of Golden Valley's projects have
also involved state or federal funding programs, but the location-specific use of
the money puts a greater emphasis on the project aspect than on general
program considerations.
For the most part, Golden Valley has very little control over the long term
viability of currently available housing programs. The City can try to apply for
state or federal funding whenever feasible, but cannot guarantee such money
from year to year. The City potentially has better control over housing projects
as long as the funding has been locked in. It has also been the housing
projects rather than programs that have caught the public eye and caused the
greatest controversy over time. Projects will thus form the primary focus for this .
discussion. While the analysis has included only affordable housing projects,
most of the observations and recommendations that follow would be equally
pertinent to any housing development that involves increased density and
nontraditional home designs.
There are some common threads that run through Golden Valley's past
experiences. For example, every single townhouse or apartment project that
was studied ran into some level of neighborhood concern if there were any
single family.homes located within the City's five-hundred-foot public notification
area. The types of problems feared by the neighbors have been similar in each
case: property devaluation, environmental degradation, overloaded
infrastructure, increased crime, and unattractive appearance. No formal follow-
up study of the City's existing affordable housing projects has ever been
undertaken, but anecdotal evidence suggests that such concerns have been
largely unfounded. The City may want to consider commissioning an impact
study of existing projects in order to better evaluate potential neighborhood
concerns on future proposals. The study should be conducted by an
experienced housing consultant rather than by staff, for purposes of credibility
as well as expertise.
Other common threads are that projects always seem to require more time
and/or more money for completion than anyone expected at the outset.
.
21
.
,
.
.
.
Problems with timing arise because of conflicts over appropriate site location or
development design, the red tape involved in any application for federal
funding, and the difficulty of coordinating between multiple funding sources with
different requirements and procedures. The chicken versus egg dilemma also
comes in: the developer needs to know that financing is available before
committing too much time and money to site selection and design, and cities
don't like to commit to projects that may not be funded, but funding agencies
need some project specifics in order to commit to the financing. Delayed
develo'pment approvals risk loss of financing, and delays in either financing or
development approvals risk increased costs or loss of a site that may be under
limited purchase option. Other money problems come up because of the high
cost of land in Golden Valley, poor soils or other difficult site conditions, high
construction costs, and the call for improved site design details in order to make
a project more compatible with its surroundings.
In other words, the development of such housing projects is not a game for the
inexperienced. To increase the likelihood of ending up with a successful
project, Golden Valley over the years has tried to screen unknown developers
for experience and personal financial backing. There are also other strategies
that the City has tried at various times in the past, and might now want to
consider for inclusion in a coordinated effort to promote affordable housing and
to meet Livable Communities goals. These strategies may be loosely grouped .
into the categories of establishing an organized approach, soliciting broad-
based agency support, and providing for augmented community involvement.
Organized Approach - The first step in getting organized is to agree on what
outcome is desired, and why. Under the old fair share housing quota system,
Golden Valley always knew exactly what was expected and what would
happen if the City failed to perform to those expectations. Having a concrete
objective in mind facilitated creative thinking on how to maximize the potential
of a given proposal while still protecting the interests of the many different
stakeholders involved. Once that goal orientation collapsed in the mid-1980's
due to inadequate public funding for proper implementation, there was less
motivation for the City to continue negotiating over any proposal that met early
opposition.
Currently there is no quota system for providing low and moderate income
housing, but state law still places certain obligations on local governments with
regard to such housing. The Livable Communities legislation also does not
mandate participation, but once Golden Valley signed on, a goal oriented
commitment was made. Consequences of failure to perform are as yet unclear.
Nevertheless, the City has taken on the responsibility of making its best effort to
move toward established goals in each of the Livable Communities benchmark
areas. It makes sense then to focus future housing efforts on attaining those
goals, which are somewhat more specific than the overall goals of the housing
plan. At minimum, the City should adopt a policy of including a Livable
22
Communities impact analysis in any development-related approval process
involving housing; a positive impact should weigh in the developer's favor when
negotiating approval of the development.
.
Identifying suitable sites is another important component of an organized
appro~ch. In the 1970's the City's comprehensive plan established policies,
such as using PUD's to achieve higher residential densities, and requiring a
portion of the housing in all PUD's to be at least modest cost market rate if not
actually subsidized for low and moderate income individuals. To back those
policies, the plan map identified several particular areas that were considered
suitable for PUD's. The plan also established that there should be housing
specifically for senior citizens located somewhere in Valley Square; a list of the
qualities causing the City to single out that area was included, setting a pattern
for the acceptability of other senior housing proposals as well. For the
scattered site project, the City again used a master list of qualifying criteria to
evaluate all potential locations. Each of these is a good example of how to
establish a firm basis for appropriate site selection.
Today there is considerably more legal and political importance attached to the
comprehensive plan as the guiding force for land use decisions than there was .
in the .1.970's. Unfortunately, the current plan map designates very few suitable
locations for additional higher density residential development, nor does the
housing element provide any policies or other guidelines for determining the
suitability of non-designated sites as proposals come up.
If Golden Valley is going to seriously pursue its Livable Communities
commitments to higher density housing, more rental housing, more variety in
housing types, and maintaining housing affordability, the City will have to
identify appropriate locations for expanding the stock of nontraditional home
designs. Amending the plan map itself to show more areas of higher density
residential use would provide the clearest direction to prospective developers
and the greatest sense of security to residents. That process would also allow
for more thorough comparison of the qualities of potential sites since there
would be no particular proposal generating pressure for an immediate decision.
After the plan amendment is in place, it would reduce the number of separate
approvals needed at the time of application as long as developers stick to the
designated sites.
Alternatively, putting the emphasis on established siting guidelines would allow
greater flexibility to consider proposals on a case by case basis without
requiring the up-front time and effort of a major plan map revision. The City
could go with either method, or may wish to consider a combination of the two: .
first establishing a list of criteria, then targeting some of the most obvious areas
for a plan map amendment, and adopting a policy that the list of criteria would
?~
.
continue to serve as the basis for considering additional sites which may be
proposed later.
In the same vein, a third component of an organized approach would be to
have a set of guidelines for acceptable site design, especially if the City wants
to specifically seek or avoid certain development situations. This is an area
where Golden Valley has not performed very well over time. The
comprehensive plan generally provided that senior housing would be
acceptable in a taller than standard building and with lower than standard
parking ratios, but the Calvary proposal ran into opposition for being too tall and
having too little parking. There was a policy requiring that some portion of all
PUD's be affordable, but the Council decided that the original Medley Park
proposal went too far when it was submitted with all subsidized units. More
recently, the Schatzlein proposal for the Ewald site was turned down partly
because the density was too high, although the same number of units had been
approved several years earlier.
.
Guidelines that are too rigid or narrow in scope would hinder future residential
development rather than promote it. On the other hand, a list of reasonable
preferences would help to direct the expectations of prospective developers
into appropriate channels. The City may want to contemplate its various
Livable Communities goals and consider whether it wants to prioritize types of
development or put any limitations on certain types. For example, high rise
apartment-style development is the most practical way to advance
simultaneously toward all Livable Communities goals and the only way.to make
a significant impact on density, but buildings over three stories in height have
always been a sensitive issue in Golden Valley. The City may want to adopt
guidelines covering such points as how tall is too tall, should there be a
minimum appropriate site size or maximum number of units for such
developments, are there segments of the population for which high rise
developments are particularly appropriate or inappropriate, and are there
particular buffering or structural treatments that would be preferred in order to
lessen the impact of such developments on their surroundings.
Broad-Based Support - When it comes to approving new development
projects, the buck always stops at the City Council. However, maintaining a
broad base of support has been shown to make the approval process less
divisive. There are a number of organized groups, inside and outside of City
Hall, in a position to impact that process.
.
Inside of City Hall, the list over the years has included the Planning
Commission, the Human Rights Commission, and the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA). Two other groups, the Housing and Community Development
Commission and the Environmental Commission, no longer exist. In recent
times, there has been a quasi-inside group in the form of local Neighborhood
Watch associations. While they do not constitute a standing board or
24
commission established by authority of the City Council, Neighborhood Watch .
groups do receive ongoing information, guidance, and assistance from the
City's Public Safety Department.
The Planning Commission, because of its duties as advisor to the Council with
regard to the comprehensive plan, land use regulations, and a variety of
development proposals, continues to play the largest supporting role in Golden
Valley's housing efforts. For the most part, the Council and the Commission
appear to have worked well together over time. There have been instances,
however, where the two bodies experienced some friction. The most notable
disagreement occurred during consideration of the Calvary senior housing
proposal. The Commission, with some justification, felt that its role had been
inappropriately bypassed by the Council during the Valley Square planning that
set the stage for the Calvary project. Despite earlier comprehensive plan
endorsement of a taller building and reduced parking, the Commission in its
turn opposed the project on precisely those points, also citing several other
poorly documented concerns.
The Human Rights Commission was very involved in Golden Valley's early
housing efforts. Duties included collecting and disseminating affordable
housing information, educating the public as well as elected and appointed
officials, making policy suggestions, and evaluating various tools available for .
adding to the City's stock of affordable housing. Later on, the Commission
served in more of a follow-up capacity, concentrating on already approved
projects. Duties in that regard have included ensuring that management plans
reflect nondiscriminatory policies and practices, undertaking annual surveys of
tenant satisfaction to guard against intentional or unintentional victimization by
management, and responding to individual discrimination complaints.
Most of the City's affordable housing developments have been in the form of
PUD's, which would ordinarily remove the BZA from the approval process.
When the BZA has been involved, its role has been a difficult one. With the
Calvary PUD proposal, the BZA found itself caught between the Council and
the Planning Commission after being called upon to settle the parking issue.
The scattered site project was proposed under Multiple Dwelling zoning
regulations, putting it within the BZA's normal realm of operation. Variances
were required for a reduction in the number of enclosed parking spaces and to
allow more than one structure on one of the selected sites. While considering
these relatively simple requests, the BZA caught the brunt of the neighbors'
displeasure at the entirely legal but last minute addition of two more dwelling
units to the site. The BZA routinely sees matters which do not figure into the
type of projects studied for this discussion but may have an impact in the area
of modest cost housing; most of those situations are resolved without review by .
the Planning Commission or the Council.
.
All three standing bodies need to be kept informed of current housing goals,
policies, and objectives, as well as any other guidelines that may be
established. The City Council may wish to re-evaluate the particular role of
each and take steps as necessary to ensure that roles are adequately
expressed in the City Code provisions authorizing each group and/or in other
formally adopted policy statements. Each body may also need to evaluate its
role as assigned by the Council, and make recommendations regarding the
adequacy of the tools available for carrying out that role. Such tools may
include City Code provisions or provisions of state law, formally adopted
housing policies, and outside resources that may provide educational materials
or other assistance. Finally, the Council may want to establish a policy of
meeting regularly or as needed with each standing body or with all three in a
common summit to discuss overall progress toward housing plan goals and to
evaluate recent successes or failures.
Golden Valley did not really get into the Neighborhood Watch program until the
early 1980's. By that time, a combination of factors was bringing an end to the
City's big-time affordable housing efforts. The Ewald/Schatzlein proposal was
the first to come under consideration with a local Neighborhood Watch group in
place. One of the reasons for the failure of the Schatzlein proposal was that
members of the Neighborhood Watch group pointed out that it ran counter to
sound crime prevention strategies promoted by the Public Safety Department
for stabilizing neighborhoods.
.
A single case by no means qualifies as establishing a pattern, nor should it be
taken as an indictment against either the City's affordable housing or crime
prevention efforts. It does raise an important issue, though: without careful
planning and effective coordination, affordable/life-cycle housing goals and ,1
neighborhood crime prevention goals will appear to be at odds with each other.
There is ample documentation that crime rates correlate to varying degrees
with factors such as higher density housing, lower income housing, and rental
housing.
On the other hand, as communities across the country come to grips with this
problem, there is also a growing body of strategies for dealing with it
successfully. The Golden Valley Public Safety Department has already
established a program for working with managers and tenants of the City's
apartment developments. There are certain to be other programs that could be
adapted to meet the City's needs. There are also design factors that can be
used to promote a safer environment. Now may be the perfect time to engage
the City's crime prevention experts and Neighborhood Watch groups in the
process of establishing guidelines for affordable and life-cycle housing
proposals, before Golden Valley finds itself facing more situations where its
housing efforts might be seen as putting existing neighborhoods at risk.
.
26
To this end, the Public Safety Department must be made aware of the City's .
needs for meeting its Livable Communities commitment as well as its less
specific obligation to promote housing affordable to low and moderate income
households. Crime prevention staff should then be given a reasonable period
of time and financial resources as necessary to study those housing needs and
propose appropriate strategies for protecting neighborhood stability while
accommodating more nontraditional housing alternatives. This might be done
in conn~ction with a citizen committee composed of volunteers from
Neighborhood Watch groups around the City. Neighborhood Watch
participants are uniquely qualified to participate in such a study. They already
have a higher than normal awareness of public safety issues, their
Neighborhood Watch involvement shows a commitment to their neighborhood
and to actively promoting neighborhood safety, they have easy access to a
much larger pool of potential idea contributors in their individual Watch groups,
and they are familiar with the types and levels of community response that are
likely to be most acceptable.
There are other organized groups outside of City Hall that may have an impact
on housing proposals as well. Golden Valley, like the rest of the country, is
subject to increasing globalization. Churches, schools, civic groups, and
fraternal organizations now span many communities under a common umbrella
rather than having a purely local orientation. Still, the City has had success in .
the past with support from such organizations. Way back in 1972, the Golden
Valley League of Women Voters came out with a strong stand in favor of
inclusionary housing policies in general and of the Dover Hill proposal in
particular. The Calvary senior housing project, being church-sponsored, was
supported by the entire multi-community congregation, but special effort was
made to mobilize church members who could claim Golden Valley residency.
Calvary Church also provided more tangible sponsorship of one of the Habitat
for Humanity homes. The corporate organization of General Mills sponsored
another Habitat home.
The City may want to spend some time in discussion with a variety of
organizations such as those indicated above. Educating members and
encouraging them to maintain an ongoing awareness of Golden Valley's
housing goals, objectives, and policies would be one aim. Exploring the
potential for group support of specific housing efforts would be another, though
each group should have the freedom to determine the nature and extent of
support most suitable for its membership. The Human Rights Commission may
be an appropriate body to coordinate this effort.
Community Involvement - Reaching out to citizens through the organized .
groups in which they participate is one way to solicit community involvement,
but it isn't always enough. Golden Valley has experienced several instances
where a proposal has become the catalyst for ad hoc neighborhood organizing
?7
.
efforts - usually in opposition to the proposed project. There is evidence to
suggest that one approach for minimizing community opposition is to enlist the
public's involvement in ways that go beyond the required public hearings.
A variety of community involvement strategies have been employed by the City
over the years. For the scattered site project, residents of all potentially
affected neighborhoods were given full information and an opportunity to air
comments and concerns prior to final site selection; later on, neighbors of the
selected sites were able to review and comment on actual site design. After
the first Medley Park proposal was rejected by the City, the developer met with
neighborhood residents to hear their concerns and suggestions before bringing
the amended proposal back for formal consideration. When the HRA first
acquired the Ewald property, neighbors provided input on the type of
development that would be appropriate for the site and on the selection of a
specific developer following the issuance of a Request for Proposals. In the
failed Duluth and Douglas proposal, the HRA settled the financial details and
then instructed the developer to meet with the neighborhood before submitting
a formal development application. After being bypassed when the Schatzlein
proposal was submitted, the Ewald neighbors came out in force to oppose it
and succeeded in convincing the Council to look for other alternatives; upon
approval of the Habitat project, those same neighbors volunteered their time
and labor to aid construction efforts as a symbol of the restoration of good faith
between City and neighborhood.
.
There are two points on which the City needs to exercise some caution while
considering options for community involvement in housing efforts. The first
relates to maintaining a proper sense of perspective about the role of public
input in m~ting Golden Valley's broader housing goals, objectives, and
policies. Legally, there are planning and zoning obligations that must be
fulfilled by the City Council, with the assistance of the Planning Commission;
some decisions cannot be delegated to the public. In the scattered site case
the neighbors opposed the last minute addition of two more housing units to
one of the sites, but the increased density was in conformance with applicable
zoning regulations so the Council supported it.
The City also has a responsibility to ensure that unrealistic expectations do not
make it impossible to advance toward established goals and objectives. In
early Ewald efforts, the HRA selected the developer favored by the
neighborhood despite concerns about ability to perform; the project eventually
failed after a variety of attempts to salvage it. On several other occasions, the
Council.had to take a firm stand when neighbors lobbied for particular design
changes that would have rendered a project unworkable.
The issue of maintaining perspective can be addressed in part by making sure
. that Golden Valley's citizens have an ongoing awareness of the City's housing
28
needs as well as its housing goals, objectives, and policies. Establishing some
general ground rules to channel community involvement in constructive
directions may also be helpful; a process known as alternative dispute
resolution could offer some useful suggestions in this area. Finally, it may be
beneficial to provide a more specific structure for community involvement on
particular efforts; with the scattered site project, for example, the City had
already assembled a pool of potential sites based on an objective list of
evaluation criteria, and had determined how many dwelling units were to be
accommodated, before bringing the public into the decision-making process.
.
The second point of .concern is the state mandated sixty-day limit for many
development-related approval processes. Looking to the past for help on this
point is of no use, since the limit did not exist until last year. Although the
enacting legislation provides for extension of the time limit under certain
conditions, state planning and legal experts advise against routinely relying on
that provision. The sixty-day limit applies to all rezonings and PUD's, though in
the latter case staff and the City Attorney have determined that Golden Valley's
process comprises two applications with sixty days for each rather than in total.
The limit does not apply to applications for land subdivision or to
comprehensive plan amendments.
While the time limit sharply restricts opportunities for augmented community
involvement in the affected approval processes, it is meant to protect
developers against financial difficulties caused by intentionally delayed
approvals. As noted earlier, timely approval is particularly important when a
project is dependent on government funding. The Metro Council, among its
recommendations for ensuring an adequate supply of affordable housing, also
cautions against putting too many costly or time consuming hurdles in the path
of development-related approvals.
.
The key to addressing this point is careful consideration of where and to what
extent community involvement could best be accommodated. One solution .
might be to concentrate on the general planning groundwork rather than on
specific development proposals. As discussed earlier, the City could choose to
initiate an up-front, major plan map amendment to expand the number of areas
designated for higher density residential use. As long as there is no concurrent
application for a specific project, the time allowed for the map amendment
process is limited only by the immediacy of the City's need to have more
options available for prospective developers. Neighborhood committees or city
wide visioning groups could easily be brought into this process. If the City
decides to establish various types of development guidelines as also discussed
earlier in this section, those efforts might provide another avenue for community
involvement.
.
.
Alternatives that are more project-oriented may be explored as well. Where the
City or HRA controls the land to be developed, the affected neighborhood could
be involved in drafting the terms of a Request for Proposals. Projects that
require City or HRA approval of some public financing mechanism may provide
an opportunity to tie citizen input to the financing approval process. The City
could also look at amending the PUD process to include evidence of
neighborhood input as part of the required application materials for either the
preliminary or the general plan stage; the sixty-day clock does not start until all
applieation materials have been duly submitted. Basic rezonings that are not
accompanied by concurrent plan amendments or PUD applications are
intended by law to be fairly straightforward, so it may not be possible to build an
additional community involvement component into the rezoning process.
.
The community involvement options suggested here are a sampling of what
might be possible. Some would fall under greater time constraints than others.
Some would result in city wide standards rather than site-specific
recommendations. Others might be site-specific but not project-specific, or vice
versa. There are a variety of pros and cons to evaluate with regard to any of
them. The City would have to be careful not to delegate away its legal
responsibilities or to allow overly extensive public scrutiny to obstruct timely
decision-making. It appears clear, however, that augmented community
involvement in Golden Valley's housing efforts can be successfully
implemented if the City has an interest in doing so.
Summary
The tabular summary of findings, potential policy implications, and suggested
action plan components applicable to this section begins on page 44.
V. LAND AVAILABLE FOR HOUSING IN GOLDEN VALLEY
Golden Valley is a substantially developed community, with little or no readily
available opportunity to significantly expand its housing stock. Such land as
remains vacant today usually possesses one or more characteristics that
typically impede private sector residential development:
· steep slopes or excessive wetness;
· inadequate access to streets and/or utilities;
· poor development soils or soil contamination;
· existing structures that are deteriorating, nonconforming, and/or undersized
for the property;
· adjacency to highways, railroad lines, and/or undesirable neighboring uses;
or
. · unreasonable return-on-investment expectations of owners.
30
.
Despite undesirable characteristics such as these, the City's remaining
undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels of residentially designated land are
gradually being filled in. Because of the difficulties presented by the various
characteristics, the City often becomes involved in development proposals.
City action is most likely to be in the form of considering applications for
rezoni~g, variances, planned unit development (PUD) designation, replatting,
and/or financial assistance. At this time, there are few policies in place to guide
City decisions in a way that ensures fair and consistent treatment of proposals.
Thus it makes sense to take a comprehensive look at the types of opportunities
available for expanding Golden Valley's housing stock, and the related issues.
