The URL can be used to link to this page

06-13-83 PC Agenda � GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION .�- (Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road) .lune �13► 1983 ; 7:00 P.M. AGENDA I . APPROVAL OF.MINUTES - MAY 23, 1983 II . SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING , APPLICANT: International Development, Inc. � LOCATION: 7700 Wayzata Boulevard � , REQUEST: Change Zoning from Residential to Business and Professional Offices Zoning � District ( 11 . REPORT ON NATIONAL APA CONFERENCE ; • IV. DISCUSSION QF ACCESSORY APARTMENTS V. RECOMMENDATION ON 1983 JOBS BILL ADDITiqNAL CDBG APPROPRIATION V1 . REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JUNE 7, 1983 VII . UPDATE ON VALLEY SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT PROJE.CT i • � • MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY � P LANNING COMMISSION May 23, 1983 A regular meeting of the Planning Comni�sion was held in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Those present were Comnissioners Leppik, Polachek, Prazak, Thor�son and Tubman. Co mnissioners Forster and Singer were absent. Also present was Alda P eikert, Assistant Planner. I . Approval of Minutes - May 9, 1983 I t was moved by Comni ssi oner Prazak, seconded by Comni ssi oner Leppik and c arried unanimously to approve the minutes of the May 9, 1983 Planning Cormnission meeting as recorded. II. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: Steve Meyer and Henry Meyer L OCATION: 8000 Olson Memorial Highwa�y • REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Class II Restaurant i n a Comnercial Zoning District C hairman Thomp son introduced this agenda item and recognized the proponents, Mr. Steve Meyer and Mr. Henry Meyer. Chai rman Thompson revi ewed for the record discussion in the staff report of the ten factors on which the Planning C orr�ni ssi on i s requi red by Secti on 20.03 G. of the Condi ti onal Uses Chapter of the Ci ty Zoni ng Ordi nance to make f i ndi ngs and recorrmendati ons to the Ci ty C ounci 1. Ch ai rman Thomp son conti nued wi th revi ew of the staff recomnendati on including the five conditions of approval suggested by staff. Comni ssioner Prazak asked staff the reason for the recomnended condi ti on limiting the number of employ ees. Assistant Planner Alda Peikert replied that the limitation on number of employees is one of three conditions, also including limitations on space and menu, suggested in order to ensure that the operation remains relatively small scale as described in the proposal. The p roponents, Mr. Steve Meyer and Mr. Henry Meyer, indicated that they anticipate h aving no more than three full time employ ees but that they might use addi- tional part time employ ees during peak periods and that they themselves may be on the premises to oversee operations at times. Planning Comnissioners agreed to amend the recommended condition limiting the number of err�loyees on the pre- mises at any one time to five rather than three employees. The proponents indicated that the amended condition would be acceptable to them. � , P1 anni ng Comni ssion Mi nutes of May 23, 1983 Page 2 • Comnissioner Prazak asked staff the reason for limitation of the menu offered at the proposed take out restaurant. Ms. Peikert replied that the purpose of limiting the menu is to limit the number of customers. Ms. Peikert pointed out that the proponents note in their proposal that the food offered at the pro- posed barbecue take out will be relatively high priced for take out food and that the price will limit the clientele. Ms. Peikert stated that the recomnen- dation for approval is based on a small scale operation serving a limited number of customers as described in the proposal and that staff wishes to e nsure that the operation does not become a high volume fast food operation which would increase traffic congestion in the area of the shopping center. M r. Henry Meyer and Mr. Steve Meyer indicated that they prefer to remain with more exclusive and high priced food items and that they have no problem with the recommended condition limiting the menu. C hairman Thomp son asked staff how the proponents would be expected to control 1 ittering by custor�rs and over what area they would be responsible for lit- tering. Ms. Peikert replied that the area of specific concern is the shopping c enter mall ar�a directly adjacent to the sub�ect space and that the proponents w ould be expectEd to control littering by providing receptacles where appropriate and by cleaning up after customers if necessary. Ms. Peikert explained that if a littering problem became evident, the proponents would be subject to revoca- ' tion of the Conditional Use Permi t. The proponents, Mr. Steve Meyer and Mr. H enry Meyer, indicated willingness to take responsibility for littering by c ustomers. • C hairman Thompson asked the proponents when they expect to open the proposed barbecue take out restaurant if approved. Mr. Steve Meyer stated that the pro- p onents anticipate an August 1, 1983 opening date. C hairman