05-13-96 PC Agenda
.
.
.
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Manager's Conference Room
May 13, 1996
7pm
I.
Approval of Minutes - April 29, 1996
II.
Continued - Workshop Session: Discussion of Livable Communities
Action Plan Requirements and General Housing Plan Update
III.
Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, and Board of Zoning Appeals
IV.
Other Business
V. Adjournment
-':
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley
Planning Commission
April 29, 1996
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council
Conference Room, 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, McAleese, Pentel and Prazak;
absent was Lewis. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and
Elizabeth Knoblauch, City Planner.
I. Approval of Minutes - April 8. 1996
MOVED by Prazak, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the April
8, 1996 minutes as submitted.
II. Workshop Session: Discussion of Livable Communities Action Plan Requirements
and General Housing Plan Update
Staff began the session with a summary of changes to the Technical Background that have been
proposed thus far, and a renewed invitation for all commissioners to submit information on any
errors in spelling, style, grammar, usage or logic that may have been spotted. Staff then
proceeded to an explanation of materials received at a recent workshop for Livable Communities
participants. The deadline for submitting Livable Communities local action plans to the Metro
Council is June 30. Staff do not feel that this should be a problem, and want to make sure that
Golden Valley meets the deadline, because Director Grimes wants to apply for Livable
Communities grant money in order to do some planning for housing in Valley Square's Area B.
Commissioner Pentel presented her ideas on the existing housing goals, objectives, and policies.
She recommended using the six principles of the Livable Communities program rather than the
four goal areas identified by Golden Valley. She also favored including a discussion of the
rationales behind all goals, and incorporating some of the research and analysis that staff had
recommended having only in the Technical Background.
Commissioner McAleese also preferred retaining some information that staff considered
extraneous to the plan itself, on the grounds that the City Council and other readers might have a
problem with staff's concept for a pared-down plan. He also recommended dealing with the
required Livable Communities action plan before moving along to purely local housing matters,
and keeping the action plan separate from the rest of the housing plan. Pentelliked the idea of
dealing with Livable Communities first, in order to allow more time to think about the overall
housing plan without missing the deadline for this year's Livable Communities funding requests.
Commissioner Groger disagreed, stating that he was ready to move on to final recom-
mendations based on past discussions and staff suggestions. Other commissioners agreed that
the available information was clear and complete and they were comfortable about proceeding to
the recommendation stage. Johnson and others also expressed support for staff's concept of
I"
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 29, 1996
Page Two
keeping the bulk of the background information in a separate document in order to make the plan
easier to follow and maintain. Chair Prazak was concerned about the potential burden on staff if
the overall housing plan update is to meet the Livable Communities time table.
,.
Staff stated that they and the Metro Council contact staff are in full agreement that the best
approach is to have a unified plan update at this time; the Livable Communities action plan must
eventually become a part of the housing plan anyway. Staff do not want to push the Commission
or the City Council into hasty decisions, but do not see the need for any drastic changes to the
existing housing plan other than clarifying some statements and streamlining the content. The
staff proposal for proceeding is to agree on definitions of key terms, review suggested changes to
existing housing goals, objectives, and policies, and decide whether to incorporate any of the
suggested actions contained in the Technical Background. The Livable Communities material will
fit easily into this framework. Consensus of the Commissioners was to proceed along this path
and see how things work out.
Members Groger and Kapsner noted that the lack of attention to preserving and maintaining
existing neighborhoods appears to be a big failing of the Livable Communities initiative. All
members agreed that Golden Valley needs to retain and strengthen its commitment to housing
quality. The commissioners in general were opposed to putting too much emphasis on very high
density residential development. Family-sized units would be preferred, at moderate densities and
with opportunities for owner-occupancy rather than exclusively rental. Commissioners would,like
to see the City develop guidelines for siting a variety of housing types as well as for attracting .
desirable developments. Commissioners also agreed that there is a need to reconcile crime
prevention strategies with housing goals. Changes in regulating group homes emerged as another
concern. Housing maintenance codes came up.