The renewed emphasis being placed on affordable and life-cycle housing by
both the Metro Council and the state legislature makes it particularly important
to establish supportable criteria for siting such housing. An analysis
undertaken by the Metro Council in conjunction with this years Livable
Communities legislation shows Golden Valley to be deficient in rental housing,
nontraditional housing types, and high density housing, when compared with
other fully developed suburbs in its geographic sector. Recent failed attempts
to approve townhouses and duplexes show that residents of existing
neighborhoods are very resistant to the idea of building anything other than the
typical detached single family house. Unfortunately, there are few - if any-
suitable locations for alternative housing that are not in or immediately adjacent
to existing neighborhoods. Therefore, if Golden Valley is to make a
commitment to increasing its supply of affordable or life-cycle housing,
thoughtfully considered siting policies are essential; ad hoc decisions made
solely on the basis of neighborhood opposition will not suffice. The first step to
establishing a location policy is to review the location options.
.
Infill Sites
Vacant Lots. Single Family - People regularly call City Hall to inquire about
the availability of vacant single family lots. Staff know that there are vacant lots
located around the City, but cannot at this time quantify how many, or where, or
how developable they are. Getting those lots marketed and sold has always
been considered a function best suited to the private sector. Not only is it time-
consuming to create and maintain a comprehensive inventory of available lots,
but there is also the potential for trouble if staff somehow overlook lots owned
by a particular developer or give out information on lots that are not really
available.
Most available residential lots in Golden Valley are being marketed in some .
way by their owners. The most frequent response staff get when trying to
informally direct callers to known prospects is "those lots are too expensive." A
11
.
.
.
, ,
second, and often related, response is "the developer won't sell just one lot." In
such cases, the developer often wants to retain control over actual house
construction as well as lot disposition, or may be hoping to get a cluster of lots
replatted and rezoned for a more intensive use.
Because the Metro Council's Livable Communities analysis declares the City to
be deficient in rental, nontraditional, and higher density housing, direct City
involvement in the marketing of single family lots would not be advantageous
for meeting Livable Community goals. The possible exception would be in the
category of affordable homes, since the Metro Council analysis puts Golden
Valley only barely within its benchmark range on ownership affordability. Given
the demand for vacant residential lots in Golden Valley versus their relative
scarcity, it is unlikely that any but the smallest or most poorly situated lots
would ever be candidates for affordable single family housing without a stiff
government subsidy.
It has already been noted that staff do not have a complete inventory of vacant
single family lots, but there are certain groups of lots (Exhibit 5) that have
become well known for a variety of reasons illustrating the range of issues
relating to Golden Valley's remaining housing opportunities. Within the past
year, the City approved two new subdivisions where vacant land is now on the
market for a higher price than many households can afford to spend on house
and .Ian~ together: four lots at Glenwood Avenue/King Hill Road, and eight lots
on Western Avenue next to Lions Park. There are scattered parcels on both
sides of Winnetka Avenue north of Wesley Avenue, several of which have wet
or peaty soils and some of which have been the subject of rezoning proposals
for duplex or church use in recent years. There is a cluster of five affordably
sized lots, plus remnants of three more, above 1-394 between Rhode Island and
Sumter Avenues; those lots were the subject of a recent proposal to rezone for
office use.
Finally, there is the old pistol range owned by the County Sheriff's department.
The land is residentially zoned despite its use, and the affordably sized lots
remain on the books though all streets and alleys serving them have been
vacated. The pistol range was supposed to be relocated a few years ago, and
staff were looking forward to having the land once again available for housing,
but the relocation fell through and the County appears to have no interest in
vacating the site any time soon.
Vacant Lots. Two Family - There are no vacant lots currently zoned for duplex
use in Golden Valley. The majority of the City's existing duplexes also are not
appropriately zoned, due to the fact that the R-2 zoning district is only thirteen
years old and most of the homes were built before that time. Many single
family lots possess the necessary width and area for duplex use, and are
similarly situated to existing duplex properties. The comprehensive plan makes
no distinction between single family homes and scattered two-family homes.
32
:~~;;~::- ~~"~.~~;;~\
i~d'/ . ~ .:
:CJ?~~ ~ ZI I
~~~r~d~- - ~ ~ >~~:1; , ;-lli' 1~!i. i'~
~'~ '~l~ &. t f~" 5 Il....Ji ..~ I
,1- ...;. - .. "f 1 i..! ~.... -~ ... i ~ - i:..~ ~ ~~."J..: 0 rll~'
j If'" ~ -- tl....::...Jb .'\. _ :::- ~'''> . ~ I' ~ ~. s sP :' JI~ I
~"_7r""~:c ~I":~U~--~~~ j i.._Jl::=l ~Ifsll::~ ~..~;
,'" !J I IJ!:~-'\ ~. - _ .1;:. -- ~l) = .,.JIY1 ....~4-.
I' . 'I ~ -- ~ "'\. "=' ~ ~ ~ -- ~ . -
Ail~"'l \~Ii" \Il'il~~ooo;; ~x~ ~,'~~ I 1j~-~ ~,I
--r~'1 ~ Ii~ ..... \~, ~ 'NI ~ ~ { , I
i..:'::" PO\.. (iclli ~ -' ,~~~) r--n;;; !~ ~ I ~\('\. ~ ~ ill I
il A _T.-....~ I,.~ '\Ui )..- I~ LliJ ~..09;"1. ~. II
jar _ I ~_ ~~. =: ___. ~ I'~ -;- '~.A= ll;;~ JI. ra--:e..l l\1'\.
- ._--..._~-...:tr l!J\dift' . "* r~.i~' ~-4~
.' '-.,.I" " ~ ~;tiff" ; JT' 1.1," -...
, . --- ~ ~ , ~ . ~
,~IJI ~:- ~ l~"" '-G--=--- I (~~, JId
~ _ ~ j \\ ...- ~ .....1 ..___
~ _ ~ ..,,_........-; ~ .. \ _ r __ 'T\\- ' ._
~~ Cl(1_~.: &5~L~ ~ :_ A:l-;d1f) ~~:
i -- i II{ I ~\ \\ I ~-ff&~d'_' \) .
, I .... I -I "'.... I
i ~/i Jr.! Ii I R I 1_- It'''''' . ~ - .-J 1-
~vr.'''- ,/1.-' -. l~ ~l If ;; ::1tl~
j I ~1if11t ~. I a l ~1 '__. \Hra ~II'~)
I''''''~~ .. ';. _ w ~ ~ ~..~~ ~
.__/_ h -., \ ~~~
. J . .~ 1 _ 1_ d -.'\.. '0: _ 0 L~ -{; - I .
~ I ~ Ie... - - - . II"" :,\, -
- ~ I _ ~ I I _J' :~\ ~ i 0 '~L.I -::vJ.
; ~~ ~ - "- I_J :~"\r.'1 ~r l~8~~
:~'... I ~~ ~1(J ~"-----:;:'Y-1
! -mJ_ 11 i' h I J 1. ..;:;:- . it!'. , r - II (ft] i
-~D..-JII~...I~ir-~\1I I~" \.' ~ !
"l ".... - - - \ -- ow - ... ,) - tJ "1
~--\\ , ,( ~Il 'It "
I :- ,'..., II :r J ..... ,- i!l /)
1 ~ _'~~ -:"",,(-I'i ; lj "IIV,
!=-&c~~"-~ ~ I" "\ \. II
:-j -~\' ;f6i[ _ ~Il I J - J /:... '~" h A- ~I .J
... . '" - - ~ - - ... .. ,- '
. ..-...... .." ." -- ..-.... 1/ '\ J .._~ {'))
~ ..... ,_, v ......-"
3
I.
C
-
\Ao
A
,..
S
IA.
J
'f
1/1
...
~
..
01
VI
..
\I)
I-
cO
:s:
0(
\U
, r
.
.
.
.
Unfortunately, in the absence of any established policy for the siting of new
two-family lots, it is impossible to evaluate the suitability of duplex rezoning
applications with any consistency. Since each half of a duplex lot meets Metro
Council standards for affordable sizing, developing a siting policy for such lots
could become particularly important.
Vacant Lots. Multi-Unit - There is exactly one vacant lot in Golden Valley that
is zoned for apartment use. It lies on the east side of Douglas Drive just north
of BaS-sett Creek. When rezoned in 1987, it required creek setback variances
to make it economically developable. For unknown reasons the project did not
go forward at that time, and now the various floodplain and wetland regulations
that apply to it have become more stringent. Given the poor soils and low
elevation of the property, its present suitability for apartment development is
uncertain. The comprehensive plan does identify additional medium or high
density housing development sites (Exhibit 6):
· at Duluth Street and Douglas Drive (2.1 acres);
· around the existing Laurel Estates Apartments (7.1 acres);
· just north of the Jehovah's Witness Church on Douglas Drive (3.7 acres);
· at Glenwood Avenue and the railroad tracks (1.5 acres);
· at Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive (2.4 acres); and
· at Golden Valley Road and the railroad tracks (0.9 acres).
.
-.
None of the identified properties is vacant at this time; three involve business
uses, which are usually more costly to buyout than homes. Several have size
or configuration limitations that will make it difficult to redevelop them efficiently.
All would require rezoning prior to any redevelopment. ., .
Linked Lots - Due in part to Golden Valley's former "merger of title"
requirement, many single family homes in the City's older platted areas are
accompanied by extra lots. While they are below today's minimum size
requirements for new lots and generally are not being marketed as vacant lots,
the extras are legally buildable if the existing house sits entirely within the
setback limits of one lot or if the existing house is removed. Staff have done a
preliminary study of such lots, as discussed elsewhere (Appendix B). No
complete inventory is available at this time. Because of their small size, these
lots are a potential source of new affordable single family housing sites. The
linked lot phenomenon does not exist for d,uplex or apartment properties.
OversizedJUnderused Parcels - Abutting Golden Valley's early road system
are several areas with a proliferation of large, unplatted residential parcels. As
with other categories of land potentially available for housing within the City,
these parcels have not been completely inventoried. The main concentrations
can be found along Douglas Drive, Glenwood Avenue, Golden Valley Road.
.
34
~~~~~'~~I
.F.J:... ~ ~ ;;?> ~:
,~~ ~ .... I __
1--. ii' '# - I . 0 ~ "'V III _1 J ~ l...~~!
~."" -....- t:'-.. . ~,.. ~ ~ iT-i'~ l[jj! .. ~ i ~l
1-- ...;. _ ~ I tf.! . \. .. ~ .~ -j 'fl&~~ I
11, ... ~.... ;::1(.,\..1 t::.\.. ~ ~ ~:A~ -- ~ -='~ -.... rLI~ I'
.... W -~ ~. 1:1 ~: "'~~li'Ef~';: ~~~ ~ ~ ~1=:Jj Ilj j~' 11.1:\.\"'.__. ;
oj ""I - IrlH,ic . ra, l"'"'....... 6~"'- !I-.- -- '''' .. '.t1JII' .......
. Il-!l I lB~"" II l1.'-- I......\. !l!I!L ~ ~. .... -- . '\:D- .......... ~ ""''':;Q.i-,
. ., -tI '';~ ll~l' L '~\1 ~ ~,~ '--'" - ~:~-.
i II \ ~ t~ ~ II" ,....-.- ~III~ -""1; i~ ~ ~'.. ~ '" __I ,j ~~ ~ ..N...."'ii~~
-s- ~. I ~ Is' .,... \10...... ""1 L --- ~ ~ /" ~ -,
. ..:':... ~~ Air- -:::= -.\v'm ')' ~ 'l i'"Q; I~ ~ I ~(\. I tf, lUll
il A ...."'~ ~....:-/ "'~ '\2Ji 1'" ..... I ~\\.) ",' J Ir I ~\I
)'1'" _ _~y~ _:= ...::. ~ ..- '; '0_...-~ !~l I"
1~ ~~ - -.;;: rr 1 r-\.. -1j ,c ~ '~J. ~js, '\. ~ J ~
~~,1' ......:; _ __ :::\\ ~ II' ~~.) __ ..J :....
:~I . ~~~., ~W'~ -- I....... ~W.. ,
~_~! ~ l~'\. -,A" .,&--~ I ~~" J. .
. - ~ ~ "..... \.....~ ~ ...... 1 ......-.... _
lI\M .... ''''j w..a. ~ ( ...... \T"14M _
:~ Cl(/ I , ,= c _\ ~ -- -,~ ___F1'.'
;~ I /; '" ~:\; \\ ~:.:: Air,JI ~/i
, '\l\ \. I .~ B'- · -......
~ ~"~ i ~ I 'tR I ,.--- .-, . I:
I .r/; h' .i I .... ~ ;f1~.".. ......
~}r""''''' ! ,11.'. "1-" ~\ ~I ~ rf ~ :-~n ..it 5
1 I AV.ijili =-:' )! a i~"'1 ,__, ~:c{l "'1'iiii'i-.
I~ .. .... _ " .. (~ , , ~ ~-~ \J
~o!K ~ ';.. ~ r \' .~ OJ - ~ ~
. - ~.......~ ~ - __ Ie _ - ...- .~ _ .
J ' ) - -; C .'\.. .' '.: \ I ,-~ -\.; -.'-il'"' I
~ - f I ... - ..... - . I~-.:\ - -
-,..-- -~ - - t -.. .-~ A '.- ~"'-l!_ -..,.'
-... ......._ I'\.Q,.(!II _ __ !!!!<oo _
;1 W.z.J- : ~J L ~j rf\li' , ~~8 j=i f~' i
-~.. - III 0.7 -:J / i,J/Af~ "'_:- "'r;,;; ~
\~W-lIl~~ l~ --z (BJ- I
.,L_ ..... .... ..... ~ ~ .
i .. - -, .. 'I - ....\f - t-:: I
f: ~ -7 ) I ..,.. L.. ~ flit "II
~ ....' .'..-p-; .... - /I' : :.. \~ ~
I . -~~ J_ ~ . , '\
.~~--~ ~: - ~~~-L:.;~, ~ ) ~ l\. I!
. ! . . it t' _ 1'-. h ~ lC}:i.... J
~..... Df......... ....
."-' ,.. on -- ___ Il T/ '''( l' .._~ \\1. iJ
...... v ~ -"
, '
.
.
~
c
1
Q.
~
~
CI
...
(
')
-+
,
1:
i
oA
:J
Q
..)
,;-
I-
III
'1
,(
1&1
.
.
Harold Avenue, Medicine Lake Road, and Highway 100. Generally between
100 and 150 feet wide and over 200 feet deep, the parcels cannot be
individually subdivided into two lots of legal width even though they contain
more than adequate square footage. Each parcel currently holds one home,
with most over thirty years old and set well back from the street. The City has
begun to see some pressure for redeveloping these parcels, usually for office
or commercial use in order to take advantage of traffic levels on the abutting
streets and to help recover the cost of removing the old houses.
.
Because in most cases there are significant volumes of traffic, these are not
among Golden Valley's most desirable residential locations. On the other
hand, the City should be seriously questioning just how many small office
buildings it can adequately support, and how many adjacent neighborhoods it
wants to disrupt with strip commercial development. There are ways to buffer
new residential uses against undesirable traffic impacts, which along many of
the identified streets are only a problem during peak weekday travel times. The
conversion of these parcels to nonresidential use may be in the best short term
interest of a given developer but not necessarily in the best long term interest of
the City as a whole.
.
Other recent proposals have retained the residential use by carving just enough
land out of an adjacent parcel to meet width requirements at the street. One
relatively standard new lot is then created at the front of the parcel. The
remainder, usually somewhat "L" shaped, becomes a second lot of two to three
times the size and twice the depth of the first. This does increase the use of
the original parcel, but still does not take full advantage of the available area.
There has not been any discussion about how the odd shape of the larger lot
affects the calculation of required setbacks; the BZA may be resolving that
issue in years to come if such subdivisions become more popular. There has
also been no analysis of the long term impact on the adjacent parcel; by giving
up ten feet of land or so along one side, the property owner has reduced the
potential for more efficient use of that parcel in the future.
Timely and creative planning could offer several options for more efficiently
redeveloping such parcels at a higher density while retaining their residential
use. There are good reasons for not reviving the City's short-lived "back lot
split" process, which allowed the creation of new lots at the back end of
oversized parcels with minimal driveway access out to the street. However, the
City could draw up some alternatives for new streets to open up the back half of
a row of deep parcels, making it possible to legally divide them. Shorter cul-de-
sac designs running into the middle of two or three adjacent parcels would also
allow subdivision.
.
The cooperation of all affected property owners would be required, and the City .
might have to look into some form of ''temporary variance" to allow the older
36
homes to remain in place for a time after new rights-of-way or lot lines are in
place. Alternatively, it might be possible to find a developer or nonprofit agency
able to act as interim "banker", holding some parcels in reserve until others
needed to complete a subdivision come on the market. In exploring new street
options, it would be important to begin with consideration of an entire cluster of
adjacent parcels, so that early subdivision of land in the middle of a group
would not unnecessarily limit the potential for additional subdivisions to either
side. Constructing the new street might increase the front-end cost to the
developer and definitely increases the complexity of the subdivision and
development process, so some property owners will resist this type of venture.
If the City decides, however, that such subdivisions are in Golden Valley's best
interest, it could ensure against the type of lots now being created by amending
City Code to add limitations on lot depth and/or to require that all newly created
lots meet certain configuration requirements.
.
Some parcels, individually or in groups, could also be redeveloped as PUD's,
allowing a certain degree of freedom from the traditional single family lot
requirements. This could mean clustered single family homes on a shared
private driveway, or duplex, townhouse, or apartment style units, depending on
parcel size and location. Straight rezoning for apartment use is also a
possibility. With any of these options, establishing a policy framework for
determining which parcels might be appropriate for what type of redevelop-
ment is a must. Early amendment of the comprehensive plan map to designate
the most obvious candidates for higher density residential redevelopment would
be even better. Establishing design criteria for preferred PUD or apartment
rezoning proposals might also be desirable.
.
There is one unplatted, residentially zoned area in Golden Valley that deserves
separate mention. It is an approximately twelve acre estate lying on the west
shore of Sweeney Lake. While it is not actively on the market, staff
occasionally receive speculative inquiries about it. They tend toward some sort
of "executive enclave" with few or no public streets and possibly higher density
development than would be allowed under normal zoning provisions.
There are no oversized, underused parcels zoned for two-family use. There
are some apartment zoned parcels that fit this category, but for the most part
the vacant portions of those sites are encumbered by conditions that make
them all but unusable. The Valley Village Apartments, for example, only
occupy about half of the property involved, but the remainder is very wet and
low; a proposal to turn the entire site into a PUD and add townhouses in the
low-lying area was approved several years ago, but turned out to be
economically unfeasible. The City might want to consider undertaking a .
comprehensive study of currently underused apartment sites, but at present it
appears unlikely that any opportunities for additional development will be found
other than those involving substantial wetland alteration or teardown of existing
buildings.
~ ,
.
,
. Miscellaneous Plan Amendment Options
The preceding discussion addressed areas in Golden Valley that are already
zoned and/or designated on the comprehensive plan for residential
development. The following paragraphs will present some ideas for other areas
that are not so zoned or designated but that might be more suited for some
type o~ residential use than for their current zoning or plan designation.
Problem Uses - There are some locations around Golden Valley where
isolated nonresidential uses can be found in predominantly residential areas.
The properties are correctly zoned for the use involved, but do not fit into the
character of the neighborhood, thus resulting in conflicts. Most or all of the
properties have non-conforming setbacks and/or inadequate parking, and many
are over thirty years old. The City's current comprehensive plan map generally
supports a continuation of the existing use on such properties rather than
conversion to some level of residential use.
.
Because they are not currently zoned for residential use, these properties have
higher per-square-foot land values than surrounding residential lots. The
buildings on them add to the value. Buying them up, demolishing the buildings,
and making the property available for residential redevelopment will never be
an option that will pay for itself in a strictly financial sense. On the other hand,
in at least some cases there may be something to be gained in neighborhood
good will, improved community appearance, and elimination of ongoing
administrative headaches. At minimum, the comprehensive plan map could be
amended to indicate future redevelopment for residential use where the City
deems it appropriate. The City might also want to look into creative options for
establishing a long-term fund to buy up such properties, as well as a policy for
determining when and why a particular property would become eligible.
Oversized Lots/Parcels - There are a handful of nonresidentially zoned and
used properties around Golden Valley that include significant undeveloped
areas. In some cases, as with the former Golden Valley Health Center
property, there have already been inquiries about converting part of the site for
residential uses of some kind. It may be beneficial to undertake a
comprehensive study identifying any other such sites that might be acceptable
for partial redevelopment, and/or establishing a set of criteria by which
proposals regarding such sites can be objectively evaluated.
.
Potential Loss of Existing Multi-Unit Housing
Analysis up to this point has focused on ways in which the City might expand its
housing base. Due to Livable Community obligations, multi-unit rental
38
. ~
developments at relatively high densities are at a premium. The discussion .
should not be closed, then, without some consideration of where the current
comprehensive plan map advocates a loss of existing apartment or townhouse
units due to redevelopment for other uses.