Thompson opened the informal public hearing to input from the public. T here was no one present who wished to speak on this agenda item, and Chairman T hompson closed the informal public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Comnissioner Polachek and c arried unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the request received f rom Mr. Steve Meyer and Mr. Henry Meyer for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a take out barbecue restaurant at 8000 Olson Memorial Highwa�y in the Golden V alley Shopping Center located in a Comnercial Zoning District, subject to the f ollowing conditions: 1 . Th ere shall be no exp ansion of the operation beyond the space represented in the original Conditional Use Permit applica- tion dated April 21, 1983 and included on the proposed floor plan dated Mar�h 31, 1983 prepared by Nielsen Sheet Metal, Inc. 2 . No more than five employ ees shall be working on the premises at any one time. 3 . Th e menu shall be limited to barbecu ed ribs, chicken and beef with accompanying meal items. � Planning Comnission Minutes of May 23, 1983 Page 3 • 4. Th ere shal l be no 1 i tteri ng i n the area by cu stomers of the operation. 5 . Failure to comply with one or more of the conditions of approval shall be grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. III. Report on City Council Meeting - May 17, 1983 Comnissioner Polachek provided the Planning Comnission with a report on the Ma�y 17, 1983 Ci ty Counci 1 meeti ng. IV. Report on HRA Meeting - May 10, 1983 C hairman Thomp son provided the Planning Comnission with a report on the May 10, 1983 meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). � V . Report on BZA Meeting - May 10, 1983 C ortmissioner Polachek provided the Planning Comnission with a report on the May 10, 1983 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). VI. Report on PACAC Meetings - May 10 and 17, 1983 C ommissioner Prazak provided the Planning Comnission with an update on the work • of the Urban Hennepin County Comnunity Development Block Grant (CDBG) Planning Area Citizen Advisory Comnittee (PACAC) for Planning Area One. VII. Questionnaire on Comnissioner Orientation Session C hairman Thompson introduced this agenda item and directed Planning Comnissioners interested in attending an orientation session for City Comnissioners to submit their completed questionnaires to staff af ter the meeting. VIII. Update on Valley Square Project Chairman Thompson provided the Planning Comnission with an update on the V alley Square Redevelopment Project. The meeting was ad,journed at 8:00 P.M. Respectful ly submi tted, D avid Thompson, Chairman Margaret Leppik, Secretary . • T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNlNG COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 8, 1983 FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: SET DATE FOR •INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING OF 7700 WAYZATA BOULEVARD FROM THE .RESIDENTIAL TO THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ZONING DISTRICT The proponent, tnternational Development, Inc. , located in Winnipeg, Canada, requests rezoning of eight single family residential lots located to the north of Highway 12 between Sumter and Rhode Island Avenues South to the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District to allow construction of a 10,500 square .foot office building. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission set an informal public hearing .date of June 27, 1983 for consideration of rezoning of 7700 Wayzata Boulevard from the Residential to the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. Attachment: Site Location Map • • ��• �' �I:• i- -- � �, � - - ,�-- r� � �n o -Ra., , t� l�j... • 1i= i • a w o w �.. .� � ,� P �� • ��s � 1 Z �n � � �, �0 �li�j� ��p , � �' � ��' 2 i � �e��. - - _ •� e• `,� , � s �s �';� � � • :°� q (B�ooJ . ��r tra• .�� e _ �� s � i :Noaj `�h 2� •`;`'��,s�,,,�N2 ! � ' , µ � S�e�. e�►s � ��o T:, � � '^ ♦ M n n . • � �$�/i i-=`� � � ''�'� 3 'lr o� �. tr^ :1/ � . �d600J , ''' M • 1r �,, __t� � ��—��- r L 1 . ./. !'Vy/iE ~ 0 3 g =� 3 v ° •.� ' S 13 �s. p �` ;a0i o zi �re � � • • � '' .°+6 i� - ; ., ff` •�I � 4 , ,! j�'t' -.J�t_ , � � � .IL f2S� '4� .et 3 � ..�p ` � ' ' • �� N w�• • � • ' 0 i� � . b . ��SSD) � o o "� tt` �R 4�� .� � b �, a �n �t 12� �' N b= q 2 r 3 �i � � • ,� ,cK=.� te � -�.. � � o r. -Ti �,:. - � r..p t+to 1�t� • �_• !0 90 "+ • ' � . � l. o r � 0. I r � .�c.21il72! 8, �..3t pp ... _. l7l.e ....'j.•' 7l0.0 .� !�l.tl � :�"" • '� � - v ��'! .� r..�, ,r.t� --��»si� `��ni n i .R � ,' 3l3.s tct.% ��,- ',..,^ N �' �iy7 7S 151.7 p � 1'i7•75 ,. I 7•75_ .3 .s 'ti3� � 5 :� , 4,�.0*, � �'o 'se `�T�, �-_ _a� � , ,,� � � y �. � � �.�� 2� '� � a �'_�-' �1 � � • � q � ;0 !: i• ��f � � `` ��.�J I j � ��/'IO� � ♦�� O � N� ' �Z •��t d� � -� �� ' w w ��N� � � • Z� - -4 � � t/ 4 .__.._.. ; 6 ; � � - -: - - - „, . +;, - e .y o .�s � �. ' �s 5• •., ZD 5 • s i� 6 '' °'� "�19 - - ' - •��- �,.•� (�� ° � .