The issue of cost was raised. Staff agreed that this is something the Planning Commission and
the City Council need to keep in mind when establishing new policies and objectives. Some of the
suggested actions in the Technical Background will require financial support for consultants, public
participation facilitators, or research assistants. To perform any useful analysis of housing quality,
data on selected characteristics will need to be collected for each individual dwelling unit in Golden
Valley, and then loaded into a computer data base.
The commissioners reviewed the suggested actions in the Technical Background. After some
clarification of intent, it was determined that none of the suggestions was such a bad idea that it
should be deleted entirely. Staff explained that there are far too many suggestions to incorporate
them all into the plan at this time; rather the intent is to prioritize and select a few that can be
accommodated in a reasonable time frame with the resources available. At Chair Prazak's
recommendation, each Commissioner will do some personal prioritizing before the next workshop
session, with the results forwarded to staff for correlation and additional drafting work on the items
having the highest average ranking.
III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. City Council. and
Board of Zoning Appeals
.
No reports given.
.
.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 29, 1996
Page Three
IV. Other Business
A. Change to Planning Commission By-Laws
Staff, as requested by the commission, brought back the by-laws with the final language change
. for approval. The by-law change would allow any commissioner of the Planning Commission to
serve as the representative to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Section 11.90, Subd. 4(A)(1) of the
City Code already has similar language regarding the Planning Commission representative to the
Board of Zoning Appeals.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to approve the
amended Planning Commission by-laws as presented.
B. Second Planning Commission Meeting in April
Due to Memorial Day falling on the scheduled second meeting of the Planning Commission, the
meeting has been cancelled. No public hearing items had been scheduled.
C. Update on 60-Day Rule
Director Grimes reported to the commission that the City of Roseville had missed a deadline for a
Conditional Use Permit for a SuperAmerica store. SuperAmerica can go forward with their plans
without obtaining the necessary permit.
V. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9: 1 Opm by consent.
Jean Lewis, Secretary
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
May 8, 1996
Members of the Planning Commission
Beth Knoblauch
.
Revised text section of the Technical Background
At the last workshop session, staff told you that changes were being made to a few
portions of the Technical Background report. One of those changes involved updating
the Statistical Analysis section to explain that Metro Council staff have seen a draft of .
the report and did not note any significant omissions of statistical data. Then, when the
evaluation forms were sent out to you last week, staff told you that two new suggestions
had been added to the summary statements for the Statistical Analysis section. Those
statements were included in your revised "Summary Statemene handout. The attached
two pages provide the amended text in its entirety, so that you can see where the two
new summary items fit in. The amended text will be inserted into the full report
beginning with the last paragraph on page 15 and will replace that paragraph and
everything after it up to the "Summary" heading toward the bottom of page 16. In
addition to the Metro Council reference, this amended text attempts to address concerns
raised by Paula Pentel about some of the wording of the original text and about the
need for a housing maintenance code in Golden Valley.
.
..
.
Golden Valley's overall housing vacancy rate is so low as to be considered a
problem by some housing professionals. Various sources indicate that a rate
between 5 and 10 percent is necessary in order to ensure adequate choice in
housing selection. Once buyers or renters have decided that they want to live in
a particular area, they need a wide enough range of available options to allow
them to select a home that best fits their lifestyle. When too few homes are on
the market at a given time, people may face the choice of settling for something
that doesn't really suit them or having to expand their housing search outside of
their preferred area. Rental or purchase costs also tend to be higher than for
similar housing elsewhere due to the high demand for the few available units,
which may contribute to an affordability problem for some prospective residents.
Looking more closely at different types of housing within the City, only the
apartment developments have a vacancy rate within the recommended range.
None of the identified housing types has a rate that would be considered so high
as to be unhealthy. This shows that all types of homes in Golden Valley remain
very desirable despite the increasing age of the City's housing stock.
Many communities would envy Golden Valley for having a low vacancy rate as a
housing "problem". Enterprising developers and value-conscious homeowners
sometimes capitalize on the situation by finding ways to fit new home sites into
older areas having a predominance of oversized land parcels. This has been
known to cause problems if nearby residents feel that the new development is a
detriment to the fabric of the established neighborhood.