All of Golden Valley's multi-unit developments are correctly zoned, either
through standard Multiple Dwelling provisions or through a PUD designation
overlaid on the Single Family zoning district. A comparison of the zoning map
with the comprehensive plan map turns up seven multi-unit developments
around Golden Valley (Exhibit 7) that are not designated for medium or high
density residential use on the comprehensive plan map. On closer
examination, this is not as serious as it may initially appear.
Four of the developments are in officially designated redevelopment areas:
Calvary Center apartments/cooperative, Mallard Creek apartments, and Skyline
townhomes in the Valley Square area; and Mayfair apartments in Golden Hills.
Those areas are simply indicated on the comprehensive plan map as "study
areas", thus deferring to the adopted redevelopment plans for each area. This
system is workable, though an update of the comprehensive plan map should
probably incorporate the recommendations of the redevelopment plans or at
least should more clearly specify the appropriate alternative document to .
consult.
Calvary and Mallard Creek were themselves redevelopment projects, and are in
full conformity with the Valley Square redevelopment plan. The Skyline
townhomes are in a part of Valley Square where no redevelopment activity is
contemplated, so it may be assumed that they too are in conformity with the
plan. The Mayfair apartments are not in conformity with the redevelopment
plan for Golden Hills, which targets their site for future expansion of the Golden
Hills shopping center. The site lacks adequate access, is too long and narrow
for efficient use on its own and is squeezed between single family homes on
one side and retail land on the other; the buildings themselves are not in prime
structural condition.
Two other multi-unit development sites are designated on the comprehensive
plan map for low density residential use. "Low density" is broadly defined in the
plan as four or fewer units per acre, but that oversimplifies the situation
somewhat. Golden Valley has many neighborhoods where small numbers of
duplexes are intermingled with single family homes, as well as some older
neighborhoods where the single family lots are at a higher density than four
units per acre; therefore, the interpretation of the low density residential
designation has been that it does not distinguish between single family lots of
any size and scattered clusters of duplex lots. The two developments in .
~Q
. ..,.....--..-. .t, '.. ~ _ J
. i ~~~~u;: u.a.... ~"';.'~~ !
~~~..,_..,...I; ..~;; ~ (.11 ~ ~~~
~ ~. \ # ~\ I
. ~."../ ~~ ~ I
, '.4.'~~ --\ ~ _ /? I ~
~"~.-~~~r-'--"---i ~ '~71'4i1l.-:- JJ~~"'I:
l-. ~- -....- . \t .. ~ ~ $)'.81. ~I ;~Il- ~I~'.
Ej- ;;-(( ~~ r-. I{ -." ;~ ~ ......_!
"--.. -':'- ".-:.1i~IJsIJk ~- -~ ~ ~:A~ - ~ -= ~~'--~1~ . 1[1\,& I,'
- ..{.~,.. l,"''''1 ~:... Off~..': Iii!. ~:-'"\ ~~ l' ~ ~I; ~f Ilsl1Sf~ ..J!' i
~ " dl.... --1r'IB'll- - ~ - - ~~..._ JJ __-rf __ _ .. ...... \i
. ,I" !I I . 1Ilr:\" - ,\...... J!II. .I!!I. ~' .... - I \..D ...... '~~ ,.ol~.w._.
. a 'Iii" '] !I!~ ~;.'j- .. ":" ~'\,. '--" ;;;; ~
11,\1(f~!=-::.~R'ta.'"';~~::-= ~ f I~ ~!
. ..:.. ~- I~ M AUl. ~,\)7'1llq (.") ~ !~ ~ ~~C\. l rp, I
L~ -....... ~~"'d .~ 8i .\" .- I ~\\)" -l If I~
Ji!"' _ I ~_ ~~. = ........ c ~ II. -= 1- ~T2 ~. ~71! F4)lf i ~ I
- --+~-_~ -~ IT ~ -M:'~i(lJIl . ., ~tl!J. ~:!~a>
_~, .....,; ='\;~ I ;4" l! .. e I
~; .~: '7."-~~....d --....... ~.~- ,. -- -
~;.. _ II\J ~1Il t ~ ',...-- --- I .,.. ~':-' . ,
lJ ~ 'aIW ..,... ~ 'at"""' ;r,
. - I. / - -.- \ \ ~ ,.,.~ ~ ~ I .._--...
- ~ ~;I"-- ..,,-.....- ,.\....'- \'I'.~ ,I..
~.. Clf/ I.. I=I~I \ ~ - A I-aD ......t=r/:
;E 1 I~ ~\ \\ l ":::.: #~ ~ -" II
~ '~jl.... 'lR- I I J'~ :-1':';:: i:
I. ~.J i - ;~ . _ _
i I. . -Iii _I-:i.r I If n..w ~'I i .-
J I An~81i -::-;. !i a ll~ I ._.. ~.!{l I I
I......~ " " ~ ~...~lj
,;yln .. ';; :::: r \' -1;7;& ~ - ~ ~
.~v t!::=O ~ -.. ,- _ ~ '-
.. . 1 1_ _ C 11_11 ., I ".~ . - ~\.; -- I
--~i:-~: 1_.1' I_'.~ JI-' :. I.~"'-.B"II_ ,-
~ .!!!! \III'" "e. '\SU ..... I. ....... IT ' - _
.. _I - - - - - J H'"' I~, III ~~ 8 v=nJd..I{' I
1 Ufr-il r-..Q ""Ii _1 . .)#', I 1 ),., "'\ i=lI' I .. ~l
:~l ~_" 1. \ Y~~I ~'rQ I'i' ~~-~ li.i
!~-r.IL"UIJh.~'io-l!: ~ ~ -. II (m
., ; . I ~ (I D' Ii ~ ~.., II .. r ~. I
r ;.. ~.R r ~ ~ \. ~ I
.. ' -.... ....... ....... .. - -. \ -.... -~ _ ... ~ _ ~ ..!J i
: I~.~~~~ )1- ... "~~~i IA 1 'I
-! ,. I,' i' "i .. .... -. fr ! 'I ~
i . -~. ",.i --.- J ' \
.~~Ci:: ~r:-~~ ~~ :'.'.l!!!m, ~ ,e /. ~ I;
'! '\fiv ~~ - _ t /_ J' ~ A 1r N~ J
",.. ....... ,.. .... ,.... .....-
. r- --.--.- ,., - --.. ...( 1/ 'V ..,..~ Iii ~
, .
.
.
.
.
t ~
~l:l~
~ i ~ 1 r
j"Q: } 1 !
J p~:
~ t
:) Il. "
: E ~
+ '" ~ c 1
; r :at .
rOo _
c ~ /2 ~
4'1 J ~! ~
(.2 ~"Q
~ 011 J !: Ji
;~~
\a"l. ....
'" cq.
.'
J?
I-
"
-
::t
IC
III
.
40
. '
. .
.
question, Midtown PUD (ten duplex units) and Lakeview Heights PUD (eight
duplex units), may be borderline in terms of being considered "small numbers
of duplexes" but are generally consistent with how the low density residential
use designation has been interpreted. It may be a good idea to revisit the "low
density" concept and attempt to more clearly delineate what it encompasses.
Strict adherence to a four-Iots-per-acre rule could jeopardize the long-term
viabilitY of all of Golden Valley's small lot neighborhoods and many of its
scattered duplex units.
Finally, there is the seventh development, Brookview condominiums on Hwy.
55. These are older buildings, originally constructed as rental units but later
converted to an ownership basis. The site is designated for future office use.
General Mills owns a great deal of the surrounding land, which is still vacant.
When the area was evaluated for the 1982 comprehensive plan, it was felt that
future office development by General Mills would overwhelm the condos and
the small single family neighborhood to the east. Much of the vacant land is
wet and low, however, and environmental regulations have become far more
strict in recent years. A re-evaluation of the area might result in the conclusion
that the condominium development and/or the adjacent neighborhood could co-
exist quite well with the level of office development that the surrounding area .
could realistically support.
In summary, there are two existing multi-unit developments in Golden Valley
that are identified for future conversion to nonresidential uses. The Mayfair
apartments consist of 24 rental units. Their loss would have a slight negative
impact on such Livable Community measures as non-detached housing supply,
rental housing supply, and affordable rents; the loss would marginally improve
average multi-unit density because the site has not been efficiently developed.
The Brookview condos include 71 ownership units. Their loss would affect
owner affordability as well as the supply of non-detached units; wet and low
soils prevented full development of the site, so again the impact on average
multi-unit density would be positive rather than negative. The City may want to
reevaluate the comprehensive plan map designation of one or both sites in
view of Livable Communities obligations.
Summary
The tabular summary of findings, potential policy implications, and suggested
action plan components applicable to this section begins on page 48.
.
"4
.
.
VI. SUMMARY STATEMENTS
.
Additional Comments on Specific Housing Goal Areas
FINDINGS
With regard to the housing indicators used
for the Livable Communities program,
Golden Valley barely meets the bottom end
of the benchmark range for ownership
affordability .
Golden Valley's existing subsidized housing
is aging, and some units may be lost
through conversion to market-rate rentals.
~
N
POTENTIAL
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
SUGGESTED
ACTION PLAN COMPONENTS
The City should look for opportunities to build
duplex or townhouse-style developments
that meet the Livable Communities definition
of affordability.
The City should investigate any programs
that may be available to help in converting
existing buildings to a rental subsidy basis;
if accompanying requirements are not
unreasonable, the City should approach
owners of eligible developments to discuss
the option of converting.
The City should discuss the acceptability of
subsidy vouchers with managers of market-
rate rental developments, to learn what might
be done to make participation in a voucher
system more attractive.
The City should meet with owners of subsi-
dized developments that are eligible to leave
the subsidy program, to learn about any plans
they may have and to discuss any options
that may be available for encouraging owners
to remain in the program.
Golden Valley's Human Rights Commission
(HRC) has been less involved in the plan-
ning and development aspects of housing
issues in recent years than in the past.
As group homes become more prolific,
they also are becoming more of an issue
in housing discrimination and neighbor-
hood conflict.
The siting of subsidized housing develop-
ment is another process that causes a high
level of neighborhood concern, but Golden
Valley may not be able to avoid the need
for adding more such developments or
replacing some that may be lost due to
market-rate conversion.
Golden Valley's participation in the Livable
Communities program will require the
establishment of goals for expanding the
rental housing stock and the stock of non-
detached housing, as well as increasing the
overall density of non-detached develop-
ments; the most efficient way to address all
three of the above is to concentrate on high
rise apartments.
.
The City should establish a policy of
including the HRC in any development
of zoning approval process involving
subsidized housing or multi-unit
housing.
The City should consider making a
formal policy statement on group
home discrimination.
The City should consider making a
formal policy statement on low-
housing income discrimination.
.
The City should identify which housing plan
actions might be most appropriately handled
by HRC, either alone or in joint discussion
with the Planning Commission or City
Council.
The City should investigate the full extent of
current federal and state regulations protect-
ing group homes, and should document the
characteristics and history of group homes
already in Golden Valley.
The City should establish a program for
easing the entry of group homes into
neighborhoods.
The City should establish a program for early
citizen involvement in any siting process.
The City should begin to identify where,
how, and when such housing can be built.
.
.
.
.
Statistical Analysis of Golden Valley's Housing Stock (incomplete)
Analysis of Affordable Housing Efforts in Golden Valley
FINDINGS
For the most part, Golden Valley's develop-
ment codes meet or exceed Metro Council
guidelines for promoting affordable housing.
~
~
In terms of single family use, it appears
the majority of Golden Valley's most afford-
able lots and homes are in older areas,
vulnerable to deterioration and redevelop-
ment pressure.
POTENTIAL
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Golden Valley should continue to include
a consideration of the affordability impact
of all proposed changes to development
or construction-related codes.
Golden Valley should renew its commit-
ment to protecting and maintaining its
existing stock of affordable housing.
SUGGESTED
ACTION PLAN CI;>MPONENTS
Golden Valley should review its parking
requirements for duplexes and multi-unit
developments, to see whether they can
be brought into closer conformance with
Metro Council guidelines.
Golden Valley should review its PUD regu-
lations and decide whether it is necessary
or desirable to be more clear about the
various types of housing that can be per-
mitted through this zoning option.
Golden Valley should conduct an in-depth
study of its small lot subdivisions to
determine exactly how affordable the
homes and lots are, and what condition
they are in.
Golden Valley should investigate other
options (Le. sound barriers along highways,
vest pocket parks or communal storage
facilities on scattered vacant lots, block
groups or homeowners' associations to work
together on local issues, annual cleanup/fix-
up campaigns, etc.) to help keep its small lot
areas vital and affordable.
.j::oo
~
Experience shows a pattern in the types
of neighborhood concerns that have come
up with past affordable housing efforts; for
the most part concerns appear to have
been unfounded, but no definitive impact
study has ever been undertaken.
There is a need for some focus to the
City's ongoing housing efforts, so that all
stakeholders understand what outcome
is desired; the City's Livable Communities
commitment appears to provide the most
specific goal orientation that is currently
available.
There is a need for better organization
and more forethought in the way sites are
selected for higher density housing
developments.
.
Golden Valley should pursue a policy of
denying any proposed comprehensive
plan amendment affecting the continued
residential use of its small lot areas,
except on compelling evidence that a
specific site is no longer suited for
residential use, and/or that a specific
plan amendment would not have a detri-
mental impact on adjacent remaining
affordable housing.
Golden Valley should maintain its policy
of channeling COSG funds into the single
family housing rehab program.
The City should establish a policy requiring
a Livable Communities impact analysis as
part of the consideration for any housing-
related approval that undergoes a discre-
tionary hearing process; the policy should
provide that a positive Livable Communities
impact will increase the acceptability of the
proposal.
The City should investigate a policy of not
accepting concurrent comprehensive plan
and zoning amendment requests unless
they meet established criteria that justify
concurrent consideration.
.
Golden Valley should investigate the
inclusion of a specific "affordable housing
preservation area" designation on the
comprehensive plan map, to highlight
areas eligible for concentrated preserva-
tion efforts. . .
Golden Valley should consider targeting
rehab funds particularly to its smaller
areas.
The City should consider bringing in a hous-
ing expert to perform an analysis of whether,
and to what extent, existing affordable hous-
ing developments have impacted adjacent
residential neighborhoods in the ways feared
the neighbors.
The City should develop an objective list
of criteria for guiding the consideration of
. sites proposed for higher density residen-
tial development.
The City should undertake a major
comprehensive plan map amendment to
.
.
Golden Valley may want to direct pro-
spective developers toward or away from
certain types of projects or design
components.
In addition to the City Council, there are at
least three other standing City bodies that
are in a position to have an impact on
affordable housing efforts in Golden
Valley; past experience has shown that
coordination and cooperation within City
Hall can make such efforts more
successful.
.Jlo
O"l
Given increasing concerns about neigh-
borhood safety, the City's organized
Neighborhood Watch groups can be
expected to figure more prominently in
proposed housing developments. With-
out careful planning and effective
coordination, affordablellife-cycle h9using
goals and neighborhood crime prevention
goals will appear to be at odds with each
other.
There are a variety of groups outside of
City Hall that have contributed to the
success of past housing efforts and may
still provide a conduit for public support
today.
.
The City Council should consider esta-
blishing a policy of meeting with the
identified bodies, singly or in a common
summit, on a regular basis or as needed
(based on some established guidelines);
to discuss housing goals, objectives and
policies, general progress in housing
efforts, and/or recent successes and
failures.
.
increase the number of areas currently
designated for medium or high density
residential development.
The City should consider developing guide-
lines for preferred project types or designs.
The City Council should re-evaluate the roles
of each of the identified bodies and take
steps as necessary to ensure that duties are
adequately delineated within city code or
other applicable policy statements such as
those continued in the comprehensive plan.
The City Council should direct each body to
evaluate its role and make recommendations
regarding any additional tools that may be
necessary or desirable in order to adequately
perform the housing duties assigned to it.
The City should consider delegating the
Crime Prevention staff, perhaps together
with a citizen committee composed of
Neighborhood Watch volunteers, to devel-
op appropriate strategies for protecting
neighborhood stability while accommo-
dating more affordable/life-cycle housing
opportunities.
The City, perhaps through the Human
Rights Commission, should identify and
open lines of communication with such
groups, aiming for ongoing awareness of
of Golden Valley's housing goals, objec-
tives, and policies as well as support of
specific housing efforts.
Past has experience has also demon-
strated that opposition to specific housing
proposals may be decreased by enlisting
public involvement in ways that go beyond
required public hearings. Improper dele-
gation of responsibility and legal time con-
straints are two points of concern that
must be watched while looking at options
for augmented citizen involvement.
The City should establish an ongoing pro-
gram of public education and awareness
of housing needs and of housing goals,
objectives, and policies, perhaps using
the Human Rights Commission.
The City should consider researching alter-
native dispute resolution techniques for
assistance in establishing guidelines that
channel public discussion along a productive
course.
.1=>0
......
The City should consider establishing a
specific structure for citizen participation
within various approval processes; at
minimum, this structure should identify the
most appropriate point within the process
where augmented input can be provided.
The City should consider the initiation of a
major comprehensive plan map amendment,
and/or the development of guidelines for
site/project selection as being among the
most appropriate overall processes for
concentrating citizen involvement.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Land Available For Housing in Golden Valley
FINDINGS
Golden Valley has vacant, single family
lots available for infill development; some
are large enough for two-family use, if
rezoned, and others are small enough to
meet Metro Council affordability guidelines.
Golden Valley has no vacant duplex lots
available; the comprehensive plan would
allow for duplexes in any low density
residential area.
.J::o
00
Golden Valley has only one vacant apart-
ment lot available; the comprehensive plan
designates only one modestly sized and
three incidental areas for future multi-unit
redevelopment.
Golden Valley has an unknown number of
affordable-sized lots currently linked to
existing homes but potentially available for
infill development.
POTENTIAL
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The City should continue and clarify its
current policy of allowing scattered duplex
lots in low density residential areas.
SUGGESTED
ACTION PLAN COMPONENTS
The City should develop a set of criteria
defining single family lots that are suitable
for rezoning to duplex use.
Given the lack of vacant land available for
any type of development, the City should
turn its attention to identifying already-
developed sites that would be suitable for
apartment development.
The City should undertake a complete
inventory of such lots, including the use of
aerial photos, as-built surveys, and/or
actual surveying crews to determine
exactly which lots are currently eligible for
marketing.
The City should consider incentives to
encourage owners to release the eligible lots
for development.
Golden Valley has an unknown number.
of unplatted, oversized residential parcels
that provide opportunities for more inten-
sive residential development in the form
of platted single family or duplex lots, or a
variety of multifamily or PUD options.
Golden Valley has some apartment or
PUD developments that might be con-
sidered as underused, though a cursory
review of those sites indicates that in
most cases there are sound environ-
mental reasons for the current level of use.
.
The City should consider a policy of
denying any comprehensive plan amend-
ments affecting the residential designation
of these parcels - except for amending to
a higher density of residential use - unless
there is compelling evidenced that a speci-
fic site is no longer suitable for any level of
residential use, or that there is an over-
riding community need for a proposed
alternative designation.
.
The City should explore and evaluate low
cost options in manufactured/modular homes
or alternative construction methods, and
encourage their use on the eligible lots
providing that such options are sturdy and
reasonably similar in 'appearance to stick-
built homes.
The City should compile a complete
inventory of such parcels.
The City should identify options for new
streets to open up some parcels for subdi-
vision as single family lots; this may have to
include options for "banking" some parcels
until neighboring ones come on the market,
and/or "temporary variances" on the original
homes.
On the land use plan map, Golden Valley
should identify parcels that are appropriate
for apartment or PUD redevelopment rather
than single family lots, or should at minimum
establish a policy framework for making such
decisions as parcels come up for individual
consideration.
The City should investigate the possibility of
establishing more specific criteria for
preferred apartment or PUD rezoning
proposals in conjunction with the above.
The City should consider undertaking a
more extensive environmental review to
determine whether remediation measures
that would allow additional development
could be undertaken in a cost-effective
way.
.
.
Older, nonresidential uses at some loca-
tions around Golden Valley are in conflict
with surrounding residential neighborhoods.
U1
(:)
There are some underused, nonresiden-
tial properties that could be partially
converted for residential development
without unduly disrupting the existing
site activity.
Some of Golden Valley's existing multi-
unit housing developments are in loca-
tions with no specific long-term future
use indicated on the City's comprehen-
sive plan map. The locations in question
are labeled on the map as "study areas"
and unwritten policy has been to defer to
officially adopted -- but separate -
redevelopment plans for those areas.
The flat, four-Iots-per-acre maximum for
low density residential uses as specified
in the comprehensive plan fails to take
into account existing conditions, which
.
.
The City should consider undertaking a study
to determine the structural viability of the
lower density developments, to see whether
some might reasonably be targeted for
demolition and highel' density redevelopment
if funding becomes available.
The City should maintain and re-
emphasize its current policy of protecting
the integrity and desirability of residential
neighborhoods.
The City should seriously investigate
creative options for buying out such uses
and redeveloping the site residentially.
The City should redesignate qualifying sites
on the land use plan map, or at minimum
should establish a policy framework for
determining whether a particular site would
be eligible for buyout.
The City should conduct a study to
identify such sites, or at minimum should
establish a policy framework for evalu-
ating proposals regarding such sites as
they come up.