��, . . _ � � - - �� •%d ° _ 7 e • }r=- 1-- Za� --- � � � � � � ` -�- " -- - -us.4�- - - - - ��.: `� �• 17 '� B'� � l� d � ,�: � o� �,� �« � '^ °• y ' /6_ _ $9 ' Q ' �, �6 •9 e.° � '": 0 �l5 ' l0� ° e�/j- - � �/0 $ ', z t .�� . 'a I w, , •� � ^ l4 ° �l '�^ ,, �4 • l� _ � � � E �i • e a s ! � �-��- Y - -/Zf- � �- - - t Z�-- m /io2s 1 •� � ° '° - -- � � . isl.ts � �S7.1S �5.b — � e � ox.o x� � ... . �• .'•,'�9�Ef�tE� � �. .� ,, . : �° =� �� `��sz7s �s). � o �.7s rs�7s o �'�„� � 's�, .° A Z/ 1 � W v Q� � � � A• 6, / �. .: -�°' , �► a i� - - - -- - , � : �_ iio.o�� !_ _ .:� �a'-��- - Z ; � � Z_o�p. ,i ,' ^ � - M � l9 3 � iz �3 � r : r� � � , ' y �i - - -.�0 � ��-.� - - -- � ' � � � �� j 'o /8 _ _ 4 0' Z/ 4 � � •,x� •�7 Sr �1040) �: o.�o 0 � ` N n � M v �' d ' �0 1 � y t n �A � �r e5 / . � e � V o y � � --157•�5'";e s � �0 � �7s50 � o ir. ��' �� 1--- -�'7•7S ` • N� • �b . �ts � ' -� . f'--- . j 3e ,-^.: � ��-,�,'� ~b f600 �� o K'�s'�� ;0 30 , ' � -��15�---�b17-- i �630 i. � , p Z ��, •u• y� ' ' . . P ^`� . '--- , ; ' . �.�::.... �, .. S,.,j.. ,soo� �; . , � lb. E Lt ' � � �A.�'41' at�21'3Z� � � Mo �'tD �` e't�•3o 0•P�' � 1 r�- � I i :De•�'30' lc��435.� � 1�' ,�''��!•1�111 �y.�•oi'�• . , f � � � ,��f.lyo p�•1'��'�o' w � �rp �Ye�li'11' Ls•LSo.o ' � ; irv"T�•Sl!•4 �\ .r� `�-� h �� Lc•�lo.e � � �=v ►'+H i �� I � r+�.l - --�-r—i--� . �~. . s23.o... �;; � a�mfs . ��J L_ � J � —•� •�— - — �... ;------- .• ;� ., � �6f00) � • ' " . - —�+ ' � � �L.- s:+�_a . ::,�..- -3c�.i - �-•-� ��... -•iv.g_ •- ...._ 2b43.e9 Res. ...._ ,�. . . � • ''�- � •: ?IP- .. . , . . .. • .. rix � � ': . , .: r . �:. '! c i.C�u�., � : .. • ' '..�•A 1�•: STA7 E . . �!: _ _�.�,RTb1Ef11�8 ANO . �ES. . • T0: GOLQEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 8, 1983 FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER � SUBJECT: REPORT ON NATIONAL APA CONFERENCE CortQnissioners Peggy Leppik and Lloyd Tubman and Assistant Planner Alda � Peikert attended the National American Planning Association (APA) Conference held in Seattle in Apri1 �1983 and will provide the Planning Commission with a report on conference sessions attended. Materials attached as background for discussion of the conference include the following: 1 . Small Cities: Bothell , Monroe, Snohomish (Mobile Workshop) Handout on City of Bothell , A Small City Refocusing on its Waterways 2. Redevelopment of Suburban Commercial Centers Handouts on Bellevue, Washington � Redmond, Washington Ki rkland, Washington 3. Cornerstone Project - Downtown Seattle (Mobile Workshop) � Handout on Waterfront Place (Cornerstone Development Company) � '� . . ' April 17, 1983 � � � CITY OF BOTHELL � A SMALL CITY REFOCUSING ON ITS WATERWAYS The Sammamish River is an important part of Bothell's early history. Indians and the early settlers traveled the river by dug-out canoe. As the area is settled, the canoes are replaced by large row boats and eventually by scows which haul coal from Issaquah on Lake Sammamish and barrel staves, shingles - and produce from Bothell to the Seattle market. B� the turn of the� century steam boats make scheduled runs from Madison Park in Seattle to Bothell and other landings up river. Smaller boats traveled up North Creek. The booming timber industry cr�ated log jams in the Sammamish River which by 1909 re- quired Army Corps of Engineers regulation. In 1909 Bothell incorporates. The river continued to play an important role for the community even with the advent of the railroad which only temporarily diminishes river commerce. However, by 1917 a road was built and became in- creasingly passable. When the Hiram Chittenden Locks and the Montlake cut are op�ned, La�'e Union and I�ke Washington had access to salt water but the level of Lake Washington was lowered 14 ft. Year around navigation was now precluded on the Sammamish Riber. Bothell changed fra� a logging to an agricultural community. Bottom land • next to the Sammamish River was drained and farmed or used as pasture. The North Creek Valley contained the Boone Ranch, co�¢nercial duck hunting ponds and a golf course from 1929 to 1933. In the late 1930's, the golf course converted to a truck farm (the Vitulli farm) which continued to operate until 1973. North Creek was relocated several times to serve as a logging flume and drain- age ditch for the agricultural activities. North Creek and the Sammamish River were subject to seasonal flooding. Bothell continued to grow slowly in the post war years with little emphasis on the river. Water quality deteriorated as urbanization occurred with no environmental controls and inadequate sewerage facilities. " In 1959 the Bothell Lion's Club donated a former brick works site.to the City of Bothell. Volunteers developed limited park facilities for this 11 acre site on the south bank of the Sammamish River. Blyth Park proved to be a popular retreat which was increasingly used for recreation and family gather- inqs. As the area developed, flaoding damage to crops and buildings increased des- pite limited dredging projects on the Sammamish River. In 1964 King County commissioned a flqod control project which was undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers. Before