Golden Valley is basically fully developed. Infill on oversized parcels or
redevelopment of other types of uses are the only ways for the City to address
the problem of high demand versus low supply. However, careful consideration
is necessary in order to avoid the possibility of destroying the very characteristics
that have made Golden Valley addresses so desirable. .
The City may want to consider conducting neighborhood "focus group" sessions
with interested residents to determine exactly what neighborhood qualities are
most important to them and/or what concerns they have about the future of their
neighborhood. The results would help to formulate housing policies and
objectives that support Golden Valley's goal of preserving and maintaining
established neighborhoods. To decide where such focus groups might most
productively be held, interest levels around the City could be gauged by a simple
survey tucked into utility billing envelopes or by working through Neighborhood
Watch groups. Alternatively, the City could start by identifying which
neighborhoods are most likely to be the subject of proposals for infill
development or redevelopment, and send targeted mailings to those areas.
1
.
.
Other Housing Statistics
Housing cost, household composition/needs, and housing age/condition have
also been considered for inclusion here, as have a variety of housing statistics
for other governmental units. Readily available statistics raise more concern
about data appropriateness and data collection methods than about the
conditions they are supposed to measure. Before the City launches its own local
data collection effort as an alternative to relying on available statistics, the time
and cost involved will have to be carefully weighed against the benefits expected
to be gained.
Metro Council staff were given a draft of the Technical Background in January
1996 and asked to note any types of statistics that would likely be required in
order to meet Metro Council guidelines for housing plan updates. While several
suggestions were made, no specific requirements were indicated. Suggested
materials had already been locally reviewed, and it was determined that none of
them contributed any new insights into Golden Valley's housing options.
Through its Livable Communities commitment, the City has already agreed to
certain housing goals, based on identified benchmarks which in turn were
established after various factors were analyzed within and between communities.
With the Livable Communities goals as a given, Golden Valley now needs to
concentrate on how to move ahead toward goal co""pliance rather than revisiting
statistical work that has already been done. Depending on the housing policies
and objectives ultimately adopted by the City Council, it is likely that additional
analyses will be performed in the future for targeted areas and/or housing types.
The age and condition of Golden Valley's housing can be expected to be a
priority item for local data collection efforts. As a mature, inner ring suburb, the
City's housing stock is aging. According to the 1990 U. S. Census, 40% of
Golden Valley's housing units were over thirty years old. Residents are
becoming concerned that lack of proper maintenance on some older homes will
have a blighting influence on entire neighborhoods.
A special City task force looked at this and other housing issues in 1990. The
task force found no pending crisis in housing quality, but did express concern
over the City's inability to properly analyze housing characteristics. Two of the
eight recommendations returned to the City Council by the task force were to
establish an address~based electronic data base for tracking and evaluating
housing characteristics, and to periodically revisit the question of whether the
City should adopt a housing maintenance code. The electronic data base was
seen by the task force as a crucial tool for analyzing maintenance trends and
needs. Today, Golden Valley's in-house computer capability is far advanced
. over what it was in 1990, but the housing data base has yet to become a reality.
2
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
May 8, 1996
Members of the Planning Commission
Beth Knoblauch
Housing Plan Update Workshop Session
Staff have prepared two items for your discussion on Monday night. Based on the
comments at the last workshop session, it looks like most Commissioners are ready to
try and wrap things up this time around. A productive discussion on the enclosed
materials should just about do it, and will also leave us on schedule to hold an informal
public hearing on the updated plan at our first June meeting. Please understand,
though, that staff do not want to force this plan through the process if the Commission is
not comfortable with it. We all have to live with it after it gets adopted, so it pays to take
the time to do it right. The Commission can always bail out to the lesser option of
completing the Livable Communities action plan recommendations and holding the plan
over for further discussion if there are still unresolved issues after Monday night.