The City should incorporate the uses from
the redevelopment plans into the next
comprehensive plan map update, or at
minimum should include clear direction as
to the appropriate alternative document to
consult.
The City should revisit the concept of "low
density" and attempt to more clearly
delineate what it encompasses.
include several single family neighbor-
hoods with lots at higher densities as well
as neighborhoods with scattered clusters
of duplex units intermingled with detached
homes.
The current comprehensive plan targets
two existing multi-unit developments for
future conversion to other uses.
The City should reconsider one or both of
the sites in view of Livable Communities
obligation, to determine whether their
residential designation might be
reinstated.
U'1
....
.
.
.
, ,
.
.
.
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY LISTING OF GOAL, OBJECTIVE, ACTION
AND POLICY STATEMENTS IN EXISTING (1982) HOUSING PLAN
Housing Goal:
Provide housing opportunities for citizens of all ages and income level, without
discrimination, while maintaining a diversity of high quality living environments
throug..h imaginative and sound planning principals.
Objectives
Promote the preservation and upgrading of the existing residential housing
stock in the City.
Encourage a sufficient variety of housing types and designs to allow all people
a housing choice.
.
The City shall promote the use of available programs, funds and planning
approaches in order to provide housing opportunities at a cost individuals and
families can afford without compromising essential needs. Attention shall be
given to housing needs of the elderly, minorities, handicapped persons, and
families with young children.
The City will encourage equal opportunity in the area of home ownership and
renting.
Actions
Define various approaches and/or incentives to promote a "City Beautification
Program" in the City.
Investigate the City option of offering deferred assessments for Golden Valley
residents making property (home) improvements.
Determine the approximate numbers of homes expected to be rehabilitated
over the next 3 and 10 years.
Also include the number of dollars (average) needed to achieve the above
number.
Define and delineate those areas of the City in immediate need of rehabilitation.
. Target these areas (neighborhoods) for use of federal and state funds.
A-I
.
.
Require disclosure of any major defects in a home at the time of sale.
.
Evaluate federal and state programs to determine their suitability for use in
Golden Valley.
Review the City's existing land use regulations and minimum standards.
Encourage energy efficient housing such as earth sheltered or solar designs.
Policies
The City shall promote, when and where necessary, the rehabilitation and/or
redevelopment of identified and designated substandard residential units or
areas.
As a standard for determining whether a house is in need of improvements or
beyond repair, the City shall adopt the Section 8 Housing Quality Standards
used by HUD to determine a residential unit's acceptability for habitation.
The City shall promote utilization of federally allocated Community
Development Block Grant funds for the purpose of revitalizing residential
neighborhoods targeted for substantial rehabilitation.
.
The City H.R.A. may use its legal authority under "eminent domain" to condemn
and remove substandard housing for which rehabilitation has been determined
economically unfeasible.
The City shall encourage design and planning innovations in housing
construction and residential land use development.
The City shall encourage a diversity of newly constructed housing.
The City will continue to offer, as an alternative to conventional land
subdivision, the development of Planned Unit Developments (PUD's), which
allow the City to be more flexible in site design and density requirements.
The City will promote the development of multi-family dwellings.
The City shall attempt to obtain, when available, all applicable state and federal
housing funds designed to maximize opportunity of providing a variety of
housing types, costs, and densities.
The City shall encourage future low and moderate income subsidized housing
construction to serve all segments ,of the population in need of such housing,
notably those individuals operating on fixed incomes and having specialized
housing needs.
.
.
.
.
. .
The City recognizes that the Metropolitan Council has established fair share
and full share housing goals for provision of low and moderate income housing
opportunities in Golden Valley through 1990. The City questions the reality of
the numbers in relation to developable land. However, the City will continue to
work toward achieving these goals as land and financial opportunities become
available.
The City recognizes that the Metropolitan Council has established a fair share
goal for construction of new modest cost unsubsidized housing units in Golden
Valley through 1990. The City questions the reality of the number in relation to
developable land. However, the City will continue to work toward achieving this
goal as land and financial opportunities become available.
The City shall encourage a diversity of housing for all people, regardless of
ethnic background, age, income level, sex, and religion.
The City shall enforce City Ordinance Sec. 170.025, Subd. 1: State Statutes
respecting unfair discrimination practices incorporated by reference -- Human
Rights Commission.
The City Human Rights Commission shall work with developers, as well as
continue its role in the no fault grievance process, to assure achievement of this
objective.
A-3
.
SUMMARY OF SUGGESTED CHANGES TO EXISTING GOAL,
OBJECTIVE, ACTION AND POLICY STATEMENTS
HOllsiRg Geal:
Provide hOl:lsing epporttmities for oitizens ef all ages :md inoome le'lol, v:ithout
disorimination, while maintaining a ei'.'ersity of high quality living environments
thr-etJgh imaginative and Gound planning (:JFincip3Is.
Repetitive, ll17d better worded in its four component parts below.
OiJjeGtiYes Housing Goals
Promote the preservation and upgrading of the existing residential housing
stock in the City.
Encourage a sufficient variety of housing types and designs to allow all people
a housing choice.
The City sRall fromote the use of available programs, funds and planning .
approaches in order to provide housing opportunities at a cost individuals and
families can afford without compromising essential needs. Attention shall be
given to hOl::lsing Reees of the eleerly, miRerities, handioap(:JeeJ (:Jersens, and
families witR yel::lAg shildren.
Various portions of the last sentence above either conflict with or overlap statements
more appropriately made elsewhere.
Tho City will Encourage equal opportunity in the area of home ownership and
renting.
AGtioRs Objectives
All statements in this section should be reviewed carefully ll17d revised as necessary for
clarity, timeliness, or specificity. Those that more accurately reflect policies rather
thll17 objectives should be relocated.
Define various approaches and/or incentives to promote a "City Beautification
Program" in the City.
Investigate the City option of offering deferred assessments for Golden Valley
residents making property (home) improvements.
.
. ,
.
Determine the 3pproxim3te numbOF& of hemes expected to bo reh3bilitated
over the Flext 3 and 10 year-s. /\Iso include the number of dollars (3verage)
needea to achie'Je the above number.
Effort required to accurately compile above-identified data appears excessive in view
of its limited potential usefulness.
Define and delineate those areas of the City in immediate need of rehabilitation.
Targetthese areas (neighborhoods) for use of federal and state funds.
Require disclosure of any major defects in a home at the time of sale.
Evaluate federal and state programs to determine their suitability for use in
Golden Valley.
Review the City's existing land use regulations and minimum standards.
Encourage energy efficient housing such as earth sheltered or solar designs.
Policies
All statements in this section should be reviewed carefuUy and revised as necessary for
. clarity, timeliness, or specificity.
The Ci~' sRall pF9moto, wReR aRa '-':RefS necosEuary, the r~h3bilit3tion andJor
r~de\'eI9pFFleRt of ideRtified aRe eesigRatee sl:lbstandaFd residential units or
aFeos.
This statement basically repeats a goal.
As a standard for determining whether a house is in need of improvements or
beyond repair, the City shall adopt the Section 8 Housing Quality Standards
used by HUD to determine a residential unit's acceptability for habitation.
The City shall promote utilization of federally allocated Community
Development Block Grant funds for the purpose of revitalizing residential
neighborhoods targeted for substantial rehabilitation.
The City H.R./\. mtly s.!:lall use its legal authority under "eminent domain" to
condemn and remove substandard housing for which rehabifitation has been
determined economically unfeasible.
The City shall encourage design and planning innovations in housing
construction and residential land use development.
. The City sRall encourage a eivers~' Gf Re'Nly constructed housing.
This statement basically repeats a goal.
A-5
, .
The City wiU shall continue to offer, as an alternative to conventional land
subdivision, the development of Planned Unit Developments (PUD's), which
allow the City to be more flexible in site design and density requirements.
.
The City wiU shall promote the development of multi-family dwellings.
The City shall attempt to obtain, when an appropriate development proposal is
available, all applicable state and federal housing funds designed to maximize
opportunity of providing a variety of housing types, costs, and densities.
As currently stat~ this policy would guide staff to apply for any and all money that is
available, which is somewhat unrealistic.
The City shall encourago futlJFO Isw and moderato income subsidized housing
constrl:lctien to serve all segments of the raef)l:Ilation in nood of such housin{:J,
notably those indi~./iduals oporating sn fixed incomes and having specializod
housin{:J nooas.
This statement basically repeats a goal.
The City Fece{:Jnizes that the Metmf)olitan COlJncil has established fair sh3r~
ana fl:lll SRaFe heusiR{:J goals for f)r.oYisisR sf low and moderato income Rel:lsing
Opf)srtl:lRities iR GoldeR V-alley tRr.ol:lgR 1990. The City ql:lestions the Feality of .
tRe Rl:Imbers in r.elation ts de'/elepable laRa. ""s':Je'Jer, the City will contiRl:Ie ta
'::ark tewafd aSAie'JiRg those goals as laRa and financial epportunities Become
a'lailaBle. The City r:esogRizes tRat tRe Metr.of)elitaR CelJncil has established a
fair SRaFe gsal fer construction of net:: modest cost l:IRsubsidizea hel:lsing units
in GoldeR V-alley ttm:Jugh 1999. The City Ell:lestisns the r~ality sf the numBer iR
r~latien te developable land. Howe'ter, tAe City will ssntinue te ':!erk tG'NaFEi
schie'/ing this geal as land ana finaRsial epportunities Become availaBle.
The "fair share allocation" standards have been discontinued.
The City sRall enGel:lFage a aiveFSity ef R91:1sing fer all peof)le, r~gardless of
ethRic Bask gFel:lna, ago, income level, sex, ana r~ligion.
This statement basica11y repeats a goal.
The City shall enforse City OFEiinance SeG. 179.025, Sl:Ibd. 1: State Statl:ltes
r.eSf)eGtiRg unfair discriminatien f)rilstices iRGoFfaeFated by r~fer~nce Hl:Iman
Rights Cemmissien.
There is no such code section today.
The City Human Rights Commission shall work with developers, as well as
continue its role in the no fault grievance process, to assure achievemeRt ef this
objestive compliance with housing diversity and nondiscrimination goals.
.
"
.
..
.
. ,
APPENDIX B: ANALYSIS OF AFFORDABLE-SIZED
LOTS IN GOLDEN VALLEY
Affordable housing in and around the Twin Cities became an issue of metropolitan
concern in the 1970's. The state legislature charged the Metropolitan Council with
the task of studying regional housing problems, establishing standards for afford-
able housing, and monitoring the housing activities of Metro Area communities.
Among Dther things, the Metro Council reviews and comments on local housing
plans, which are required by law to include:
· "standards, plans and programs for providing adequate housing
opportunities to meet existing and projected local and regional
housing needs, including but not limited to the use of official controls
and land use planning to promote the availability of land for the
development of low-and-moderate income housing."
(MS 473.859, Subd. 2)
In 1977, the Metro Council and the association of Metropolitan Municipalities
jointly published a guide for local governments, called "Advisory Standards for
Land Use Regulation." One of its recommendations for promoting affordable
housing in accordance with state law was that:
Within a community, a portion of lot sizes for single-family
detached homes should be in the range of 6,000-8,000 square
feet, or a corresponding density of five to seven units per acre.
This standard is generally adequate to protect general welfare
and safety, and should be considered for the adoption in all or
portions of sewered communities."
After reviewing this report and additional information from the Metro Council,
neighboring communities, and general planning references, Golden Valley
examined and made several changes to its existing land use regulations. Citywide
minimum required lot size was reduced, but only to 10,000 square feet (from a
previous minimum of 12,500 square feet). It is important to note that this minimum
lot size applies only to lots that are newly created. City Code also specifies that
"all lots located within an approved plat shall be regarded as buildable lots" (City
Code Sec. 11.21, Subd. 5).
This is where Golden Valley's early history comes into play. The City's oldest
platted areas reflect lot sizes typical of old, walking-scale towns, with widths of 40-
75 feet each. These areas can be found at several locations around the City
(Exhibit B-1), almost always along the old farm-to-market roads or easily
accessible by Golden Valley's first rail line, which came through town from east to
west back in the mid 'teens.
B-1
..
~
:!
!!
=
I!!!!!
~ II!W1
..... ~....
8 ;..w~~~i
-I .c~;)>...
~~..~~~~
4-~W~d"
a!~!,~~
f..5uc....A
~(B] EI c;: .
. '(tJ:G CJ:
~ ~ : . . ' :
~ 5 I : : ' :
il~i~:i,..
Ifi!M~_..
! ~ I ~
~ H ! S I ~ ~ i I ! ~
. . II l!
!
I i
I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I , I I I
~
.~- "...~~I ~ co . ,III -- "";;"-"'lIt Jl.~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! !OOle- '" __=-,;, .. _ ~ ! ;~~ 'Uj_J lit.. ~ 001>
I I I I I I ,- - -F' ~ CD, ~ ! {OS i, ... _
co ... - - ~ 1 if, · ... .
~ ].. ... _ Cd - '..::..J.f t j ~ Cd lie; ~...'- ~' --
'~aJ-=- CD E Do1i"'i;i.,->- IL~'" . ~ .. j~ -.....Jj L.JulJs~!1 .
~. i ;g: II"IH~J.,m.. - ..... "'r\",,~,;..-rl I ......, l_~ "'
· ~ 1L.... i!:~' . t!"....,. D" ~. ~ ... -... .' It .,.. .~UJ.'i
~, ~l . = ~ i € 1"".J.if..-- '.. '":' "'- C=--
il~ '. \~ ~!- M'"""'~~iL""."i1 ~ r"; ~ '. '.' e jrj~ """'l
-:~ ~',.: ~~..~ .~ -..' ~';'l~~:i. II . i ...l~.'::'D~I~ ~ ~h)
~ ...~." .. .,,~.. - ~...., ~I .
.; '. " ~ ~ H \\ I ,.... .". ~\. .,. '{f..... ~
. ~l ..:..:' u _ =~ ......... .:!\ fl~~: i .,~~e4 ..-
...-
---- 11 "..:...-...r: "'-""'. T , t-\~ ..ezJ;" ~ 7. ~ tt~ ~ @ ~~ J .,rI! ~ =::
lIlILS- ~~ ". 7' Ii t tfll.,.j" ~ -,:or.
en -- ~'-..I (~.. ~ t\ V";-l~ I! ~ Ii '~ .. I -! _:)>.
en == ;...:;J u.. ~ - - ,..~ @_.,.._r;:.:= -~! ~
W ....._\ U-:&i JI ~I tell ~ ~'( '~~.I -., ..s ~_~ '- =~~
...J 1lIlolt- ~:. _J - 4 ' \ ---., e - '~I ~ !I'd I -::n
a: oac.- .....:r.5!.- a~ ~... h'. \..." -.. (....... ' \: I -::...: .... -- _::'1
0-'-:' .,/'? c~ _.... 0 - - - _:~.
I .,- ~ r If '" fi "..$I .....
n ~ lIlIft-'-'< i 10 I ~ . rvr"'~' f '" _ =:
I en ==. ~ /; ~ ! -' \ J I i'';~?' ~_ G -; =:
I ..- i4l (/ Cd I fJJ:.."""-
I g :=' r-I- ,,':~I"I" 12 ~i - -- .1- ~ =~
I !~ ::=. Do .. q... !ili~'if=- I a ~ : ) =::
I ~CI) -(-,~,c, ',.e...I -~ f l' ",. ..-. =:
I- 00Il- Cl) 4d1
I 0 _l-. I ~ _ - :\.. EI \ _ 'II "--.. -"'9.
OOll _ - _ I ... .... - ~:-.. - -0;.,(
I ..J - ,. - ~ _ _. 40:~'- ~ I -0:11.
008l- ....... Cd G ....3l.,.. ,... Cd __.
..J 006(- L ~j -ra
~ em- ~@",-' -. - - - ...lol. -- M'\ ' I at...
. ~ == . Bf; ~- ~ 1 .: ~~ sL. ~ << -'-
W ::= ~7,.. rl (\f ~ '~~. -
C I ....I_ ~r '" ~ u .... ~
-- U II L., 8 ~~ Cd -
CiS lIlI'JI- [;:\ ~ .'C ---MK CD r
W 00(1- 1,- .-, I....... 'V ~ ...
a: Clll8I- :- t:'l Cd
OOQ-' ...,.. &... ;r ,
-- . ~.': : i?B7
11111- , , ~ -. - ,_ It _ _. It"
::- ,@&-" as -:=~::"I~'~" L
~1' ~ - . '-,
lIlItI _!-.. IU'':'.O. Cd ,_ _ "
10
I
!
_e-
aan-
ooc.-
jo ....-
! DOtt-
-.,
J
: _.-
z :coc.
;
I ~cnc-
, ooa;.
I
:2 -~..
! 00>1:-
i oocc-
~ ~
c
.w
! 3
I'
I .."
I
1- Q)
pi
-
~
I,
,z qI
I -
I ~
I" 4
-'1)
\.
~
I... C
I u.
';)
i
...
0 q:
I
.... d)
..
-
<
m ..D >
~~
x. _
c \u 0
~
OO1C-
ooa: -
l'<V -
~.. 10M".
. ,
--Q-
-
,: ~Do. ..
,,~-~
.:t. .....
~.
~ I
.....
as
CD
...
. Cd
-
IlUfUJ!uUI g! ~ ~
I I I I I I I : J I I.,', I I
.#J_
,~
lP
.----.
--
~
r....,
"""-4
~
~
~
~
<
~
~
......::
c
~
~
a
~
~
CJ
)0.
~
,
,I
.- ..~ :1 ,~
~''\ ~~
J~ L ~~
ir p'''. \fi A .J"o.l
v.....~ lill
)./
'II I I 1 '11'1111-" n I
I , ~ I I Ollllfl!J!IJI!1
J --
~ - -I
.....
.-
-
y
~ ..._a.
I , I I I I I I I I , I I I , I I I I I
! ! ! ! ! I I ~ I ~ I H ! ~ I I I J I ! !
..
~
JD ~
R_?
. .
..
-CI06C ~
-
-ooa.
-oac.
-00".
-ooc.
-00'"
o
-.... : oon
" -
~ ~.
~~-z
-001lO
-,....
-oX':
-,,:..;
"
-t"A;
-':.'t
'"
-z:.
-elll
w
--
-....
-0':;2
--
-e.a
--
-eM
--
-,.:a
--
-ClllU
-ooca
I c
.
.
.
. .
Some of these areas have been lost by conversion to other uses. For example,
parts of the Belmont and Lakeview Heights Additions were claimed as public park
land after going through tax forfeiture. The Glenwood Addition was originally
much more extensive than it is today, but poor early land use control resulted in
blighting influences north of Hwy. 55, and City redevelopment efforts subsequently
completed a conversion to productive industrial/office uses.
Those areas that have remained residential have not developed on a uniform, lot-
by-lot basis. There were always some purchasers who wanted to buy two or more
adjacent lots for their own home site or for inheritance by their children or simply
for investment purposes. By the 1950's, some of the most densely developed
areas were experiencing problems with inadequate septic systems and/or
contaminated wells. The City responded by dramatically increasing minimum
required lot size for new subdivisions to 12,500 square feet and by declaring that
adjacent small lots under common ownership were considered to be permanently
linked together up to a point where they approached or met the new minimum
size. Those provisions remained in City Code until the 1980's, taking Golden
Valley all the way through its big growth boom.
In 1995, realizing that many of the small lots in the City's older platted areas would
meet Metro Council guidelines for afford ably-sized lots, staff undertook the task of
determining just how many of those lots still exist. Reliable and precise
dimensions were not always available and many of the lots are somewhat irregular
in shape, so staffs analysis included lots with areas calculated at up to 8,500 ,
square feet, or 500 feet more than the upper end ofthe Metro Council range.
Experience showed that staff calculations tended toward over-estimation of size
rather than under-estimation, so this small extension of the recommended size
range seemed fair.
Staff also adopted two ways of looking at the number of lots meeting the identified
range. "Theoretical supply" refers to the total number of affordably-sized lots that
would be attained if each remaining residential lot were to be individually
developed. "Current supply" is a smaller number that represents the number of
lots actually in individual use today. The difference arises because of all the
linked-lot groups in the affected areas. Where a home is associated with multiple
lots in common ownership, the group as a whole becomes too large to qualify as
affordably-sized, and thus is not a part of the current supply. Staff have not had
the time or resources to determine precisely where the homes sit within such
linked groups; a group cannot be broken apart if the home crosses or infringes on
internal property lines. If the existing home were removed, however, or if a lot
survey proved that the home was situated entirely within the setback limits of one
lot in the group, then a willing property owner could sell each of the lots for
individual development, so they are considered to be part of the theoretical supply.
B-3
. .
The staff analysis found a theoretical supply of 1,315 affordably-sized lots in
Golden Valley (Exhibit B-2). In terms of current supply, the number drops to 445
lots, or about a third of the larger figure. The Metro Council guidelines do not
specify how many of a City's lots should be affordably-sized.
.
Exhibit B-2
Subdivisions Containing Lots of 8,500 S.F. or Less
Subdivision Date Platted Theoretical Current Supply
Name Supply
Lake View Hghts April 1911 233 187
Glenwood View May 1915 21 14
Winnetka April 1914 80 44
Boulevard Dec. 1913 68 12
Gardens
Belmont Aug. 1915 337 53
Golden Valley Aug. 1926 51 3
Gardens
Delphian Hghts May 1930 256 52
McNair Manor June 1923 105 38
Glenwood May 1915 164 42 .