the channelization began, long stretches of the river's twisting banks were covered with thick brush. The Corps deepened, widened and straightened 14 miles of the river from its mouth on Lake Washington to � Lake Sammamish. The lower reach of North Creek was also diked and rip rapped to limit flooding in the North Creek Valley. . � � � � The channelization changed the character of the river. It provided the oppor- tunity for urbanization and for making the river navigable aqain (at least for recreation craft) , but eliminated wetlands. Limited business and industrial expansion followedin areas where marshy land was filled with dredgings from the river. The initial scar of the channelization heals over the years as canary grass becomes established on the bank and cottonwoods invade the cleared areas. In 1966, the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) , the local regional planning entity, issued an open space report which stressed the need for parks � and recreatinn facilities in the Puget Sound area to keep up with projected - population growth. That same year a citizen cammittee was started which developed a bond issue program for park development and street improvements. � This resulted in the "Forward Thrust" bond issue in 1968 with funds apportioned to the individual governments in the area. A major outgrowth of Forward Thrust was a basic Capital Improvement Program for parks and streets including the idea of a trail along the Sammamish River. In the late 1960's, citizen com- mittees in Bothell were developing goals for the community which included the basic goal of refocusing development of the city on the river. This idea has expanded over the years as individual plans and programs were developed and adopted. The most definitive overview of the concept was developed by another citizen committee, People for Northshore, in 1975 for the city's Three-Year Community Development Plan, a goals and policy document used as part of the Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program. • Citizens and community groups have also donated time, labor, money and land to refocus the community toward its river. In the late 1960's a number of committees working under the Bothell Plan Coordinating Council developed the major goals for the community and these were later incorporated in the 1971 Comprehensive Plan. The committees included the River Bottom Committee and the Blyth Park Sub-Committee of the Northshore Park and Recreation Study Action Group. Subsequently a steering committee, People for Northshore, developed these goals into specific funding recommendations which resulted in the initial Community Development Block Grant funds received. A citizen's Shoreline Advisory Committee was organized in 1973 and, working with city staff and a consultant, held 52 meetings to develop the Shorelines Master Program, a set of guidelines and regulations for use and development along the Sammamish River and North Creek. More recently, the Chamber of Commerce and Retail Merchants' Association have sponsored several committees with the pur- pose of revitalizing the community and incorporated some of the same themes. The Bothell Historical Museum Society was directly involved with development of the historic park theme at the Park at Bothell Landing. The Northshore Senior Citizens were active in promoting the use of the historic Lyt1e House as a center for their activities there. Of the Forward Thrust money Bothell received, $10,000 was used to hire a local landscape architecture consultant to do a park plan and specifscally design a riverfront park. This was the real start to realizing some of the goals pre- viously developed. Several other events occurred about the same time which insured the best use of these funds. In 1973 the city chose a city manager fozm of government and the city's first manager was able to take up tasks � begun by the previo�s part-time mayor and devote more time to them. At the end of 1974 the city hired its first professional planner with CETA funds. -2- � , � Over the next. several years, the city used additional CETA funds tfl auqment the planning staff and build a qualified parks crew. By the time these funds were no longer available, the city was able to financially handle a basic planning and parks department operating on its own. In 1975 the Block Grant Program was initiated. As an urban county, King County was eligible for an annual entitlement which was shared by all the incorporated and unincorporated areas in the county on a "population" and "need" basis. Bothell was able to receive some of these funds, use them for specific projects and incorporate them as matching money for IAC funds (Inter- agency Committee for Outdoor Recreation) . IAC is a state entity which uses - state-wide bond money and federal land and water conservation act money to provide parks and open space on a state-wide basis. The Park at Bothell . Landing was built with these funds; they were also used to acquire most of the garkland along the river. Funds have been