The first item is the list of prioritized policy and objective ("action plan") suggestions
based on the six evaluation forms that were turned in. Staff simply averaged out the
individual ratings for each statement and established a convenient cutoff point to keep
the "short list" manageable. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of enthusiasm about
most of the suggestions, but staff don't have a problem with that; the intent was simply
to ensure that the various issues and options were known and discussed. The cutoff
was initially set at an average rating of 4, but that left only two suggested objectives and
four policies for discussion. There was a distinct cluster of items rated at 3.7 and 3.8, so
staff extended the cutoff point down to include them. Some lower priority items may
have to be included in the final plan just to meet Livable Communities action plan
requirements. Discussion on Monday night will focus on:
1. Whether Commissioners would like to see ANY of the short list candidates
incorporated into the new plan;
2. If so, what specific wording the Commissioners would recommend for maximum
clarity and usefulness; and
3. If not, whether there might be other suggestions that didn't make the short list but
might be worth additional consideration anyway.
The second item is a draft of the updated plan itself. At ten pages, it's almost twice the
length originally projected by staff. Comments by Paula Pentel about including material
.
.
.
from the current plan and about Livable Communities have led to some additions.
Comments by Kevin McAleese about plan completeness and about Livable
Communities also suggested some additional material. Much of the added length,
however, is a matter of formatting.
The Goals, policies, and objectives listed in the draft are mostly based on the suggested
changes to existing plan statements as presented in Appendix A of the Technical
Background. Warning: staff have taken some liberties, so read carefully. Only one
statement in the three lists is entirely new. Others have been modified and/or shuffled
around. Staff do not necessarily think that all of the statements represent good ideas,
but tried not to censor anything because of simple dislike.
Please review the draft plan and have feedback ready for the workshop session. Any
comments on either content or style are welcome. Remember that staff do intend for
the Planning Commission to recommend on, and for the City Council to adopt, both the
plan and the Technical Background. However, if there is material in the larger
document that you really feel should be in the plan itself, it can certainly be added.
Additional changes should also be made to the goal, policy, and objective statements
until the Commission is satisfied with them. For the list of objectives, bear in mind that it
is supposed to reflect a time interval of three to five years, so the number of action
items included should be scaled to take about that long for completion.
Attachments:
· prioritized policy and objective suggestions
. draft housing plan
2
.
"PRIORITIZATION OF S.ARY STATEMENTS FROM
THE TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT"
.
1 Additional Comments on Specific Housing Goal Areas
FINDINGS
POTENTIAL
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
SUGGESTED
ACTION PLAN COMPONENTS.
Golden Valley's existing subsidized housing
is aging, and some units may be lost
through conversion to market-rate rentals.
1 a The City should look for opportunities to build
duplex or townhouse-style developments
that meet the Livable Communities definition
of afford ability and provide an ownership
option ., .:; .
1 C 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. ~.1-
1 d The City should meet with owners of subs i-
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. ! S
1 f 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. ~. 8
1 ~he City should establish a program for early
citizen involvement in any siting process. 3.'1-
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.
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.
p. I
.
.
.
2. Statistical Analysis of Golden Valley's Housing Stock
FINDINGS
POTENTIAL
POLICY 1M PLICA liONS
Low vacancy rates indicate that
Golden Valley remains a highly
desirable place to live, regardless
of Its tag as a -mature, inner ring
suburb- .
Golden Valley is not in a position to
adequately evaluate city wide housing
quality, but the increasing age of the
housing stock has raised concerns
about the need for implementing
housing maintenance requirements.
SUGGESTED
ACTION PLAN COMPONENTS
2a The City should consider conducting
"focus group. sessions with interested
residents, to identify exactly what neigh-
borhood qualities are most important to
them and/or what concerns they have about
the future, and thus to better formulate
policies and/or objectives for protecting and
maintaining existing residential
neighborhoods.
2b The City should develop a computerized
housing data base that includes informa-
tion on measures of housing quality. .