It is important to remember that these small lots are no longer being created today.
Additionally, the number of lots that are currently or theoretically available today is
less than when the areas were originally platted, due to conversion for
nonresidential uses over time. In some areas, there is pressure for further
conversion as the homes get older. If Golden Valley is to remain in compliance
with the Metro Council guidelines for affordably-sized lots, the City may need to
make a commitment toward preserving the lots that remain.
This analysis has been very limited in scope to date. Before making any big
decisions on the long-term future of Golden Valley's affordable-sized lots, it would
be helpful to broaden the available data base. Are the lots in fact "affordable"?
Are the existing homes on those lots also within a range affordable to households
of low or moderate income? What is the structural condition of the homes? Are
there some areas where attempting to preserve the lots in question would conflict
with good planning principles? These are some of the questions that the City
might want to ask. Golden Valley has affordable housing obligations to meet
under state law; it makes sense to concentrate the City's efforts and resources
where they are likely to yield the greatest result.
.
.
.
.
. .
APPENDIX C: BACKGROUND ON GOLDEN VALLEY'S
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
Since the early 1970's, Golden Valley has participated in a number of projects or
programs designed to promote affordable housing opportunities in the City. Most
of these were targeted at the poorest segment of the population: the households
that need public financial assistance on an ongoing basis. A few, however, have
also benefited households that are generally self-sufficient but may need a little
financial boost in order to get into their first home or keep a home that may have
been bought in better times.
Going back through City records, it has been possible to pull together a fairly
complete picture of a dozen or so such efforts (Exhibit C-1) over the past twenty-
five years. They include both successes and failures. It is hoped that a review of
the highlights and pitfalls of past efforts will provide some useful tips on how to .
guide future activities. This historical review has also shown the great extent to
which Golden Valley's efforts have been affected by the changing political and
economic climate at regional, state, and national levels. To put the City's housing
efforts in perspective, a condensed history lesson is provided here in addition to
the individual project and program summaries.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been a main
source of housing funds since it was created in 1965. The earliest emphasis was
on big cities, but by the late 1960's HUD was beginning to look at ways of
dispersing subsidized housing into suburban areas. This was seen as a means of
improving the economic climate of inner cities while at the same time providing
more congenial surroundings for low and moderate income households. In order
to better measure progress in housing efforts, congress in 1968 adopted specific
10-year goals for completion of new or rehabilitated housing units, both modest
cost market-rate and subsidized. That same year saw the creation of the Section
236 subsidy program, which attempted to encourage more developers to get into
construction of subsidized multi-family housing units by offering interest
supplements on mortgages. A similar program, known as Section 202, had been
in place since 1959 to spur the private development of rental housing for the
elderly and handicapped.
Congress also passed legislation to begin tying local development or
redevelopment efforts into a broader, regional picture. To implement this
measure, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget in 1969 issued a document
known as "Circular A-95", which required that all local government applications for
federal development funds of any kind had to be reviewed for conformity with area
wide goals and policies adopted by a regional development agency. In the Twin
Cities Metro Area, of course, the designated A-95 review agency was the Metro
Council.
C-l
@ .
· . .......--.-. I' .~ '(J ... .... t
:~~~:~- ~~~(~(;;;~ ~~ 11
i~~./ ". ,~~\\J
~[Jl': .i~ ~. _ ;;:?> ': I
~~,,~ _...._-._-~ .....- II...... ')[ - -"- .~J i
i ,,-' ~ - i \~ ~~ ._1 '~'.I
~.~. .... ~~\~-.. ;if J~).fl1l D ;irl2!'" !'oA'"L' ......_' !
,1-- "'....- ~~~~ilk -b.-'-'-~ ~.., _ ~~~J' ~~l
~ \1'" (OJ ..... tl -lH .-.''') . -.., II :A l>.... - ~ - c:a. , I
. '" VI J "^' lI' .... . gl "'1iir. f -"''oJ ~ ~ ~1l I !~ __ ~fl ~f Ilflllf....~ ~_,;
~ .......-1(- . al ..... Ir ID it r""'" -- '''",.... JI .-:r, _lOa _ .. .... \i
I'" !I I . II!~"" a\.... lWL ~ ~'I_- . \..Q "'- ' ..JB7I ,l 8:
t i1 ~"'l t~ Ill!~---~lfJ~ .~~ ;; ~,~ _I ~ '-./,Jfj~ ~~; ~i
-=to-' ~ J ~i&' ~ - ----", '''''"ltJ \1\11 l........,." --- ~ . I _-=
, "':'.. ~- ~ I ARt-= -: -~\ ~~ '#. ") c -cii!~ ~ I 11;- \<\. ~
!.O ~.:":;;-,,... ':"/_' "'~ r\?Ji ~ - , lii.,. l~ ~ I ~~ 'P'..,.itt-wln I J'
Jit:!!)_ I \F<!-, J~ 0"" U . = f........ Ii ~\ 11'- -=- ~.J.A ~ ;~ 6~ .. -: J~ i II
_:..~~"':-:-. - ~"[T M'...J~ d ~ "; t ~ . - ..,~-U(
J~~~\.....!; ~1~~\\<Jl . ~ ~fl! ~. ~ ~3 '~
~;';::PI . =:.'" ~ ~W~II ~ ~~~-:- ~.". ~,~
~... 11\1 7rRiII l -y- .~ -I--- I ~...~'"'' ,
lJ !Or Wi' - ~ ---=.::.:. id
,- /.- I \ ~ ~ ~ ...... 1 ..__ _
1 ~ ,fy~... /' - \ '" \..-- ( ...... "\T.'" _
t~E I ~ ffiClf/~~ I~~\ \\\ I ~ijr-<~-2iiB~!~
~ ,j , ... - I~ I 'iR' .=- I-
II ~ . I i {Ii --" I -
~ tI'~, .I I - "'..... - ~
:z ,...,: :1\ ,: ".1';;""'\ 1 II ".'! JJ~ ~ A*-r ~
~ 1 I i ~ I J';;' J \ I ~ ./--.= :-9lJa.. -
J ; t= 1m ~c./lf''lt:; ) J l If ~ \I!i~~ I
~ >I 1: ~ f "'@ ~<<~ '" -:... = y C & I~ ~~~f:: ~ t
q: 41' 'i ~ : ... ~ ___ If._ -~........
." 1~J~~11.: \'1- .'_Ii .'\.....jU _' -I~-\;-_I
~ Q; -).. I 1 _ _ ,- ~ I -- - . II _ "\ -
" . -: r (~ ; t , - 1- · -. GJ i.,... " .... I
- ~~-(41...._ ..... !!!<..
~ 1 n!!J H ~ (i~":"- ~--~q ...,":""17 M~li' ~ 1~8 ~ I" Ii;:~r
.. ~ '" 1:~ -.-.... 1 I 1 ll-"J~ I ~'1f, I'? __--.l.'~!IJ'''1
v ~ 1 : ~i-~ J: ~ :1 ;a. - JI - ;
':-4 ~ if~l~l(I"u~~~~. Ci..'~ (m i
$ ~. '" .. '~rno .... ... I ~\ \.)... I
: _f 1 A · j 1 -..n. '" '" - '\ ."..~. --1 - "'"\1 -D ~ I
o J ...-.. r p ,1--" - I! I (~1l ~'Jt "
~ ~ -II i ~ ... .. I~.... y ,- - ... ill /)
~~ f ~11 "; f'''-,. -v-p~ -ci -I : :.. ~ ~ I
o - ~ " 1 .... e-'~~ "'- J I \
,J JDD'. :.~~...~:: ;~- ~I::.EI I ~ . I ~ ~ Ii
:- -..."'~ ..!" - J L-. w 1"- h A ~L .
'Z ",.. . ,. __ .... __ .. ..
cl ~.. -. -- ....-- ___""'\ 1/ 't T......~ 111..1)
..,;- v ~
19
1
)(
111
,. ..
. .
.
.
.
..
.
.
In 1971, the Metro Council added the first housing element to its Metropolitan
Development Guide. There had been growing concern about the increasing
conc'entration of low income households in certain neighborhoods of Minneapolis
and St. Paul, and about the increasing disparity between income and housing
costs for many households throughout the area. A-95 review gave the Metro
Council some leverage for encouraging suburban Metro area communities to
seriously confront these issues. Specifically, the Metro Council established in
Policy 1:3 of its 1971 Housing Development Guide that local applications for
federal funding of any kind would be given lower approval recommendations if the
community did not have adequate mechanisms in place for providing low and
moderate income housing.
At the state level, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) was
established in 1971 as well. It offered a variety of financial resources, including
authority for cities to issue tax exempt bonds for housing construction and
availability of direct grants or low interest loans for acquisition or rehabilitation of
existing housing units or construction of new units.
Golden Valley had begun working on a new comprehensive plan in 1970. There
is strong indication in the record that the City had every intention of doing its best
to address regional housing concerns. In November 1971 and January 1972, the
Planning Commission discussed how the provision of low and moderate income
housing could be accommodated in local planning efforts. In February 1972, the
Human Rights Commission recommended holding an educational workshop for
Golden Valley residents as well as elected and appointed officials, an idea that the
City Council endorsed the following month. In April 1972, the Planning
Commission asked staff to prepare a report on how Golden Valley's comprehen-
sive plan could best incorporate regional issues in its goals and policies.
Through late 1971 and early 1972, staff had received several inquiries from
developers interested in finding suburban sites for Section 236 housing projects.
In May 1972, the City Manager arranged for one such developer, Shelter
Development Corporation, to make a presentation at a joint meeting of the City
Council, Planning Commission, and Human Rights Commission. Following that
meeting, at the City Council's request, both commissions came back with
recommendations that Golden Valley should be receptive to low and moderate
income housing development proposals; the Planning Commission noted that
appropriate statements were being added to the goals and policies of the
comprehensive plan.
Unfortunately, Golden Valley collided head-on with the Metro Council's Policy 13
at about that same time. Facing a pressing need to meet demands for park and
recreation facilities from a rapidly growing citizenry, the City had embarked on an
. $800,000 park improvement program. To supplement local resources, application
C-3
. .'
'.
was made in spring of 1972 for a federal grant of $140,000. The proposal was in
conformity with Metro Council goals and policies for public open space.
Nevertheless, on a vote of 7 to 5, the Metro Council invoked Policy 13 in its A-95
review and gave the grant application a poor recommendation because Golden
Valley's low income housing goals and policies were not yet in place.
.
A Metro Council offer to hold its final decision for two or three months so Golden
Valley could either complete its housing goal adoption process or make a firm
commitment to at least one specific housing development proposal was viewed
more as blackmail than as a constructive compromise, and was refused. The City
even went so far as to consider filing a lawsuit. The City Attorney advised letting
the matter drop, since there appeared to be solid state and federal backing for the
Metro Council's position, and adverse publicity might unfairly paint Golden Valley
as being opposed to addressing low and moderate income housing needs. In the
end, Golden Valley settled for sending a three-page letter of protest to the federal
grant agency involved.
It is difficult to say today whether, or in what way, the Metro Council's action
affected Golden Valley's attitude toward providing low and moderate income
housing. Shelter Development Corporation came in with its application for the
Dover Hill PUD project in August 1972. On more than one occasion, during the .
hearing process, the developer felt a need to publicly deny accusations of
colluding with the Metro Council to force the City's approval. At least one local
newspaper editorial, while applauding the PUD approval in October 1972, belittled
the City's action by relating it directly back to the Metro Council's "big stick". As a
footnote, the City learned in December 1972 that the park improvement grant had
been denied; there is nothing in the record to indicate how strongly the Metro
Council's A-95 recommendation might have influenced this outcome.
In a similar vein as the 1968 federal goal-setting legislation, the Metro Council in
1973 adopted a subsidized housing allocation plan, establishing fair share quotas
for all Metro Area communities based on overall regional housing needs. These
quotas were subsequently tied in with Policy 13 and the A-95 review process. In
1974, the Metro Council was authorized as a metropolitan HRA, giving it greater
ability to actively assist in local housing efforts.
Nationwide, 1974 saw the sharp curtailment of Section 236 funds and the creation
of two other HUD funding programs. Section 8 housing assistance provided direct
payments to owners of qualifying rental housing units on behalf of low and
moderate income tenants. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program provided money that could be used for development of low and moderate
income housing units, elimination of blighted properties of all types, and various .
other local improvement efforts designed primarily to benefit disadvantaged
households.
. .
..
.
.
, ,
Golden Valley finally adopted the land use section of the l!pdated comprehensive
plan, including housing goals and policies, in 1974. Using the PUD process to
achieve higher residential densities. and requiring a portion of all residential
developments to be affordable to low or moderate income households were two
key points of the plan. That same year, the City's Human Rights Commission
prepared a report on housing finance mechanisms that might work well for Golden
Valley; recommendations included forming a City HRA, a possibility also raised in
the Comprehensive Plan.
The City investigated and discussed the local HRA option at great length without
coming to agreement on its potential usefulness. In 1975, as an alternative to an
HRA, the City council instead established a Housing and Community
Development Commission. The new body lacked the powers of an HRA to
condemn land, issue bonds, and employ a variety of other development tools, but
was charged with addressing housing issues in general and with guiding the city's
use of state or federal dollars for housing or other local improvements.
Minnesota's 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act required all Metro Area local
governments to adopt housing plans that included specific commitments to the
provision of affordable housing. Again, the Metro Council was the designated
oversight agency. Communities were given until 1980 to comply.
That same year, Golden Valley once more ran afoul of Policy 13 during the Metro
Council's annual A-95 review of CDSG applications. Along with Edina and St.
Anthony, the City was cited as not having set adequate three-year goals toward its
fair share quota of affordable housing; Plymouth was also in trouble, for making
unsatisfactory progress toward already established goals. In contrast to the
earlier experience, Golden Valley and the Metro Council came to terms without
any loss of funding for the City. In fact, when HUD made additional bonus CDSG
funds available that year, the City was at the head of the line to request money for
its scattered-site housing project; the contribution that the project would make
toward the City's fair share quota is clearly noted in the record.
Also in 1976, the City's Administrative Assistant noted in a local newspaper article
that a quarter of his job was involved in seeking out, applying for, and monitoring
the expenditure of government grants for a variety of local projects. In the area of
housing funds, he was assisted by a newly-established intern position with a
salary paid through CDSG money. There were signs, though, of harder financial
times to come. Annual population estimates prepared by the Metro Council
showed that Golden Vailey had passed its peak and was beginning to decline; this
would hurt the City because many sources of financing for local governments
were tied to population size. At the same time, the cost of government was going
up, due to economic inflation and to the City's general stage of development.
C-5
, .
In 1977, the Metro Council overhauled and expanded its 1972 housing policy plan
in response to the 1976 state legislation. Policy 13 remained in the plan. Golden
Valley continued to apply for, and receive, a variety of federal grants. For COBG
alone, 1977-1981 would bring in annual amounts averaging around $150,000.
The Calvary Square and Medley Park PUO's provided significant contributions to
the housing quotas that kept the City clear of Policy 13.
.
By 1978, a signifICant amount of time was being spent on housing and other grant
activities by the City Manager as well as the Administrative Assistant and the
COBG-funded intern. The Golden Valley HRA was established that year. 1979
brought the onset of a major retrenchment to Golden Valley as the City adjusted
to changing community needs and demands. State aid was decreasing as costs
were increasing. The energy crisis was having a serious impact on vehicle-
oriented city services such as police protection and street maintenance, as well as
on the operation of city buildings. Other local priorities were edging out affordable
housing. The Housing and Community Development Commission was disbanded,
its duties divided between the HRA, the City Council, the Planning Commission,
and the Human Rights Commission. The housing intern position was
discontinued as use of COBG funds became more restricted. The Administrative
Assistant left at the end of the year, and was not replaced in order to cut costs. .
Other staff positions would be terminated as well.
A visit from a HUD COBG oversight team in 1979 resulted in warnings that the
City's grant records and documentation were very inadequate, the City needed to
develop a better system to ensure the prompt expenditure of funds, and the City
needed to be more careful to spend its grant money only on eligible activities.
Nationwide, HUO was fighting against a wide range of intentional and
unintentional abuses of CDBG funds and other financing tools that were meant to
benefit low and moderate income people. Requirements for obtaining and using
such funding were becoming more stringent as a result.
In 1980, Golden Valley initiated another comprehensive plan update, as ordered
by state law in 1976. The 1980 census showed that Golden Valley's population
was down by 2500 people since 1970, though the number of households had
increased. The City looked around and found itself 90% developed with
significant development constraints affecting its remaining vacant land.
Nationwide, the inflation of the 1970's was giving way to recession. Ronald
Reagan was elected president.
The early 1980's brought the elimination of some federal housing assistance
programs, with sharp cutbacks and/or reorganization of others. Money from the
state was also being cut back, due to budget shortfalls. The A-95 review process .
was terminated in 1983 or 1984, reducing the Metro Council's ability to keep local
governments focused on housing issues. Two of the three housing projects
considered by Golden Valley in the mid 1980's failed. The Metro Council's 1985
"
.
.
.
, ,
housing policy plan acknowledged the changing times by eliminating the specific
quotas for local provision of affordable housing. A version of the old Policy 13
was retained and renumbered as Policy 39, but with only limited authority behind
it. There was no less concern about the plight of low and moderate income
households, but it had become very difficult to address the problem at the local
level.
Golden.Valley was awarded a plaque from the Metro Council in 1985, recognizing
its past contribution to rental housing for low and moderate income households,
but affordable housing activities all but died out in the City between the late 1980's
and the early 1990's. Today's leaner City staff no longer includes any grant
experts or housing specialists. The two ongoing housing assistance programs are
administered by agencies outside of City Hall. Construction costs remain high and
the City has no easily developable land left for new projects. The Clinton adminis-
tration has recently been providing more money for CDBG-eligible activities, but it
still does not approach the buying power of that fund in the late 1970's. Long t~rm
federal funding for low and moderate income housing remains in a state of
uncertainty. Minnesota's Livable Communities Act of 1995 is the most recent
attempt to refocus attention on affordable housing in the Metro Area, but it is not
specifically directed at the poorest segment of the population.
C-7
, I
'.
Dover Hill PUD Project
.
Time Frame:
1972-1975 Concept Development and Construction
1974-1988 Minimum Affordable Occupancy Period
Administering Agency: The development is owned and managed by Shelter
Development Corporation, subjectto requirements established by HUD for the
Section 8 housing subsidy program.
Funding Source: Funded by Section 236 guidelines of the National Housing Act
of 1968. Financing occurred in the following manner: MHFA issued bonds to
finance the mortgage, while HUD paid a monthly interest subsidy to the mortgage
holder. The end result was a 1 % interest rate applied to the mortgage. This
interest savings, in conjunction with a property tax abatement, is passed down to
the resident in the form of low and moderate income housing.
Thumbnail Description: Dover Hill consists of 234 units which cover 13.6 acres,
equating to an overall density of 17.2 units per acre. Of these 234 units, 196
qualify for some form of rental assistance. The two types of assistance programs
available are: controlled rent and deep subsidy. Controlled rent targets the
working poor by providing a moderate subsidy. To qualify for this program .
participants are required to pay approximately 30% of their income, as set by state
rental rate guidelines. Deep subsidy focuses on meeting the needs of the poor.
Residents who qualify pay a flat 30% of their gross income towards rent.
Residents in both programs are required to be certified every year for eligibility.
The Dover Hill complex contains a seven story mid-rise senior building with 122
one bedroom units, 14 of which are equipped to accommodate handicapped
residents. Twelve buildings, two and three stories in height, are reserved for
families, and equate to 112 apartments. Rental assistance of the complex is
broken down in the following manner:
122 - one bedroom senior apts
48 - one bedroom apts
48 - two bedroom apts
16 - three bedroom apts
105 controlled rent, 17 deep subsidy
29 controlled rent, 19 deep subsidy
38 market rate, 8 controlled rent,
2 deep subsidy
16 deep subsidy
Highlights/Pitfalls: The affordable housing initiative first made headway in
Golden Valley in 1972 with the conception of Dover Hill. This project was
designed to not only provide affordable housing, but to encourage age and
economic diversity of its residents. Even with the merits of such a proposal, this .
project faced many hurdles, from community opposition to the faltering financing
status of the developer.
,. n
~.
.
.
.
The first proposal for Dover Hill came before the Council in June of 1972 from
Shelter Development Corporation. Shelter was formed in 1970 through the
combination of two privately held companies, Bor-son Construction and American
Lumber. When Shelter first approached the Council the company was quickly
gaining respect in the affordable housing field, with several large projects
underway throughout the country. Following the Dover Hill proposal, Council
sought the opinion of the Human Rights Commission (HRC) regarding the need
for affordable housing in the community. After the review, HRC strongly
supported this aim and saw it as a definite need for the City.