supplemented with local money, additional Forward Thrust and Block Grant monies and State Department of Social and Health Services funds and went into the Senior Center at the park to bring the total riverfront complex to its present level of development. Meanwhile, King County has been using Forward Thrust money since 1969 to assemble land for the Sammamish River Trail. When Burlington Northern Railroad abandohed a section of tracks and donated the land to Seattle and � King County, these two agencies were able to build the Burke-Gilman Trail (pedestrian bicycle trail} in the Seattle area using the railroad bed. This was completed in several phases between 1975 and 1977. Then in 1978 King County constructed a major segment of the Sammamish River Trail (an exten- esion of the Burke-Gi]man Trail in unincorporated King County) from Marymoor Park in Redmond to the 102nd Avenue Bridge in Bothell. A second phase of this is underway now using King County Forward Thrust funds and Block Grant funds received jointly by Bothell and King County. Every area has unique attributes which can be built upon if the community is aware of them and can seize opportuniities as they arise. Once the goal to refocus on the waterways was established, the city was prepared to move for- ward as opportunity presented itself and capitalize on Bothell's history and its river valley setting. While much that is positive has happened, there are problems and some conflicts. The following is a brief list recognizing these and bringing them forward for discussion. • Complex Regulations - In an attempt to insure appropriate actions, regula- tory agencies tend to prepare for the worst potential problems by creating regulations that cause unnecessary delay and require more staff time to be spent on procedure than on substance. The rules often are not, or can not, adequately be enforced. Sometimes the regulations lead in unpredict- able or undesirable directions. The Shoreline Management Act's preference for water oriented uses, while laudable in intent and perhaps generally effective, has allowed recreational marinas to replace working ship repair docks in Seattle's Lake Union and in Bothell encouraged uses which may not be the best use of the water front land. � � • Conflicting Objectives� ' � - The desire to encourage public access to the waterways often conflicts with the desire to retain wildlife habitat adjacent to the water. , - The desire to urbanize and encourage quality development can conflict with the.desire to retain a naturalistic setting. -3- i , ` . � �� . � - Urban development in the North Creek Valley means the loss of Class II .• and IIl�agricultural lands. - Development can generate the funds to upgrade North Creek, but also it increases pressure for further development in the stream corridor ' which may lead to degradation of the creek further upstream. - The policy of obtaining land or easements on both sides of the river � for trails can insure good public access and is a benefit for many � � uses but, for some residential uses, public access detracts from in- dividual use of the property and from the value of the property. • Ducks - People feeding ducks is one of the most popular uses of the Park � at Bothell Landing. The Chamber of Commerce has begun to use' ducks as a theme in promoting Bothell. These same ducks, however, increase mainten- ance costs by overgrazing the lawns and defecating on the lawns, .the plaza and floating dock. This conflicts with use by people of these areas. • Maintenance Costs - As the city and county struggle to create new recrea- tion facilities to meet the demand, money is also required to solve problems with existing facilities. This smacks of tax increases and leads to lack of public support for bond issues like "Pro-Parks" which was intended to be a problem solving parks program (buy parkland while still available and develop it in a manner to reduce or hold down maintenance) . • Bothell's Economy - Many vacant parcels still exist in the area along the Sammamish River. Some approved projects have not been able to get finan- cing. Bothell Landing Shopping Center has several empty stores; Main Street • has even more. As of the spring of 1983 several shops have just gone out of business or are in the process of doing so. E�npty store fronts do not encourage new businesses to locate in Bothell. • SR-522, the Highwav through Bothell - State Route 522 creates a physical barrier between the central business district and the Sammamish River area. It inhibits both pedestrian and vehicular access. Plans to bypass Bothell by locating SR-522 on the other side of the river with a parkway to carry the through town traffic would eliminate this problem. However, this parkway will require use of some parkland and will be an obtrusive element for the trail and park uses on the southeast side of the river. Bothell will have achieved its goals when the following occur: The trees in . the parks will mature, water quality will improve and the fish runs increase; concerts and other activities will be scheduled on a