3 Analysis of Affordable Housing Efforts in Golden Valley
FINDINGS
POTENTIAL
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
SUGGESTED
ACTION PLAN COMPONENTS
3A 3b
For the most part, Golden Valley's develop- Golden Valley should continue to include Golden Valley should review its PUD regu-
ment codes meet or exceed Metro Council a consideration of the affordability impact lations and decide whether it is necessary
guidelines for promoting affordable housing. of all proposed changes to development or desirable to be more clear about the
or construction-related codes. Lf. ~ various types of housing that can be per-
mitted through this zoning option. 3. 8
p.1..
.
.
In terms of single family use, it appears 38 Golden Valley should renew its commit-
the majority of Golden Valley's most afford- ment to protecting and maintaining its
able lots and homes are in older areas, existing stock of affordable housing.
vulnerable to deterioration and redevelop- AI. ~-
ment pressure.
.
3D Golden Valley should maintain its policy 3f Golden Valley should consider targeting
of channeling COSG funds into the single rehab funds to specific neighborhoods.
family housing rehab program. Jot. ~ ". 2.
There Is a need for better organization
and more forethought In the way sites are
selected for higher density housing
developments.
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 ~uch efforts more
successful.
I 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.
3hThe City should develop objective criteria
for guiding the consideration of sites prCl
posed for higher density residential
development. ~.. ,.
"
31 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. '3.'1-
3p The City should consider researching alter-
native dispute resolution techniques for
assistance in establishing guidelines that
channel public discussion along a productive
course. ~..'l
p.~
.
.
.
4 .
Land Available For Housing in Golden Valley
FINDINGS
POTENTIAL
POLICY IMPLlCA liONS
SUGGESTED
ACTION PLAN COMPONENTS
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 affordabilily guidelines.
4A
Golden Valley has no vacant duplex lots The City should clarify its historical
available; the comprehensive plan would policy of allowing scattered duplex
allow for duplexes in any low density lots in low density residential areas.
reside~tial area. 3.'"
4C
Older, nonresidential uses at some loca- The City should maintain and re- 4m The City should redesignate qualifying sites
lions around' Golden Valley are in conflict emphasize its current policy of protecting on the land use plan map, or at minimum
with surrQundh1g residential neighborhoods. the integrity and desirability of residential should establish a policy framework for
. . neighborhoods. ~. 0 determining whether a particular site would
be eligible for buyout. '3. e
f.'1
.
.
.
There are some underused, nonresiden-
. tlal properties that could be partially
converted for residential development
. without unduly disrupting the existing
site activity.
4n 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. '3, a
40
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. ~. B
Some of Golden Valley's existing multi-
unit housing ,developments are in loca-
tions with no ~pecific long-term future
use Indicated on the City's comprehen-
sive plan map. The locations in question
are labeled on the map as .study areasn
and unwritten policy has been to defer to
officially adopted - but separate -
redevelopment plans for those areas.
The current comprehensive plan targets
two existing multi-unit developments for
future conversion to other uses.
4q 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. 3. 1-
p.s
.
.
.
HOUSING GOLDEN VALLEY
1996-2016
BACKGROUND
The official title of this document is the Housing Element of the Comprehensive
Plan of the City of Golden Valley. Since that's quite a mouthful, it's more often
referred to as simply "the housing plan". State law, which is the source of all the
regulatory powers that cities are granted, requires each city in the Twin Cities
Metro Area to have a housing plan. State law further requires that, at minimum,
housing plans must include provisions for promoting the development of housing
affordable to low and moderate income persons. Beyond state requirements,
housing plans may include any other housing issues a city deems appropriate.
All proposals for new housing areas, infill housing, or housing redevelopment
must be in agreement with a city's plan in order to be approved.
Golden Valley's housing philosophy since the early 1970's has been rooted in
accommodating a diversity of living environments in addition to its solid base of
traditional single family neighborhoods. The definition of diversity has
encompassed a range of housing costs, choice in housing type, a variety of
housing densities, and innovative design practices.
The City recognizes that, as an interdependent component of the Twin Cities
Metro Area, its housing stock should reflect a metropolitan responsibility to
providing opportunities for a variety of housing concepts. Changing trends in
lifestyle choices, household composition, economic conditions, and
environmental consciousness all call for a corresponding diversity in housing.