Even with the support of Golden Valley's' HRC and League of Women Voters,
Dover Hill faced many challenges. The first being neighborhood opposition to the
proposal. With the development process underway, neighborhood opposition
quickly grew. Residents feared declining property values, increased traffic,
overburdened schools, environmental concerns, and improper land use (site was
zoned light industrial). To address these concerns, studies were conducted by a
City Planning Consultant, and the Metropolitan Council. The results of these
studies were contradicting. The consultant concluded multi-family housing would
not be in conformity to the existing plan, and the site would be inappropriate for
this use. The Metropolitan Council, in its A-95 review process stated the site was
appropriate for residential use based on review criteria, and further urged support.
Upon release of these reports residents residing near the development area
became increasingly more vocal in their opposition. On the other end of the
spectrum, support for the project grew with community leaders and groups voicing
their approval for the development. In response, the City held three public
hearings before preliminary approval of Dover Hill on December 12, 1972.
After seven months for preliminary approval,- Shelter strove to meet other
stipulations set forth by the Section 236 program. One stumbling block came with
acquiring mortgage insurance, both the Met Council and the area HUD office were
required to approve in this process. The Met Council approved the insurance,
however, the local HUD office rejected the request. To clear the matter up, the
Federal HUD office stepped into render its interpretation, and finally mortgage
insurance was approved for the development. On June 28, 1973, MHFA agreed
to issue bonds for $5,798,489 and finance the Dover Hill mortgage.
Only weeks after financing was approved the Minneapolis Star published articles
on Shelter's financial status, their outlook was questionable. Shelter attributed its
financial woes to high interest rates (10.8%), escalating costs, construction delays,
reduced housing starts and a reduction in available government mortgage funds.
With this finding brought to light, Canadian Construction and Development
Corporation entered as a new partner in the project. Canada's President was
Garrett G. Carlson, no newcomer to government-assisted developments. Carlson
C-9
.~
was previously President and Chairman of the Board of the Shelter Corporation of
America, the parent company of Shelter Development Corporation. Quoted in the
press, Carlson stated the reasons for this joint venture were to add additional
economic strength, and utilize his expertise in the development of Dover Hill.
.
After the entrance of a new partner, the project passed the following major
benchmarks in July 1974: a performance and payment bond were issued and
public safety concerns with regards to locks, doors, fire safety requirements were
met. On July 15, 1974 the Dover Hill proposed plat and PUD were accepted and
approved; nevertheless, reports indicate that construction had not begun by the
end of August 1974 due to a lengthy plan review process required by the State.
The remaining development information on the project remains somewhat
sketchy; however, on July 1, 1975 Dover Hills' family units were available for
occupancy, followed by the senior's complex which was ready on November 1,
1975. During the period of occupancy in September of 1975, the HRC brought to
light apparent violations in the Management Agreement. These violations
included: failure to hire a Social Director, to provide documents to the HRC in a
timely fashion, to advertise in minority publications, to contact and inform minority
groups of the development, to meet the deep subsidy requirements during the
initial rental period, and to consistently attempt to rent to persons residing within .
Golden Valley. To correct these problems the HRC wrote to Shelter Development
Corporation both in September 1974 and in January 1975; no response was
received. The matter was then brought before the City Council. From there the
Council referred the issue to staff, who then informed the Council that the
ManagemElnt Agreement was between HUD and the developer. Staff further
advised the HRC to contact HUD first hand. Once the proper authorities were
identified and contacted, the violations in the Management Agreement were
corrected by the spring of 1976. .
Prospects for the Future: Dover Hill's original period of affordability ran through
1974, after which an agreement is to be reached every five years. In speaking
with Dover Hill management, they hope to see the development continue in its
pursuit of providing affordable housing. However, they caution that changes in
legislation could force them to seek other alternatives for the property. Yet, with
the need for this type of housing, management doesn't foresee any changes in
legislation in the near future. This need is apparent in the deep subsidy units
which have the following waiting lists: one bedroom/two year wait, two bedrooml
five year wait, and three bedroom/one year wait. Currently, there is no waiting list
for the controlled rent apartments.
.
.
.
.
Single Family Home Rehabilitation Program
Time Frame: 1975-1995 (and Ongoing)
Administering Agency: Hennepin County, through an agreement with the City of
Golden Valley, uses federal grant money allocated annually to the City; program
controls must conform to requirements of the U. S. Department of Housing and
Urban Llevelopment (HUD).
Funding Source: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Thumbnail description: This program is designed to help low income
households with basic home repair and maintenance. The money covers such
items as reroofing, residing, new insulation, plumbing or wiring improvements,
replacement of furnace or water heater, and handicap accessibility improvements.
Many of the Golden Valley recipients are senior citizens or single-parent families.
Funds are categorized as a "deferred loan"; if recipients remain in the home for'
the full term of the loan, then the amount is erased from the books without
repayment, but if they sell the home before the loan term expires then they must
repay the full amount out of the proceeds of the sale.
Highlights/Pitfalls: Since CDBG money first became available in 1975, Golden
Valley has committed a total of $620,000 to this program, thirty percent of all
COBG dollars received over the years. When Golden Valley first began the
program, the actual loan money came from the Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency, while the City's CDBG money was spent on staff costs of publicizing the
program and pre-screening the applicants. At that time, individual loans were
capped at $5000 and forgiven after six years.
At times during the past two decades, this program has represented the only
annual financial commitment to affordable housing in Golden Valley. On the other
hand, there was also a period in the late 1980's when the funding was cut off for
several years. The total CDBG allocation for Golden Valley during those years
was sharply reduced from previous levels, and other CDBG-eligible activities were
in strong competition for the remaining dollars. At the same time, a loophole in
the program allowed one self-employed individual to obtain money for repairs on a
home that was valued considerably higher than any others in the program,
causing concern about the adequacy of program controls.
Given the obvious need for the program, and the anomalous nature of the
described incident, funding was restored by the early 1990's. In recent years the
money has provided improvements for four to eight homes per year. For 1996,
several administrative changes will be implemented. The most significant
changes are: 1) the lien period for 0% deferred loans (maximum $15,000) will be
extended from 15 years to 30 years and 2) for families with incomes greater than
50 percent of the area median income ($25,000 for a family of four) the loans will
C-ll
bear 3% simple interest for 10 years and have a 30-year lien. An extra $5000 can
be added for handicap accessibility improvements. These changes are due to
current funding limitations and a need to more effectively serve the working poor.
Prospects For The Future: CDBG funding increased for the past three years,
and now has dropped somewhat for 1996, after several years of sharply reduced
availabUity. The long-term future of this federal funding source remains uncertain,
with var:ious political factions arguing yearly for cutbacks or outright termination.
No replacement funding for the single family home rehab program has been
identified to compensate for any CDBG loss. Meanwhile, Golden Valley's aging
housing stock means that increasing numbers of homes are at or approaching a
point where they need basic maintenance. At the same time, increasing numbers
of single-parent and senior citizen households are in a position of not being able
to afford such basic maintenance.
,. 11)
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
, .
Scattered Site Housing Project
Time Frame: 1976 - Aug 1981 Concept Development and Construction
Sept 1981 - Feb 2001 Minimum Affordable Occupancy Period
Administering Agency: The units are owned by Shelter Development
Corporation, a private housing provider. They are managed by the staff of Dover
Hills, which is owned by the same corporation. They are subject to requirements
established by HUD for the Section 8 housing subsidy program.
Funding Source: Golden Valley used $129,500 in CDSG money to buy land,
which was then transferred to the developer for $1.00. Construction was financed
primarily through tax exempt Housing Development Sonds issued by a specially-
created front for the HRA, known as the Golden Valley Housing Finance
Corporation. Bonds were in the amount of $386,000, which included capitalized
interest. There was also $35,000 of developer's equity and $42,000 listed in th.e
record as "fees paid by other than cash". Rents are paid through HUD's Section 8
program.
Thumbnail Description: The project consists of eight, three-bedroom
townhouse-style rental units at two locations, Hwy. 100 near Scott Avenue
(duplex) and Douglas Drive near Sandburg Lane (duplex and four-plex). Six of
the units are available to any low-income families and two are specially designed
to accommodate mobility-impaired individuals and their personal attendants.
Highlights/Pitfalls: In 1976, HUD awarded CDBG "bonus funds" to the Twin
Cities Metro Area as one of seven urban regions nationwide to have implemented
an outstanding Housing Opportunity Plan. The Metro Council established
guidelines for how the money would be awarded among local governments. One
priority was projects that would provide housing suitable for large families, in a
neighborhood setting rather than a high-density apartment environment. This was
a relatively new concept at the time.
The Shelter Development Corporation, developer of the City's Dover Hill project,
joined with Golden Valley in submitting a proposal for twelve townhouse units to
be constructed at three scattered locations yet to be determined. The units were
to be in the form of a six-plex, a four-plex, and a duplex. The developer applied
for a HUO Section 8 rental contract. Golden Valley applied for $90,000 of the
COSG bonus funds to reduce land acquisition costs. The City did not have its
own HRA then, so arrangements had to be made for using the Metro Council's
HRA as the designated authority for the land cost write-down.
C-13
, '
In April 1977, the proposal was awarded top ranking among eight bonus fund
applications received by the Metro Council. With this backing, HUD approval was
also expected. Staff began to consider siting options. Even with CDBG
assistance, the financing would be tight, so only vacant land could be considered.
In January 1978, a list of potential sites was turned over to the City's Housing and
Community Development Commission (HCDC) for review.
.
In July.1978, the newly created Golden Valley HRA was authorized by the City
Council to begin land acquisition activities. With the local HRA up and running,
there would no longer be a need for the Metro HRA to handle acquisition, though
it would continue to be involved in other aspects of the development process. At
this time, there were five locations under consideration: 1) Hwy. 100 and Scott
Avenue, 2) Hwy. 100 and Lindsay Avenue, 3) Plymouth and Gettysburg Avenues,
4) Plymouth and Boone Avenues, and 5) Douglas Drive and Sandburg Lane.
Because the site selection process was taking so long, the City had to request an
extension of the bonus funding guarantee, which would otherwise expire that fall.
Site analysis included neighborhood meetings, soil tests, comments from various
City boards and commissions, and professional land appraisals. A planning
consultant was called in to evaluate each site in terms of existing use, location,
size/shape, relationship to adjacent uses, and conformity to the comprehensive .
plan. HUD siting guidelines also had to be considered.
Staff and the HCDC set up four neighborhood review meetings in August 1978
(there was a joint meeting for the two Plymouth Avenue sites). Staff wanted to
emphasize the fact that the housing would be privately owned and managed and
therefore would not be like "public housing projects". A total of 370 households
were notified of the various neighborhood meetings, and 68 local residents
attended one meeting or another. Each meeting lasted about two hours, and
similar concerns kept coming up: property value decline, inadequate
maintenance, "undesirables" coming into the neighborhood, and future loss of
control if the original developer should later sell out to a less capable owner.
After all meetings had been held, only the neighborhood around Hwy. 100 and
Lindsay Avenue appeared to be unalterably opposed to the concept. Based on
that opposition, the site was dropped from further consideration. The site at
Plymouth and Boone was also dropped due to general unsuitability, leaving only
the minimum required three sites. At about the same time, similar proposals in
Edina and Robbinsdale were completely derailed due to local opposition. An
editorial in the Golden Valley Post applauded Golden Valley and its residents,
stating "the scene was a calm, intelligent discussion of the facts which resulted in
a satisfactory solution for both sides." Of the three affected neighborhoods, the .
editorial noted "(w)hile they may not greet subsidized housing with open arms,
they are willing to accept subsidized housing in their neighborhoods provided the
City maintains some control over the property."
.
.
.
. .
In March 1979 it was discovered that the site at Plymouth and Gettysburg, which
was intended for the six-plex, might require prohibitively expensive pilings in order
to stabilize the building. A search for a replacement site was initiated. The City
also looked into the possibility of using additional CDBG money for soil correction.
HUD gave its approval to the Douglas Drive and Hwy 100 sites in June, but voiced
serious concerns about the Plymouth Avenue site before finally approving it in
July.
:
Throughout 1979, staff turnover in the regional HUD office resulted in paperwork
delays for several aspects of the project. There are indications that federal budget
cuts were making it difficult for HUD to meet all of its housing assistance
commitments. There were also problems with the preferred construction financing
mechanism of Housing Development Bonds (which would later evolve into
Housing Revenue Bonds); the exact nature of the difficulty is no longer clear. By
September 1979, it was obvious that construction would be delayed through yet
another winter, and a second bonus funding extension would be needed.
In classic "straw that broke the camel's back" style, an independent appraiser for
the Plymouth Avenue site declared that its highest and best use was industrial, in
keeping with existing adjacent uses, rather than residential as it was zoned. This
pushed the valuation of the land far above the amount of funding that was
available. The site would have to be dropped. Attempts to find a substitute site
had failed. In February 1980, the City agreed to increase the Douglas Drive site
to six units instead of the originally planned four in partial compensation for the
loss of the six-plex, but the other four units from the Plymouth Avenue site could
not be relocated.
The Douglas Drive neighborhood was not happy about the last-minute increase in
density, but under the zoning code the site was more than adequate in size for six
units. Later that year, when the City granted necessary variances for multiple
buildings on a lot and for a reduction in garage space, the Board of Zoning
Appeals would condition its approvals on a requirement that "no further
development be allowed to the rear area of the property," which abutted single-
family lots. This provided some reassurance to the neighbors that there would be
no additional unit increases in the future.
By August 1980, the HRA had finally completed acquisition of the two
development sites. Due to increases in other project-related costs, the original
CDBG bonus amount had to be augmented by an additional $39,500 of CDBG
money in order to fully cover acquisition costs instead of providing just a partial
write-down as originally planned. Among other conditions of the land transfer, the
City required that neighborhood representatives be included in the site design and
management plan development processes. The Human Rights Commission
would review the management plan prior to its approval, to ensure fairness in the
policies and practices it established.
C-15
The developer had until September 1981 to complete the project. Construction
financing had remained a concern until the Golden Valley State Bank stepped in
with an offer to buy the housing bonds at a 10.75% interest rate in mid-1980.
Unfortunately, project details were not finalized until too late in the year for
construction to begin. In January 1981, the bank agreed to honor its commitment
at the earlier-established interest rate despite the fact that runaway inflation had
pushed current rates well above that figure. The developer would not have been
able to repay the bonds at a higher rate, and the project would have died. As it
was, building permits were issued in February 1981 and the first families finally
moved into the eight new units by the September deadline.
Prospects for the Future: As with the Dover Hill project, Shelter Corporation
would probably be interested in extending the HUD Section 8 contract beyond
February 2001 provided that the property continues to support itself adequately
and Section 8 owner requirements remain reasonable.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ,
Calvary Square Senior High Rise PUD Project
Time Frame: Jan .1977 - Oct 1981 Concept Development and Construction
Oct 1981 - 2001 Minimum Affordable Occupancy Period
Administering Agency: The rental apartments are owned and managed by
Calvary Community Services, Inc. (CCS), a nonprofit affiliate of Calvary Lutheran
Church,'subject to HUD's Section 8 subsidy program requirements.
Funding Source: It is difficult to pin down a precise attribution of land acquisition
costs for this project because it was only a part of coordinated Valley Square
redevelopment activities. Overall land assembly included buying seventeen
residential properties, relocating the homeowners, removing the homes and other
related structures, and ripping out old Rhode Island Avenue. After establishing
the right-of-way for new Rhode Island, Golden Valley sold off the bulk of the
remaining area to CCS at vacant land prices and contributed an additional
$125,000 of CDSG money to help lower the cost even further. CCS obtained
construction financing through HUD's Section 202 program, and has an ongoing
Section 8 rental subsidy contract.
Thumbnail Description: This senior housing complex has one wing containing
80 subsidized rental apartments for low income households and another wing with
120 market rate co-operative units. Connecting the two is an area containing
jointly used facilities including a congregate dining room, meeting rooms, social
service director's office, health office, and barber/beauty shop. All of the
subsidized apartments have one bedroom. The entire building is barrier-free for
the mobility impaired and five of the subsidized units are specially equipped for
physically handicapped tenants. This is the only successful subsidized housing
project in Golden Valley to involve buyout and relocation of a sizable number of
previous property owners. It was financially feasible only because the street
relocation already required the property acquisitions, so the attendant costs did
not have to be fully borne by the housing project.
Highlights/Pitfalls: As early as 1973, the City's comprehensive plan stated that
"[a]n ideal site for elderly housing in the Village is in the vicinity of the Civic Center
Complex. This area provides a vast array of urban services, including shopping,
library,. bus transportation, nearby open space and in general a level of activity
that serves both a diversity of interest and accommodates the residents basic
needs." The plan also noted that higher densities were common for such
developments and that lower parking requirements were justified.
In January 1977, when officials from Calvary first approached the City Council to
explore the feasibility of the project, the intended site was to the south of the
church, across Golden Valley Road. Calvary owned the land where the Valley
Square Office Center would later be built. With assistance form the Ebenezer
C-17
, .
Home Society, the church was developing a concept that included prepared meals
and on-site resident care.
.
In January 1978, the report of the first Valley Square Commission was made
public. Among other things, it discussed traffic increases that were expected to
occur on Rhode Island Avenue if a ring road concept was implemented, linking a
then dead-end Rhode Island to Winnetka Avenue near the railroad tracks. The
Commission concluded that continuation of the existing single family uses lining
both sides on Rhode Island would be undesirable if the street connection were
built. At the same time, the residential lots were not deep enough to reasonably
allow for any other type of redevelopment.
The Commission recommended realigning Rhode Island to the west so it directly
abutted the civic center campus, and combining the remaining lots, partial lots,
and vacated original right-of-way into a single development parcel adjacent to the
church. The Calvary organization was specifically cited as a highly probably
developer if the land could be assembled in such a fashion. Rhode Island Avenue
homeowners immediately sent a joint letter of protest to the City Council about this
proposal.
The Council voted to proceed with the street realignment in May 1978. An agree- .
ment was signed between city and church, establishing Calvary as purchaser of
the excess land. Nineteen homes were involved, one of which had been owned
by Calvary for several years. Seventeen of the others would be acquired by the
end of the year. The owner of the eighteenth would end up donating his property
to Calvary in February 1979.
Meanwhile, the HRA was established in June 1978, with Valley Square redevelop-
ment activities as its primary motivating force. The Valley Square Redevelopment
Plan was adopted in July. It indicated a "senior citizen hig~ rise" to be built on the
bulk of the excess Rhode Island Avenue land, with general institutional use of
approximately the northerly one-quarter of the area involved. The Planning
Commission opposed the entire plan, on principle, feeling that the Council had
usurped the role properly assigned to the Commission by excluding the group
from the plan development process.
Old Rhode Island Avenue was vacated in July 1979, when construction began on
the new street segment. Calvary, though its newly established affiliate agency
CCS, applied to both HUD and MHFA for financing of the senior housing project.
The Golden Valley Post noted that the combination of a subsidized rental project
sharing services with a market rate co-operative was receiving national interest as
a new and innovative concept. HUD committed to construction financing and .
reservation of Section 8 subsidies for the 80 rental units in October 1979.
CCS submitted its PUD application in February 1980. With few residential uses
remaining in close proximity to the site, neighborhood opposition was limited,
C-18
.
.
.
.
.
. .
though intense. The Planning Commission also remained a strong opponent
throughout the application process. At the preliminary plan stage, the
Commissioners and four neighbors registered concerns about the eleven-story
height of the co-op wing of the proposed structure and the legality of a
government body working so closely with a religious institution. The Planning
Commission on a six-to-one vote recommended denial of the application, citing
too much density and too tall a structure; an alternative recommendation was
unanimously approved, that the structure be no taller than seven stories as
indicated on a previous design sketch and that the number of housing units be
reduced to a point where all parking requirements could be fully met.
In April 1980, the City Council approved the preliminary plans without the Planning
Commission's recommended changes. Because two Council members also
belonged to the Calvary congregation, the City Attorney was asked to rule on
conflict of interest. The City already had a policy in place for such situations, and
the attorney found no conflict. One of the church members abstained anyway, but
the other joined in the unanimous vote of approval. .
In July 1980, the Golden Valley Post published a detailed statement by one of the
opposing neighbors. The City Planning Director was accused of under-the-table
dealing with Calvary. The City Attorney was accused of making an incorrect
conflict of interest ruling. The Council/HRA was accused of conducting an
inappropriate land sale. CCS was accused of bait-and-switch tactics because
early designs had been for a seven story building but the actua! application asked
for eleven stories. A rebuttal from the Mayor was published the following month.
Also in August, CCS went back to the Planning Commission with detailed
development plans. A second Planning Commission hearing was unusual for a
PUD, and may have been related to the earlier negative recommendation. The
Commission unanimously recommended denial of the proposal based on the
same concerns as cited earlier. Because of the significant departure from normal
parking requirements, the proposal was sent on to the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA) for a ruling. CCS was unable to answer several Board questions regarding
future use of the rest of the Calvary site and overall parking concerns. The BZA
denied the requested parking waiver.
At the final City Council hearing on the matter in September, all of the earlier
issues came up again. The entire Planning Commission was present at the
Council's request, and argued strongly over density and parking issues. Also, the
human rights angle was raised; it was suggested that having "Calvary" in the
name of the development might be discriminatory because of its Christian
connotation and that the provision of private patios for some but not all units was
also discriminatory. Two neighbors spoke against the proposal. On the other
hand, several speakers, most of whom identified themselves as both Golden
Valley residents and Calvary Church members, thanked the Council for supporting
the development.