regular basis throughout the summer; downtown Bothell will be revitalized and people will be able to stroll from downtown to the river area combining shopping and recreation; the adjacent neighborhoods will be upgraded and people will walk to Main Street stores. Many of the employees in the North Creek Valley will walk or bicycle to work along the Sammamish-North Creek trail spine from residential areas such as Riverside Drive area south of the Sammamish River. This may seem utopian but a community "dream" is important. the development of goals and direction to refocus on its waterways by the citizens of Bothell has given the city a sense of community. The process has been long, frustrating and filled with setbacks but many of the results� are now visible. It is worth it. WELCOME ' TO BOTHELL! ' � ' -4- � . DEVELOPMENT AND RE-DEVELOPMENT OF SUBURBAN CON�IERCIAL CENTERS A TALE OF THREE CITIES BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON • 1983 APA NATIONAL CONFERENCE PRESENTED BY: JAMES N. SMITH, AICP PROPERTY MANAGER CITY OF BELLEVUE � � Ouring the decade of the 70�s, a major land use controversy existed between Bellevue and Redmond. The arraw indicates the location of the proposed 80 acre regional shopping center site in unincorporated King County. Redmond supported the proposal and Bellevue opposed it. After 8 years of litigation and a change of personalities (the chief executive officers of each Cit.y) a more c�perative spirit developed. In 1981, shopping center developer Edward DeBartolo sold the site to another developer for development as a high technology and office park . The unincorporated island has since been planned and land use elemerits adopted by both �urisdictions. Agreements have also been reached on the annexation boundary. During this controversy, both Cities began to evaluate potentials and problems of their respective central business districts. We will get into the CBD process more in just a minute. A little background about Bellevue. The City was incorporated in 1953, this year we will celebrate our 30th anniversary. ' Bellevue is a 1950's suburban residential community. It is auto oriented with tl� ma�or employment center being Seattle. As Joe mentione�i, the Eastside was served by ferries from Seattle. In 1942, during the second World War, the . first floating bridge opened. Tolls on the bridge were removed some 11 years later in 1953. The bridge provided easy access to Seattle and provided new residential opportunities on the Eastside - residential subdivisions exploded. . I would call your attention to the slide that indicates the manner in which Bellevue grew after incorporation. During the decade of the 60's, the City had an aggressive annexation policy, and in fact in that 10 year period the land area quadrupled and the population tripled bringing with it many demands for new urban services such as sewer, water and streets. The population and employment forecast for the decade of the 80's indicates an anticipated 70� increase in employment and a 15% increase in residential population. The City's first Comprehensive Plan delineated the CBO (Central Business Oistrict) as some 600+ acres. Planned for the automobile, large superblocks and onsite parking at a ratio of 5 parking stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. This established the character of low intensity in the downtown area. In fact, the land utilization was 80� streets and parking lots. In 1982, the complete plan revision of the 1950's plan was undertaken. This was the first extensive comnunity involvement program in Bellevue's history. As a part of the process, the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Comnittees were formed and involved several hundred people. They developed goals, objectives and policies for the policy plan. Some of the most noteworthy goals are as follows: 1. The City's goal is not to be a twin city to Seattle but a secondary metropolitan center. 2. Preserve and reinforce the integrity of established single famil,y neighborhoods. • 3. Avoid strip c�mmercial and multi-family development along ma3or arterials. 4. Accomodate growth by intensification of the Central Business District. � This totally revised plan �as adopted by the City Council in 1974. Several years later residential neighborhoods repeatedly requested more specific land use plans for the neighborhoods and the business districts in the City. As a result, a program for 12 Subarea Plans emerged. Fourth on the priority list was the Central Business District. In 1975 I became involved with an organization called The International Downtown Executives Association. As a result of my participation, I encouraged downtown property owners to form their downtown association. The downtown association is not unlike the Subarea Advisory Committees utilized in other study areas. I would encourage any of you involved in CBD redevelopment to support the establishment of a downtown association. The Bellevue Downtown Association (BDA) was formed in 1976. Its first effort was a jointly funded analysis of the