Golden Valley believes that the backbone of a mature and socially healthy
community.is its intrinsic socioeconomic mixture. This includes but is not limited
to a diversity of races, lifestyles, income levels, and age groups. To maintain
such an ethnic and socioeconomic mix, the City should encourage a variety of
.
housing opportunities. A varied housing stock has the added benefit of being
able to support a broader variety of local employment opportunities as well as
shopping, entertainment, and service facilities.
A diversity of housing provides residents with the option of staying in Golden
Valley after they have outgrown the traditional single family home. As a family
matures, its members have different housing needs. The children of Golden
Valley residents should have affordable rental or ownership opportunities
available to them within the City when they are ready to leave home. Older
residents should be able to find low maintenance and/or specially designed
housing when the single family home becomes too much for them. Such "life
cycle" housing considerations promote stability within the community.
When Golden Valley began its efforts at housing diversification in the early
1970's, the City was already 80% developed. Detached single family homes
made up 85% of its housing stock. There was no housing specifically reserved
for low or moderate income persons. Through the City's efforts, quality single
family homes continued to be built in remaining vacant areas, but space was
also found for townhouse and apartment-style housing, both rental and
ownership, in a range of prices.
.
By the early 1980's, Golden Valley was 90% developed. Detached single family
homes comprised 79% of the housing stock. There were 234 housing units
reserved for occupancy by persons of low or moderate income. During the
1980's, as the supply of vacant land petered out, Golden Valley began looking at
redevelopment options for housing.
Today, the City's 10.5 square miles of area are basically fully developed, though
redevelopment of obsolete uses and infill development of under-used areas still
occurs and can be expected to continue into the foreseeable future. An
estimated five square miles of the City's area is taken up by its 8,532 dwelling
units and related streets; of those totals, only 0.4 square miles holds all 2,080
units of Golden Valley's apartments, townhouses, condos, and two-family
developments of eight units or more. Detached single family homes account for
72% of the housing stock. There are 332 low or moderate income housing units
available, though 213 of them are reserved for senior citizens. Despite the
increasing age of Golden Valley's homes, 40% of which were over 30 years old
in 1990, demand for a Golden Valley address remains high. More information on
the current housing situation in Golden Valley and on other research underlying
the housing plan can be found in a separate report known as the Technical
Background for the Golden Valley Housing Plan.
.
2
.
.
.
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES
In 1995, the Minnesota state legislature passed the Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act. Billed as "an investment in the health and vitality of the
region", Livable Communities provides financial incentives to cities that make a
commitment to uphold the program's basic principles and to actively work toward
certain housing diversification benchmark levels. Since the program is entirely in
keeping with Golden Valley's own housing philosophy and goals, the City has
signed on as a participant. The Livable Communities principles advocate:
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 of well maintained housing and neighborhoods, including rental
and ownership housing.
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 of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and
the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment.
When existing conditions in Golden Valley were compared to established
benchmark levels for selected housing characteristics, the City came up deficient
in several areas. In its Livable Communities commitment, Golden Valley has
pledged its best efforts toward increasing the percentage of modest-cost homes,
increasing the percentage of non-detached housing styles, and increasing the
average density of non-detached housing developments. Additionally, the City
will make an effort to maintain current levels of rental unit affordability and
owner/renter mix.
Many of Golden Valley's ongoing housing activities provide direct or indirect
support to the City's pledge, but Livable Communities program requirements call
for participants to specify a list of housing action items by which a city's level of
effort can be monitored. For Golden Valley, the easiest way to fulfill this
requirement and to ensure that the action items are not inadvertently forgotten in
the press of other City business is to make the Livable Communities program an
overlay of the City's regular housing plan.
3
.
.
.
FOCUS ON THE FUTURE
While Golden Valley still sees a need to promote housing diversity, the City is
very aware that proper planning is more crucial than ever because of Golden
Valley's present level of development and the desire to protect the quality of life
in existing neighborhoods.