C-19
. .
.
.
.
Several Council members noted that higher residential densities were a sign of the
changing times. Based on extensive studies of parking at similar existing
developments, and on a Calvary proposal for cross-parking agreements between
the church, the high rise, and the Valley Square Office Center, the Council
instructed the BZA to reconsider the parking waiver. The Human Rights
Commission was assigned to review the management plan for the subsidized
portion .of the project and ensure that it reflected fair polices and practices.
Subject to BZA approval on the parking issue, the Council gave the project a
unanimous vote of approval. The Minneapolis Star offered the opinion that the
Planning Commission's ongoing opposition to the project stemmed at least in part
from the Council's early involvement and from the impression made at the
Planning Commission hearings by CCS presenters, who were not well prepared
and seemed to take Council approval for granted.
On reconsideration, the BZA approved the parking waiver. A building permit of
the rental wing of the project was issued before the end of September. The co-
operative wing was to follow at a later time. Six months before the 80 subsidized
apartments opened in October 1981, CCS already had a waiting list of 338 elderly
couples of singles who wanted to apply for admittance. About 30% were
currently living in zip code areas 55422 and 55427, covering most of Golden .
Valley along with portions of Crystal, New Hope, and Robbinsdale.
Prospects for the Future: Unknown. Calvary failed to respond to phone calls
and written information requests over a three week period.
.
. Medley Park Townhouse PUD Project
Time Frame: Mar 1980 - Dec 1982 Concept Development and Construction
Dec 1982 - Dec 2002 Minimum Affordable Occupancy Period
Administering Agency: The subsidized rental portion of the project is owned
and managed by Bar-Son Investment Properties Corporation, subject to
requirements established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing subsidy program.
Funding Source: Detailed financial records were cleared from the City's files
after bonds were fully paid off in 1993, signifying the end of the City's financial
interest in the site. It is known that Golden Valley supplied $313,000 of
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money and issued $360,000 in tax
exempt general obligation bonds. The amount of developer's equity is unknown,
as well as any possible contributions from other state or federal programs.
.
Thumbnail Description: A sixty-unit townhouse development on 8.5 acres of
land at Mendelssohn and Hillsboro Avenues. The easterly 5.5 acres, containing
30 market rate ownership units and an on-site drainage pond, has taken on a
separate identity as "Pheasant Glen". The westerly three acres with its 30 Section
8 rental units is still known as Medley Park. One of the rental units is fully
handicapped accessible, and one is a four-bedroom unit reserved for large
families; the other rental units have two or three bedrooms apiece. All are deep
subsidy units at this time, reserved for low income households.
Highlights/Pitfalls: As far as the permanent record is concerned, this project first
came to the City's attention in March 1980, when the Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency (MHFA) sent out a notice of application for funding. A private developer
proposed to put 37 Section 8 townhouse units on three acres of vacant land at
Mendelssohn and Hillsboro Avenues. The City had targeted the site for market
rate apartments in a 1979 planning study.
In May 1980, the MHFA notified Golden Valley that the townhouse proposal had
been selected for funding, at a slightly reduced density of 32 units. In August, the
developer applied to the City for Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation.
The City denied the application in November, on the grounds that the density was
still too high and that the City's policy was to require a mix of subsidized and
market rate units in PUD's. Neighbors in the King's Valley PUD to the south had
also opposed the project, citing traffic congestion, too little on-site parking and
storage, inadequate adjacent shopping and bus service, drainage problems, and
too many children with no place to play.
.
C-21
, .
After some internal reorganization, the developer returned in July 1981 with an
expanded proposal. In addition to the original three acres, the proposed PUD
incorporated four acres of the previously approved but never completed Galant
PUD lying immediately east of the site. Drainage would be provided on a one-
and-a-half acre tax forfeit parcel at the lowest corner of the newly combined site.
There would be a total of 64 townhouse units, with 30 set aside for Section 8
rental.and 34 to be sold at modest cost with federally backed, low-interest
mortgages.
.
The developer met with neighbors from King's Valley and from the completed
portion of Galant before any public hearings took place. Several plan
modifications were made in response to neighbor concerns. Preliminary PUD
approval was granted by the City Council in August 1981.
In February 1982 the HRA approved a contribution of $392,000 in CDSG money
for the project, and agreed to cover another $275,000 in project expenses through
bonds to be paid off by establishing a 15-year Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Housing District for the project. The money would be used for buying down land
costs, buying down high construction financing costs, providing adequate
drainage, and installing sidewalks, landscaping, and upgraded structural details.
It was the City's first experience with a residential TIF district, and there were .
concerns about whether it would work, but the HRA was equally concerned that
the project might fall apart without it.
Paying for capitalized interest on the bonds pushed the bond issue up to
$360,000. On the other hand, CDSG expenditures would ultimately top out at
almost $80,000 less than the amount allocated. A special HUD waiver had to be
obtained in order to use the CDSG money at all, since regulations limited it to
projects primarily benefiting low income households. The City also got a HUD
waiver to allow the developer to undertake construction of public improvements
such as the drainage system and sidewalks, which would normally have had to be
publicly bid; this allowed significant savings in the cost of those items.
The City Council gave final approval to the Medley Park PUD in April 1982,
subject to the signing of a development agreement. Some King's Valley
neighbors continued to protest over such issues as loss of wildlife habitat,
drainage, traffic, the public financing of the project, and the developer's refusal to
mix the subsidized units in among the market rate. ones. Council members
responded by saying they felt that the various issues had been handled as well as
possible, and that other legally allowable uses for the site - such as the apartment
buildings that were recommended back in 1979 - would probably have been
developed less carefully because they would require less City involvement. .
,. ,,,,
.
.
.
. .
Then the developer refused to sign the development agreement, due to a penalty
clause requiring forfeiture of the land back to the HRA if the market-rate portion of
the development was not in place within five years. Each side felt it had to retain
long-term control over the land in order to protect its investment. With a
construction start deadline of August 1 for the rental units in order to keep the
Section 8 designation, negotiations over the disputed development agreement
clause dragged on for two months. The developer finally conceded.
Groundbreaking occurred at the end of July 1982. Despite heavy rains in the fall,
the first 16 rental units were ready for occupancy by December, with the
remainder filling up in early 1983.
Construction of the ownership units did not begin until the summer of 1983, and
then continued in stages over several years. Records indicate concern over
steadily increasing construction costs; it is not clear whether the sale price of the
units as built was low enough to qualify for the originally intended low interest
mortgages. Although there were some years in which the TIF district generated
less money than projected, it performed well enough for the City to twice allow a
reduction in the total number of ownership units that had to be built. In fact, the
developer was able to payoff the full bond debt in less than the fifteen years that
the TIF district could have run.
Prospects for the Future: Based on tax record valuations, the ownership units in
Medley Park would still be considered "affordable" today for the purposes of the
Livable Communities program, and might even qualify for low interest, first-time
homebuyers loans; how far into the future that might continue is entirely
dependent on the housing market. The Section 8 rental units are no longer
subject to any affordability requirements linked to their original financing. Bor-Son
currently holds a HUD contract through 2002, with a guaranteed option to extend
for another ten years at that point. A representative of the corporation has
indicated a strong likelihood of exercising that option.
C-23
. .
Ewald Site - Early Efforts
.
Time Frame: May 1981 - Jul1988 Concept Development
Administering Agency: NA
Funding Source: Golden Valley spent $55,000 in Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) money to acquire the property. Other terms of financing
changed several times as proposals were discarded or amended. Additional City
costs were incurred in the form of legal fees, site clearance, a deposit to reserve
low-interest mortgage money, a court settlement, and other miscellaneous
activities.
Thumbnail Description: The site is approximately one acre in size, comprising
somewhat less than half of the old Ewald Dairy property which spanned the
Golden Valley/Minneapolis border at Golden Valley Road. In the course of these
early efforts, the project progressed from subsidized units to market rate, to
modest cost market rate. Density went from twenty units down to four. Type of
development went from townhouse to detached single family.
Highlights/Pitfalls: The Ewald Brothers Dairy Co. had been a fixture at the .
Golden Valley/Minneapolis border for decades. The dairy plant was on the
Minneapolis side, with a parking lot and truck storage area in Golden Valley.
Residential neighbors on both sides of the border had become increasingly less
tolerant of the company's activities over time. In 1980, the dairy was having
financial difficulties, and the City of Minneapolis saw an opportunity for a buyout
with subsequent residential redevelopment of the site.
In May 1981, the Golden Valley City Council was contacted by the Alderman of
the Minneapolis ward in which the Ewald property was located. Minneapolis
wanted to propose a joint venture wherein the two cities would acquire the site in
its entirety and redevelop it with 48 townhouse units, twenty of which would be in
Golden Valley. The only source of funds available to Golden Valley was CDSG
money, which the City had earmarked exclusively for low and moderate income
housing projects. The City had enough uncommitted CDSG money to finance the
parking lot acquisition, but not enough to assist with a subsidized housing
development.
Minneapolis responded that, through its existing partnership with the McKnight
Foundation, money could be made available to build subsidized units on the
Minneapolis part of the site; the two cities could then work out some sort of credit
exchange so that Golden Valley could show a linkage between its parking lot
acquisition and the subsidized units. HUD agreed to the arrangement, but Golden
Valley backed out of the deal in July due to concerns over how the general public
might perceive a suburb that would use federal money to get subsidized housing
built in another community rather than within its own borders. The City also felt
.
.
.
.
. ~
that the density was much too high for the one-acre site. Acquiring the land did
appear to be a good idea, though, so Golden Valley appointed a neighborhood
committee to consider other alternatives for redevelopment.
Later in the year, the two cities made another attempt to work out a joint proposal
after Minneapolis agreed to be more flexible in its approach. This effort fell apart
as well. A Minneapolis senior planner was quoted in the Minneapolis Tribune as
saying that Golden Valley's staff "was too lazy to work and make it happen."
Golden Valley's Planning Director retorted that there was too little trust between
the two communities and the partnership had never been an equal one.
In October 1981, Golden Valley's HRA authorized staff to negotiated the
acquisition of the parking lot land. Staff and the neighborhood committee had
agreed that townhouses would be acceptable on the site, but staff preferred a
density of 12 units while the neighbors advocated eight. The units were to be
ownership based and market rate. HUD had agreed that CDBG money could still
be used for acquisition under the blight removal classification, but could not be
used for any aspect of redevelopment. The City closed on the purchase in March
1982.
In the spring of 1982, a prospectus was sent out, seeking proposals for "medium
priced townhouses or condominiums designed to blend with the surrounding
single family residential neighborhood." As a compromise between staff and
neighbor recommendations, maximum density was capped at 1 0 units. Five
proposals were submitted.
On review, the neighborhood committee favored a proposal for ten units by
Monson and Ueland. The committee liked it architecture, site layout, unit sizes,
and the inclusion of a tot lot. Monson and Ueland ranked third out of the five
proposals in the staffs review, based on concerns about the site layout and about
the lack of experience on the part of the developer in September 1982.
The City approved a PUD permit for the Ewald project in May 1983. With the
support of the neighborhood committee, there was little dissent during the
approval process. Trouble began over the summer months. The developer was
unable to come up with an adequate financial commitment to back the
performance guarantee required by the development agreement. In August,
Monson and Ueland asked to be let out of the agreement, with the refunding of
the developer's deposit. The HRA declined, offering instead an amended
development agreement. Monson and Ueland still were unable to meet the terms
of the performance guarantee. Negotiations continued into the fall.
In 1984, Bor-Son Investment Co. was brought in under option with Monson and
Ueland. Because or Bor-Son's success with Medley Park, it was hoped that the
change in developers could salvage the project. Bor-Son worked with the HRA for
several months. The proposal remained within the parameters of the approved
C-25
PUD permit, but the developer kept the purchase price of the units low enough to
qualify for low-interest first time homebuyers mortgages available through the
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for modest cost homes. Golden Valley paid
a partial deposit of $3,200 to reserve the mortgage funds, with Bor-Son paying the
rest. In an intensive marketing effort, the developer received 150 responses, from
which 74 prospective buyers viewed the site and obtained detailed project
information, six actually placed deposits, and only two signed purchase
agreements. At that point, Bor-Son declared the project unmarketable as
designed by Monson and Ueland.
Monson and Ueland blamed the HRA for the lack of progress on the project.
According to the developer, the HRA had tried to change the form and amount of
the financial commitment from what had been represented by staff and what was
in the development agreement, and then had refused to be reasonable about
letting Monson and Ueland out of the agreement when the parties could not come
to terms. In November 1984, the developer offered to settle matters for a $40,000
payment from the HRA and cancellation of the development agreement without
prejudice on either side. In December 1984, the HRA declared Monson and
Ueland in default of the development agreement and demanded payment for
costs incurred to date. A breach of contract suit against the HRA followed in
March 1985, with Monson and Ueland claiming $400,000 in damages, ten times
what was requested back in November. The case finally settled out of court in
November 1987, with the HRA paying the developer $30,000.
In April 1988, Golden Valley was contacted by a Minneapolis citizens' group called
the Northside Residents Redevelopment Council. Minneapolis had encountered
its own problems in getting the Ewald site redeveloped. Early that year, a
proposal by the nonprofit Project for Pride in Living (PPL) had finally been
approved. The project consisted of six single family homes that would be
affordable to moderate income households. The Residents Council wanted to see
a similar PPL-sponsored development on the Golden Valley land. This time there
would be four single family homes in a higher ($110,000-$120,000) price range;
PPL wanted the land donated. The HRA was not opposed to the development
proposal itself, but had determined that the land could not be donated for such a
project. The HRA did offer to sell the land for $29,000 if the developer paid for
installation of all utilities. PPL declined the offer.
Prospects for the Future: Following one more false start, the site was finally
developed in 1992-93. See the other two Ewald project summaries for details.
,. ",..
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ,
Mallard Creek Apartment Project
Time Frame: Jan 1983 - Jun 1987 Concept Development and Construction
Jun 1987 - Dec 2005 Minimum Affordable Occupancy Period
Administering Agency: Mallard Creek Partnership, a general partnership "spun
off" of United Properties, Inc. and Northland Company for the sole purpose of
develop'ing and managing this project. The partnership is subject to certain
housing affordability and administrative requirements .associated with the Housing
Revenue Bond program, and is supposed to supply certification of compliance to
the City on a regular basis.
Funding Source: Valley Square Tax Increment Bonds supported initial property
acquisition and clearance, as well as construction of certain public improvements
in the general area. For the project itself, the City issued Housing Revenue Bonds
in the amount of $5.9 million and the developer supplied $298,000 in owner
equity. Off and on, the apartments have also participated in HUD's Section 8
certificate program for renters. .
Thumbnail Description: Mallard Creek Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a
122 unit, three-story apartment complex on Bassett Creek at Wisconsin Avenue
and Golden Valley Road. It is one of several HRA-initiated redevelopment
projects in the City's Valley Square Redevelopment Area. Twenty-four of the units
are required to be kept at rents affordable to low-income households, and to be
reserved for qualifying households. All other units are required to be kept at rents
affordable to moderate-income households.
Highlights/Pitfalls: When the City first established Valley Square in 1978,
Wisconsin Avenue did not exist, Golden Valley Road ran in a corridor directly
adjacent to Hwy. 55 rather than in its present alignment past the site, and the
Reiss family greenhouse business covered the entire area delineated by Bassett
Creek, old Golden Valley Road and Wisconsin Avenue. The street improvements
were components of the redevelopment plan for Valley Square, as was acquisition
of the greenhouse property, which was completed in 1985.
The realignment of Golden Valley Road in 1986 divided the former greenhouse
property into two parcels. A Request for Proposals issued in 1983 had
contemplated this realignment and had given a preference for office developments
on both sides of the new street, but also allowed latitude for residential apartments
on the northerly parcel. United Properties was awarded "designated developer"
status for the area by responding to the RFP with a combined office/apartment
proposal.
Subsidized housing was not an early consideration in the redevelopment process.
In fact, there were minimum per-unit valuations that would have to be maintained
C-27
in order to generate enough tax increment to contribute back to the
redevelopment district.
.
In 1985, the developer began to seek outside funding to make the development
feasible. Tax-exempt Housing Revenue Bonds were one option. Such bonds
required at least twenty percent of the housing units in a development to meet
specified affordability guidelines for a specified period of time. When the bonds
were issued in 1985, it was noted that the guidelines defined affordable housing to
be housing priced at a value affordable to households with an income of eighty
percent or less of the median income for a standard family of four in the Twin
Cities Metro Area. There was no adjustment factor for how many persons a
qualifying household actually comprised. Thus, a single individual with the income
defined for a family of four would still be a qualifying household, even though that
individual in reality was much better off financially than a family of four at the same
income.
The housing plan that was required to spell out how the development would meet
housing affordability guidelines indicated that all twenty-four of the affordable units
would be one-bedroom apartments. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency,
which authorized the issuance of Housing Revenue Bonds, approved the plan.
The City held a public hearing on the bond issue in October 1985. There was no .
special effort to send out mailed notices of the hearing, and no neighbors
requested an opportunity to speak. The lack of interest may have been related to
the fact that there were no residential neighborhoods in close proximity to the
proposed development.
The bond issue itself took place in December, clearing the way for planning
approval and construction. The PUD hearings, which did have mailed-notice
requirements, were as quiet as the earlier bond hearing. Construction began in
the summer of 1986 and the first tenants moved in the following Mayor June.
Prospects for the Future: Given Mallard Creek's very minimal initial compliance
with affordability requirements, it is doubtful that the owners will be prepared to
extend an affordability guarantee beyond the 2005 expiration deadline without
substantial outside incentives.
.
.
.
.
Duluth and Douglas Senior Housing Project
Time Frame: Apr 1984 - Dec 1986 Concept Development
Administering Agency: Bradley D. Stark and Associates, a private development
corporation, subject to regulations established by the City in ~ Tax Increment
Financing Plan and to requirements accompanying the use of Housing Revenue
Bonds. :
Funding Source: Financing details went through a number of changes during the
project's lifetime. At its end stage, they included creation of a Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) District and issuance of $1.5 million in TIF bonds by the City,
issuance of tax-exempt Housing Revenue Bonds by the City in the amount of $4.4
million, and developer's equity of $400,000. This would have been the first
housing project in Golden Valley to offer subsidized rents without using any of the
subsidy programs available through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD); rent reductions were to be provided by the developer from
overall project cash flow.
Thumbnail Description: This was proposed to be a rental townhouse
development for senior citizens, with 117 units on approximately seven acres of
land. It would have required the buyout and removal of ten single family homes
and a church (alternative proposals for leaving the church in place were also
explored.) Rental subsidies would be available for a minimum of ten years (the
revenue bond repayment period) for 23 of the 117 units; the remainder would be
market-rate rental. Golden Valley's previously-constructed senior housing had all
been in high-rise apartments.
Highlights/Pitfalls: After being identified in a 1983 Planning Commission study
as a potential site for apartment redevelopment, the land around the Jehovah's
Witness Church at Duluth Street and Douglas Drive received attention from a
variety of developers for low-and moderate-income housing use. In 1984, it was
briefly considered by a developer who went on to form the Laurel Ponds
Partnership and apply for financial assistance on an alternative site at Jersey and
Laurel Avenues. Also in 1984, Derrick Land Company spent several months
working on a proposal for senior housing; that idea eventually collapsed without
ever getting to any formal hearing stage. In 1985, another senior housing
proposal surfaced briefly, and went the same way as the Derrick proposal.
In 1986, Bradley D. Stark and Associates approached the City with yet another
proposal for senior housing. Unlike other prospective developers, Stark already
had purchase options on the properties when he approached the City in February.
Unfortunately, as staff and the developer worked to iron out financing and site
details over the next several months, the availability of, and regulations governing,
financial assistance for such projects also underwent changes. The purchase
options lapsed in August, but the City and developer continued with negotiations
C-29
on the understanding that the HRA would use its condemnation authority to assist
in land acquisition if the project was approved. Financing options continued to be
juggled.
.
By November, staff, the developer, and the financial consultants on both sides
finally felt that a viable financing package had been assembled. Stark made an
informal presentation to the HRA, and at the HRA's instruction then held a
meetin~ for 156 neighboring property owners as identified on a list supplied by
staff. Not being an official City meeting, the records contain no information on
attendance or warmth of reception at that meeting. Files do contain a few
communications from property owners unhappy with the proposal; there were
requests for a more thorough investigation of Stark's financial means and
development track record.
A December hearing had been scheduled for the City to consider approval of the
revenue bonds. It was cancelled a week before it was to take place. Staff had
received information from the City of St. Paul indicating that the developer had
difficulty meeting financial obligations for a project there, and had been forced to
withdraw his proposal after a good deal of effort on the City's part. Further
research led to the conclusion that the developer appeared to lack the
development experience and financial wherewithall necessary to successfully .
complete a project on his own. The proposal was pronounced "dead" in February
1987. The Planning Commission was asked to reconsider the general suitability
of the site for high-density housing of any kind.