problems, potential and, future of the CBD. The major program and intent of this study was to define future direction for the Central Business District. A major effort was to conVert a low density, auto oriented, suburban shopping center and business district into an urban environment not hostile to the pedestrian. Once we had completed the preliminary analysis, all of the involved individuals, both public and private, had a better understanding and awareness of the redevelopment needs. This analysis provided a common information base • for all interested parties. The City Council formed a CBD action committee composed of representatives of the City Council, Planning Commission, property owners and residential representatives. The initial step was to embark on the consultant selection process. The planning firm of Rockrise, Odermatt, and Mount�oy of San Francisco was selected. Early on, it was the assignment of the Committee, with the consultant and staff support, to define the plan goals. Some of these were as follows: A. Provide a balanced transportation system. B. Create pedestrian amenities and environment. C. Intensify development to meet anticipated office and retail growth. D. Provide urban density housing opportunities. E. Encourage mixed uses in buildings and on the land. F. Encourage day-time, evening and weekend activities. Urban f orm alternatives were analyzed and discussed to provide a focus for concentrations of retail, office and residential uses. A ma3or pedestrian corridor extending East and West was incorporated to f acilitate thru pedestrian movement. � Ouring the plan formulation process the Downtown Association provided i�valuable assistance �in the comnunication f unction in addition to their . active involvement in plan development with downtown users, business people and property owners. The plan itself is a policy plan and during its formation it was referred to as the CBD Action Plan to imply a vital, dynamic document. The plan map was nonspecific as you see in the diagram on the slide. However, it is supported by 6 major goal statements and some 150 policies. Particular emphasis was placed on aesthetics and urban design. The CBD Action Plan was adopted in late 1979, some 3-1/2 years ago. During the plan formulation process, Bellevue Square, the retail center, built during the days following World War II (mid-1940's), announced a ma�or redevelopment. A redevelopment expansion, creating a 2-level climate controlled, enclosed mall of 1.5 million square feet. The first phase redevelopment represents a $70,000,000 investment. This, I believe, gave the final blow to the proposed super regiona1 center ` planned between Bellevue and Redmond; the center of the controversy between Bellevue and Redmond for a decade. The CBD plan, once adopted, necessitated the development of new zoning districts for the Land Use Code and plan implementation. Staff had an onerous task and responsibility for drafting the new sections of the Land Use Code. The City Council had manadated that the amenities necessary to create a viable • pedestrian environment would not be borne as an additional tax burden on the residential property owners. Consequently, we had from the outset antic�pateci a property owner bonus system to provide for these amenities. The plan establish� the following ma3or elements for which development bonuses are provided. The floor area bonuses are 16 ta � square feet for the following major elements: o Ma�or pedestrian corridor - designed, constructed and maintained on private property with a 24-hour public easement for pedestrians. o Ma�or public open space - 30,000 square feet. o Two additional public open spaces of 10,000 square feet each. Other pedestrian amenities also earn floor area bonuses ranging from 8 to 1 down to 1 for 1, the are: o Pedestrian oriented frontage on the pedestrian corridor o Plazas o Art, landscape features o Arcades, marquee's o Recreation areas o Residential uses , o Underground parking • o Sculpture o Water features, fountains - ponds • Further, other amenities were mandated: Wider sidewalks Street trees Through block pedestrian corridors Mandatory design review in the most intense development zones The development, review, and adoption of the the zoning districts was a challenging task. Tempers flared and strong disagreements occurred on occasion, but it was a very productive process. The process consumed 18 months to 2 years and was adopted in 1981. The new plan included four major land use zones. They are as follows: Most intensive office zone (CBD-0-1) - FAR 5-8, 300 foot height limit, � plus allowable bonus height Less intense office (CBD-0-1) with a FAR 4-6 Mixed use districts (CBD-MU) - principally retail, however, permits multi-story residential with a FAR of 5 Urban residential (CBD-R) with a FAR of 5, and supporting retail and � off i ce of .5 FAR I want to spend a few minutes to discuss one of the keystones of the downtown plan--the pedestrian corridor. The program is to provide pedestrian linkage between the office area and the retail center. The alignment