(Room here for brief synopsis of focus of updated housing plan)
COMPONENTS OF THE PLAN
As specified in state law, Golden Valley's housing plan is composed of goals,
policies, objectives, programs, and standards that serve as guides to how the
City will maintain and renew its housing stock now and into the future. State law
does not say what these bureaucratic terms should mean, so Golden Valley has
come up with its own working definitions. It might be helpful to think of "building"
the plan as one would build a house: with a foundation, structural framework,
building blocks, tools, and structural specifications. The Livable Communities
overlay then becomes the roof, capping and supported by the other components.
GOAL: "An idealized end state that serves as a focus for planning efforts.
Goals reflect situations toward which to strive without necessarily
expecting full attainment."
The foundation of Golden Valley's housing plan rests on its four goal areas of
quality, variety, affordability, and nondiscrimination in housing. Policies and
objectives, as well as Livable Communities principles and action items build
upon this foundation. Golden Valley's four housing goals are listed on page 6.
POLICY: "An ongoing guide or set of criteria for undertaking legislative or
administrative actions in conformance with plan goals. Policies are
specific enough to provide direction in a decision-making context, and are
intended to be used whenever applicable throughout the life of the plan."
In other words, policies provide the structural framework for making housing
decisions that will properly implement the housing plan by building firmly on its
goal foundation. The City's housing policies are listed on pages 7 - 8.
OBJECTIVE: "An intermediate milestone on the way toward a goal.
Objectives are specific, measurable, and achievable, and are generally
intended to be met within a short (three to five year) time frame."
4
.
.
.
Objectives are the building blocks that fill in the structural framework as it rises
upward from the foundation. This term does not appear in state law, but statutes
do require cities to deal with actions for plan implementation, which comes to
much the same thing. The City's current objectives are listed on pages 9 - 10.
PROGRAM: "Usually an established source of assistance - whether
financial, legal, physical, or informational - offered through a public or
private agency. A program could also be any coordinated set of actions
designed to yield a specified product."
STANDARD: "a specified index of measurement or threshold of
acceptability. "
Programs provide the tools for putting the structural framework and building
blocks in place, and standards are the structural specifications. Golden Valley
has identified programs and standards within its policy and objective statements
as appropriate rather than listing them independently.
PLAN MAP
One housing-related component of the comprehensive plan is not included here:
a map showing the planned physical distribution of various types of housing. As
a fully developed community, any decision Golden Valley makes to increase the
area reserved for a particular type of housing must result in a corresponding
decrease of some other use and vice versa. Also, deciding on appropriate
locations for certain types of uses depends in part on keeping them near or away
from other uses. This inter-relatedness of land uses makes it essential to have
future land use distributions mapped together in a single document, which is the
land use element of the comprehensive plan. Policies and objectives here in the
housing plan may make reference to that land use plan map.
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
As indicated above, policies, objectives, programs, and standards all contribute
toward turning this plan into reality. The main responsibility for plan
implementation lies with the City Council because it is Golden Valley's formal
decision-making body. The City's Planning Commission plays a strong
supporting role in its capacity as advisor to the Council. The Human Rights
Commission and other Council-established bodies will also be involved. The
Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority provides added power to
acquire land for redevelopment, secure financing, and eliminate blighting
conditions, should any of those actions become necessary.
5
.
.
.
HOUSING GOALS
Promote the maintenance of a high-quality living environment, the
preservation of stable residential neighborhoods and, where necessary,
the upgrading of the existing housing stock in the City.
(supports Livable Communities principles 4 and 5)
Encourage a sufficient variety of housing types and designs to allow all
people a housing choice.
(supports Livable Communities principles 1 and 3)
Employ available programs, funds, and pl~nning approaches as
appropriate in order to provide housing opportunities at a cost individuals
and families can afford without compromising essential needs.
(supports Livable Communities principles 1 and 6)
Advocate equal opportunity in home ownership and renting.
(supports Livable Communities principles 1, 2, and 3)
6
.
ca ca
e -
...