Prospects for the Future: In September 1987, the Planning Commission's study
results upheld townhouse-style housing as a suitable option for the site, with a
preference for senior units in particular. The Planning Commission also
recommended against changing the land-use classification of the site before an
acceptable development proposal was in hand. All ten homes and the church
remain on the property today. Given the high cost of site acquisition and
clearance, it is not likely that residential redevelopment would be a cost-effective
undertaking.
.
~ ..
.
Laurel Ponds Apartment Project
Time Frame: May 1984 - Aug 1984 Concept Development
Administering Agency: Laurel Ponds Limited Partnership, an entity comprising
three housing professionals, joined together specifically for this project. The
Partnership would be subject to requirements established by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for projects of this type, and to
requirements
accompanying the use of Housing Revenue Bonds.
Funding Source: Housing Revenue Bonds to be issued by the City in the
amount of $6 million, an additional $3 million through a Housing Development
Action Grant (HoDAG) to be awarded by HUD via the City, and $1.2 million in
owners' equity. Part of the money would be used to finance construction. The
remainder would be deposited in an interest-bearing account, with the interest
earnings used to subsidize rents on the units reserved for lower-income
households.
.
Thumbnail Description: This was proposed to be a 120-unit apartment
development in two, three-story buildings on excess church property at Jersey and
Laurel Avenues. Twenty percent of the units were to be specially designed and
reserved to accommodate the needs of moderate-income mobility-impaired
individuals and their families; the remaining units would be of standard design and
rented at market rates.
Highlights/Pitfalls: The City was approached initially in May 1984 by Peter
Boosalis, a developer who had worked with Golden Valley on similar projects in
the past. The property, which consisted of the south half of the Good Shepherd
church/school campus was zoned and designated on the comprehensive plan
map as institutional, but was one of several locations identified for high-density
residential use. The developer had a signed purchase agreement with the church.
1984 was HoDAG's first year of existence, so the amount and nature of
competition to be expected for that portion of the financing was unclear. The
Metro Council, as regional review agency, recommended in favor of the HUD
financing in July 1984, though the discrepancy between proposed use and
existing plan designation was noted. For various reasons, the developer had to
have the financing lined up before proceeding with the planning and development
aspects of the project.
.
In early August, the City Council approved the issuance of the tax exempt bonds
and the forwarding of the HoDAG application to HUD.. Though not legally required
to do so, the City had sent out individual mailed notices of the bond hearing to
approximately eighty nearby property owners. Many of them showed up, and nine
C-31
-r >
spoke at the hearing. One resident was quoted in a subsequent newspaper
article as saying "I think I can safely predict the rezoning will be vehemently
opposed by the neighborhood." Another newspaper quote was "multiples do not
belong there; this is an area of $1 aa,aaa-plus homes, and it's not appropriate for
low and moderate incomes."
.
Despite reservations of their own, the Council members voted to proceed. Council
members noted that any rezoning application would have to be approved on its
own terms, regardless of the action taken on the financing. Members also agreed,
however, that Golden Valley had an identified need for low- and moderate-income
housing as well as for handicapped-accessible housing.
Just nine days after the City Council hearing, the developer suddenly announced
that the entire proposal was being withdrawn. Unfortunately, there is nothing in
City records to indicate why. Review of the HoDAG application by HUD would
take at least 45 days, so it could not have been a problem with denied funding.
No application for rezoning was ever made. There are several possible reasons
for the proposal's collapse, including problems within the newly-formed
partnership, problems with the purchase agreement, problems with financing,
concerns about neighborhood opposition, or concerns about the degree of support
expected from the City Council during the rezoning process. .
Prospects for the Future: In February 1985, Good Shepherd Church applied for
subdivision of its campus into two lots. By fall of 1986, a second church had been
built on the lot containing the excess land, making it no longer available for any
type of housing development.
.
. .
.
Minimal Frontage Subdivision Program
Time Frame: 1987-1990
Thumbnail Description: This was a provision whereby the back portion of
oversized residential parcels could be split off from the front and turned into a
separate, buildable lot. Such lots had only a twenty-foot-wide corridor of land
extending out to an existing street for access. Except for the years during which
this provision was in use, residential lots in Golden Valley have generally been
required to have full street frontage. Though not documented anywhere in the
official record, a staff member involved in establishing the provision states that it
was specifically intended to promote the creation of more affordable lots.
Highlights/Pitfalls: Prior to 1988, City Code did .not specify any minimum
required street access for residential lots. Nevertheless, by long-standing policy,
the City did not allow the creation of new lots with minimal frontage. During 1987,
the City undertook a major overhaul of the subdivision regulations. Among other
things, a twenty-foot minimum street frontage was established for residential lots.
The revised requirements were approved in December 1987.
.
The full-frontage policy was abandoned even before the code changes were
approved. In mid-1987, the City approved the Lazniarz and Gruskin Gardens 2nd
Addition plats, each of which included a lot with only twenty feet of street frontage.
In each case, it was an existing house at the rear of the property that was left with
the minimal frontage, while staff noted that the "new" (Le. still vacant) lots would
fully meet City requirements.
There were no applications for the minimal-frontage provision in 1988. In 1989,
Meadow Lane Manor and the Knaeble Addition were approved. Unlike the two
1987 plats, these had the existing homes at the front of the property, with the new
construction to take place at the rear.
All four subdivisions met with neighborhood opposition. In the latter two cases,
neighbors were particularly incensed by the thought of strangers overlooking their
back yards. Overcrowding, inadequate infrastructure, and devaluation of
neighboring properties were also raised as arguments.
.
One of the Knaeble neighbors was the same Lazniarz who had benefited from a
minimal-frontage subdivision of his own property in 1987. He sued to block the
Knaeble subdivision, citing a number of ways in which he felt it would be
detrimental to his property or to the general area. The City won the suit and the
Knaebles were awarded damages for the delay of their subdivision approval.
However, in view of the emerging pattern of widespread opposition to minimal-
frontage subdivisions, the City decided to re-evaluate their desirability. As a
result, the applicable provision was deleted from City Code in April 1990.
C-33
~ .
On the "up" side, the City was able to create six new, build.able lots at minimal
expense to the original property owners/developers, and without adding new
infrastructure that the City would later have to maintain.
.
On the "down" side, there was first of all the distress that such subdivisions were
generating in formerly stable neighborhoods. Some of the issues raised by the
neighbors had not been seriously considered before the City decided to allow
minimal-frontage lots. Increased difficulty of police and fire protection due to
limited access and visibility was one unexplored area. There also was no
equitable utility maintenance/repair assessment mechanism for lots with minimal
frontage, since most such assessments are levied solely on the basis of street
frontage.
No firm guidelines were in place for appropriate driveway snow storage, parking,
or trashlrecyclable collection for the back lots. Most parcels of land eligible for this
type of division were located in clusters, often on county roads with relatively high
peak traffic counts, yet there had been no discussion of the potential hazard of
proliferating driveways along those roads. Minimal frontage lots of minimum size
would have less than the normal minimum buildable area because of the land
taken up by the unbuildable driveway corridor; the absence of the standard thirty-
five-foot front setback for such lots would partly alleviate the problem of the .
reduced buildable area, but would then create a situation where the front of the
rear house could get obtrusively close to the remaining back yard of the house in
front.
A final, important drawback to the minimal-frontage subdivisions was that they
were not meeting their original intent: creating affordable lots. The two Knaeble
lots, which precipitated the lawsuit and subsequent code change, went on the
assessors' books originally at $25,000 for the land alone and today are at $28,000
and $29,500. Two of the four Gruskin Garaen lots were initially entered at
$25,000 each but are now up to $45,000 despite some drainage concerns. All of
the other seven lots started at more than $30,000, and today four of them - two in
Gruskin Gardens and two in Meadow Lane Manor - are valued at over $70,000 for
land only. It must also be remembered that assessors' residential land values for
Golden Valley tend to run low with respect to actual sale prices.
Prospects For The Future: At this time, there is no plan to reinstate the minimal-
frontage subdivision in Golden Valley. As more of the City's oversized, unplatted
residential parcels come on the market, however, increasing pressure for cheap
subdivision alternatives can be expected. If this option is revisited, the City should
thoroughly examine all pitfalls identified above before taking any formal action.
.
,. 0'\"
~ ~
.
Ewald Site - Schatzlein Townhouse PUD Request
Time Frame: Jul1990 - Jan 1992 Concept Development
Administering Agency: Schatzlein Associates, also doing business as
Affordable Suburban Apartment Partnership, planned to own and operate the
development, subject to MHFA requirements for projects receiving state financing.
Funding Source: The HRA was to transfer land title at a nominal cost and
extend all necessary utilities to the site. Other costs were to be covered by a
$339,000 mortgage through the MHFA's Agency New Construction Tax Credit
Mortgage Loan Program, MHFA reservation of $270,000 in federal tax credits,
and $72,850 in developer's equity.
Thumbnail Description: Ten rental townhouse units, affordable to households of
moderate income, on a site of approximately one acre in size at Xerxes Avenue
and Golden Valley Road. Each unit would have three bedrooms and would be'
intended for larger families; based on similar existing developments, the .MHFA
estimated 2-4 children per household on average.
.
Highlights/Pitfalls: Schatzlein first appeared before the HRA in July 1990 to
present a proposal for the Ewald Site and to seek HRA support in pursuing
financing. The HRA passed a resolution granting preliminary conditional
designated developer status to Schatzlein. This would allow Schatzlein to
proceed with concept development and to make application for MHFA financing of
a project based on the Ewald site. In February 1991 the HRA followed up by
sending a letter to the MHFA in support of tax credit assistance for the project.
By September 1991 the financing was lined up. Schatzlein had met with some
difficulty in getting the tax credits syndicated, due to the small scale of the project.
In October 1991, the developer was back before theHRA with an update on the
project and a request for "fast track" approval; the tax credits would be forfeited if
at least 10% of their value was not expended on eligible activities by year end.
The HRA reaffirmed Schatzlein's conditional designated developer status.
.
Also in October, Schatzlein submitted his PUD application. The developer held a
neighborhood information meeting prior to the first PUD hearing. In a meeting
summary forwarded to the City, Schatzlein indicated that about 100 residents had
been invited and approximately fifteen went to the meeting. Neighborhood
concerns included the density of development, the large number of children,
inadequate parking, and erosion on the steep slope at the west side of the site. In
response, Schatzlein had added parking and promised to look into erosion control
measures, but noted that the earlier Monson/Ueland proposal for the site had
been approved by the neighborhood at the same density.
C-35.
~ .
..
According to a local newspaper article, more than fifty people attended the
Planning Commission's informal public hearing in October. Fourteen spoke, all in
opposition to the proposal. they protested the lack of neighborhood input and
noted that previous plans had not involved low income units and had not been
rental based. Several indicated membership in the City's Neighborhood Watch
program and pointed out that the proposal ran counter to the program's
recommendations for promoting neighborhood stability; the rental nature of the
project was specifically highlighted. Large numbers of children, traffic,
drainage/erosion, and absentee landlord syndrome were raised as other issues.
Habitat for Humanity was mentioned as an acceptable alternative. Individual
commissioners picked up on varying concerns among those cited, but all agreed
that the density was too high. The Commission unanimously voted to recommend
denial of the preliminary PUD plans.
.
This time, in response to concerns of the neighborhood and of the Planning
Commission, Schatzlein brought in a new partner, Project for Pride in Living
(PPL), to act as manager of the units. PPL had extensive experience working with
such projects, and a good management track record. Schatzlein and PPL also
proposed a reduction in site density to eight units. That would allow a relocation
and increase in size of the on-site play area for the children.
In November 1991 the HRA heard a report on the Planning Commission
discussion and Schatzlein's response. The HRA confirmed that the proposed
market for the units would be moderate income households rather than low
income as cited by several opponents. Finally, the HRA approved three
resolutions: finding the Schatzlein project necessary to alleviate a housing
shortage, authorizing a public hearing for the sale of the land, and adopting
income guidelines for the targeted market.
.
The City Council held its hearing on the revised preliminary PUD plans in
December 1991. A petition opposing the PUD was submitted with twelve
signatures. The City Council Member for the adjacent Minneapolis neighborhood
weighed in against the proposal. A dozen neighbors also spoke against it.
Concerns were much the same as at the Planning Commission hearing. Habitat
for Humanity was mentioned again. The Council continued the hearing to a later
date, asking staff to collect information from PPL, to talk with the Minneapolis
Council Member and with neighbors in both communities, and to look into
development options for ownership rather than rental units.
More communications opposing the project were received, including a petition with
160 signatures. Signatories agreed to accept an owner occupied development.
In January 1992 at the continued hearing, the Council heard about two ownership .
options researched by staff: PPL and Habitat for Humanity. Without taking action
on the immediate PUD application, the Council referred the matter to the HRA. In
February, the HRA unanimously voted to withdraw Schatzlein's conditional
developer designation and to conditionally designate Habitat instead.
,. ~t:
;..-
.
.
.
....
,
Prospects for the Future: Four Habitat homes were built on the Ewald site over
1992 and 1993. Despite his failure to gain project approval for that site, developer
Schatzlein has indicated a desire to work again with Golden Valley on other
proposals in the future.
C-3.7,
~.
~
First-Time Home Buyers Program
.
Time Frame: 1991- 1995 (ongoing)
Administering Agency: The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA)
through application by the City of Golden Valley, reserves funds for first-time
home buyers. The program is known as the Minnesota City Participation Program
(MCPP). The Marquette Bank Golden Valley has been designated as the
originating lender to take mortgage applications and process loans for this
program.
Funding Source: Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA)
Thumbnail Description: Through the MCPP, the MHFA Agency may sell
mortgage revenue bonds on behalf of cities to meet locally identified housing
needs. The proceeds of these bonds provide below market interest rate home
mortgage loans for low and moderate income first time home buyers. The
mortgages provided through the issuance of these bonds typically have interest
rates of approximately 1-1/2 to 2% below market mortgage interest rates at the
time of bond issuance.
Highlights/Pitfalls: The advantages of this program are that low and moderate
income customers who would not ordinarily qualify for traditional financing
programs can obtain market interest rates. For the years 1991-1994, fourteen
loans were processed totalling $1,040,000.
.
The City has control of how much money it requests from the MHFA for this
program. The City also can establish a higher house price limit than the MHFA
program limits. In raising the house price limits, more houses would be available
to first-time home buyers in a community where houses are selling at a higher
price.
The disadvantages of this program are that if interest rates are at an all-time low,
first-time home buyers do not take advantage of the program because of eligibility
and paperwork required for this loan. Golden Valley's housing stock is at a much
higher value than the limit set by the MHFA, which was $95,000 for Hennepin
County in the program year of 1994. Also, the first-time home buyer must go only
to the originating lender assigned by the City instead of to the applicant's personal
bank. In 1993, the legislature passed a law that said if a city did not use at least
50% of its allocation during the program term and at least $200,000 in the
calendar year in which the allocation is made available, the City is not eligible to
apply for an allocation of mortgage revenue bond authority during the following .
year. This is exactly what happened to Golden Valley for year 1995. While
waiting for eligibility to be restored, the City does refer first-time home buyers to
another Marquette Bank which has a standard Minnesota Mortgage Program,
although the home purchase price is lower.
f' ':)0
- ..
.
.
.
.
....
. Prospects for the Future: Assuming that this program remains in place, the City
of Golden Valley will again apply for funds through the Minnesota City
Participation Program so it may continue to offer those first-time home buyers a
mortgage program that may meet their financial needs. Unfortunately, as shown
above, the City cannot always ensure that the money reserved for Golden Valley
does indeed get spent.
..
C-39
~.
.
Ewald Site - Habitat for Humanity Project
Time Frame: Jan 1992 - Nov 1993 Concept Development and Construction
Nov 1992 - Nov 2012 Minimum Affordable Occupancy Period
Administering Agency: Nonprofit Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity (Habitat)
holds twenty-year mortgages on all four properties. Loan amounts exclude
donated land, labor and materials, and carry no interest on unpaid balance.
Habitat selects all homeowners and provides ownership training up front in
addition to acting as an ongoing resource for referral on maintenance or
ownership problems. If a homeowner moves before the mortgage is fully retired,
Habitat either gets first option to buy the home back for the exact amount of
money paid in by the homeowner, or -- if the homeowner wants to sell on the open
market -- gets full payment of the portion of the home's fair market value that was
discounted from the original mortgage. In the case of a mortgage foreclosure,
which has never happened to date, the home again goes back to Habitat.
Funding Source: Golden Valley acquired the property in 1982 with $55,000 in
CDSG funds. The City also financed or directly undertook replatting, extension of
necessary utility lines, and other miscellaneous construction assistance. Habitat .
financed construction through its usual mix of income from other existing
mortgages, monetary and material donations, and volunteered equipment and
labor. In addition to sweat equity contributed during construction, homeowners
make monthly mortgage payments out of their own household budgets, but
amounts are quite affordable due to Habitat's mortgage practices.
Thumbnail Description: The one acre site at Xerxes and Golden Valley Road
was part of an area originally platted around the turn of the century with lot sizes
below current standards. Its six lots were used for many years as a parking and
truck staging area for Ewald Dairy Company. The site now comprises four lots in
accordance with modern-day standards. Each of the four modular-construction
homes has three bedrooms and a one-car garage. The homes are mortgaged to
large, low income families.
Highlights/Pitfalls: In January 1992, as previously instructed by the City Council,
staff submitted a report outlining two options for providing low income, ownership-
based housing on the Ewald site. One program was sponsored by Project for
Pride in Living, which had also been involved in earlier efforts to develop the
property. The other program was under the auspices of Habitat. The Council
selected the Habitat option.
The Matter was then turned over to the HRA as owner of the Ewald property.
Habitat gave a presentation at the February HRA meeting, proposing to construct
four to six single family homes on individual lots. The six small, existing lots were
similar in size to what Habitat was accustomed to using in Minneapolis and S1.
.
,.. JlI'\
....
.
.
.
'f-
Paul, and several other homes in the Ewald area were on single lots. The lots
were all legally buildable. Nevertheless, the HRA ordered that the site be
replatted into four lots before being turned over to Habitat, in response to neighbor
concerns about overcrowding of the large families which were the intended market
for the project. Staff was directed to negotiate a development agreement with
Habitat.
The development agreement was ready for approval in may 1992. In addition to
replatting, the City extended all necessary utilities to the new lots. It was intended
that the utility extensions be financed with CDBG money, but the project could not
be delayed for the amount of time required to get the application through the red
tape of the CDBG process. The property was conveyed to Habitat for the nominal
sum of $10.00. Habitat in turn agreed to build the first two homes that same year
and the remaining two in 1993. Failure to successfully complete construction
would have caused ownership of the lots to revert to the HRA.
This was one of Habitat's first projects in the westerly Twin Cities suburbs, and
was considered an important step in expanding Habitat's activities in the Metro
Area, even though the site was only barely outside of the Minneapolis city limits.
Groundbreaking for the northerly two homes took place in June 1992. In a show
of support for the project and appreciation for the sensitivity of the CouncillHRA to
neighborhood concerns, neighbors volunteered 1,600 hours of labor, mostly
concentrating on garage construction. Golden Valley's code does not require
garages, and construction costs would have been lower without them, but the
HRA and Habitat agreed that providing one-car garages would make the homes
more compatible with the neighborhood.
Most of the labor in a Habitat home is volunteer-based. Habitat saw to it that the
first two homes were sponsored by Golden Valley organizations with an interest in
Habitat activities. General Mills contributed $30,000 and 5,000 hours of labor to
one home, and Calvary Lutheran Church donated $30,000 and a similar amount
of labor to the other. The City ended up contributing somewhat more than
originally intended, as well; site conditions defied Habitat's earth-moving and other
construction efforts on more than one occasion, and City equipment was sent to
the rescue. City inspections had to be scheduled outside of normal City working
hours, because the project's experienced construction foremen were mostly
donating their services on off-hours as well.
Habitat had warned early on that the programs reliance on donated labor and
equipment tends to result in a slower construction process than for a fully paid
contract job. In this case, owners of the two homes were not able to move in until
November and December 1992.
The southerly two homes were built on schedule, and with considerably less
public fanfare in 1993. Building permits were taken out in May. Construction was
completed in October and November.
C-41
Prospects for the Future: If a homeowner remains in the home for twenty years
and fully retires the mortgage, or if a homeowner who moves before the end of a
mortgage term is willing to pay Habitat for the previously discounted portion of the
home's fair market value, then the home leaves habitat's control and will be sold
on the open market. Given the nature and location of the four Golden Valley
properties, they would probably remain modest cost but not necessarily as
affordable as when under Habitat's control. Every home that returns to Habitat
through sale or foreclosure will be resold to another qualifying low income family
and will then go back to zero on the 20-year afford ability clock.
--'lI
~
.
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
March 20,1996
To:
Golden Valley Planning Department
From:
Mary Dold, Planning Secretary
Subject:
Election of Officers
.
According to the Planning Commission By-Laws, Section 1, the annual meeting
of the Planning Commission should take place at its first meeting in March.
Due to the lack of an agenda on March 11, no meeting was scheduled. Also,
the City Council has not yet confirmed appointments for the coming year. Chair
Prazak and staff have agreed that the election of officers should be held after
the Council has confirmed appointments. Election of officers will then be held
at the first scheduled meeting in April.
.