<C G)
- >
ca ca 0
e 0 tn
<C C) G)
.-
c ..
ca ca - .-
ca 0 c
e e 0 .- =
..
<C <C C) ca E
c
- - ~ .- E
ca ca E
0 0 .- 0
- .-
HOUSING POLICIES C) C) .- ... 0
.c u
~ ~ ca tn G)
"E .- -
.- G) "'C .c
- ~ ca
ca .- c
... >
:::I ~ 0 .-
a <C z -I
. As a standard for determining whether a house is in
need of rehabilitation 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, if necessary, use its legal authority
under "eminent domain" to condemn and remove
substandard housing for which rehabilitation has
been determined economically unfeasible.
In determining the appropriate use of federally
allocated Community Development Block Grant
funds, the City shall give first priority to rehabilitating
its aging housing stock.
.
As an alternative to conventional land subdivision, the
City shall continue to offer the flexibility of the
Planned Unit Development option to housing
developers who demonstrate an ability to successfully
apply contemporary land planning principles and
coordinated community design philosophies.
7
. ca ca
! -
...
<C G)
- >
ca ca 0
! 0 U)
<C C) G)
.-
c ..
ca ca - .-
ca 0 c
! ! 0 .- ~
..
<C <C C) ca E
c
- b .- E
ca E
0 .- 0
- .-
HOUSING POLICIES .- ... 0
.c CJ
ca U) G)
"E .- -
-a .c
~ c ca
0 >
.-
<C z ..J
.
When an appropriate development proposal is
identified, the City shall assist in attempts to obtain
any applicable state or federal funds designed to
maximize the opportunity of providing a variety of
housing types, costs, and.densities.
The City's Human Rights Commission shall work as
necessary with developers, property owners, and the
general public, as well as continuing its role in the no-
fault grievance process, to ensure compliance with
housing diversity and nondiscrimination goals.
For as long as Golden Valley remains a participant in
the Livable Communities initiative, the City shall
include a Livable Communities impact evaluation as
part of the consideration of any housing-related
development application. The potential impact of the
development on all benchmark areas shall be
considered, though the areas need not all be weighed:
equally, nor will this evaluation necessarily take :
precedence over other concerns that may be voiced
in connection with the application.
.
8
.
ftS ftS
! -
...
c( G)
- >
ftS ftS 0
! 0 tn
c( C) G)
.-
ftS - C ...
ftS .-
ftS 0 c
! ! 0 .- ~
...
c( c( C) ftS S
C
- - ~ .- S
ftS ftS S
0 0 .- 0
- .-
C) C) .- ... u
HOUSING OBJECTIVES .c (,)
~ ~ ftS tn G)
"E .- -
.- G) "C .c
-
ftS .- ~ C ftS
...
~ ~ 0 >
a c( .-
z ~
. Define various approaches and/or incentives to
promote a "City Beautification Program" in the City.
Investigate establishing a program of deferred
assessments for Golden Valley residents making
home improvements. (p.s. to P. C: the state continues
to offer its "this old house" program for homes over 35
years old and under $150,000 in value, so you might
want to think about dropping this item as being
somewhat redundant)
Define and delineate those areas of the City in
immediate need of rehabilitation, for purposes of
targeting use of CDBG and other available funds.
Amend City Code to require home inspection and
disclosure of any major defects at time of sale.
.
Consider reducing zoning standards for parking in
Multiple Dwelling districts, which are not in conformity
with Metro Council recommendations for maintaining
afford ab i1ity .
9
.
.
.
.
HOUSING OBJECTIVES
Research options for amending PUD and/or Multiple
Dwelling district regulations to better promote the
goals of quality, variety, and affordability.
10
ca
CD
...
<C
- -
ca ca
o 0
" "
~~
= CD
ca .-
~ ...
a ~
ca
! ~
<C CD
- >
ca ca 0
! 0 en
<C " CD
_ _ c ~
'v ca 0 .2
! 0 ~ ~
<C " ~ E
~ .- E
= .s 0
:s t; 0
ca tn CD
'E :s :is
~ c ca
....<C 0 .~
Z ~