for the pedestrian corridor was bare ground and is private property, a segment of it is currently a public street. Code provisions were drafted to provide design flexibility without knowing what the specific uses might be. The following are basic criteria that were given when the design guidelines were developed: o The centerline alignment was established at what would have been N.E. 6th. o Pedestrian corridor width ranges from 40 to 60 feet. �o Construction within 300 feet would trigger the construction of an interim pedestrian corridor. Construction within 150 feet would trigger the construction of a permanent corridor. � Corridor property owners, at their expense, with .City participation, hired consultants to develop pedestrian corridor design guidelines. TRA and �n Miles Associates, Seattle architects and planners, were chosen. The ob�ectives of the corridor project were as follows: � o Provide a new focus for downtown. o Provide a safe, comfortable, lively and attractive place for pedestrians. o Achieve an identity and an image of special place. � o Allow for expansion and modification over time as conditions changed. o Hccorr�nodate access to ma,jor public facilities, i.e., transit center and other public spaces. o Reflect truly "urban" environment with interest, sophistication and diversity. o Reinforce and stimulate future high quality development. o Reflect local characteristics, climate, and vegetation. o Encourage evening and weekend use as well as weekday use. �Other features to be incorporated include coordinated lighting, paving and t/ street furniture to provide continuity. Of critical importance here is timing. This was given much consideration throughout the process. In one segment, abutting property owners have constructed a temporary facility along the corridor alignment--in another segment public streets exist--to be vacated for corridor development. Most recently a transit center has been located at the eastern terminus of the corridor with the ma�or regional retail center as the western terminus. What has been accomplished in the development of the new CBD action plan? o The action plan has provided renewed attention on the downtown. New • focus on the pedestrians and their needs. o Will create a focus as a special place--a there. o Provide known conditions and ground rules to plan and develop by. o Retail development has been slowed by the recent downturn in the economy; however, plans are being developed for additional retail structures. o New office construction of four buildings. � E.N.I. One Bellevue Center Skyline Tower Center Plaza This represents nearly one million square feet that will be . complete and available for leasing during late 1983 and 1984. o Fourth retail anchor added to the regional retail center. o Several proposals for mid and high-rise residential towers are currently being reviewed. � o Land values �in the downtown have increased from $6.00 - $10.00 a square foot to $40.00 - $60.00 a square foat. � What have we learned? Encourage and support form ation of a downtown association of property � owners and business people. ` Decision making is a process. p � . Involve businesses, residents, users and owners. i Involve abutting residential neighborhoods. Develop guidelines to describe intent and purpose, in other words, this not this. Lastly, and probably the most important, is-be innovative. Thank you very much. � � For additional information contact: CBD Plan Matthew Terry Assistant Planning Director City of Bellevue � P.O. Box 1768 Bellevue, WA. 98009 (206) 455-6880 Urban Design and Land Use Mark Hinshaw AICP Acting Assistant Planning Director City of Bellevue P.O. Box 1768 Bellevue, WA. 98009 (20b) 455-6864 9547F/ph � ,� DEV�L-OPME-NT�AND REDEVELOPMENT OF SUBURBAN CONQ�IERCIAL CENTERS � �-"" ._� �" TALE OF THREE CITIES 1983 - NATIONAL CONFERENCE � � � r REDMOND, WASHINGTON , � � INTRODUCTION The City of Redmond and its downtown, though much smaller tl�an Bellevue's area, occupies a unique position on the Eastside. Located 15 miles east of Seattle at the terminus of State Route 520, it is curently at the center of one of the fastest growing areas in the State of Washington. This growth has resulted in substantial changes in both population and employment in the City. The population rose from 11 ,000 in 197Q to over 25,000 in 1982. Employment growth has even been more rapid going from 3,500 in 1970 to over 12,500 jobs in 1982. Redmond is rapidly becoming a regional employment center. The employment growth in the area has been lead by the introduction of many high technology firms to this area such as Rockcor, Physio-Control • and Data I/0. This emp loyment and population growth has resulted in some small business growth but at a much less rapid pace. This diversity in commercial development has created some unique structuring of . organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, where corporate executives of high technology firms (located outside of the downtown) are now i luencing internal organization policies. ransportation has and is currently shaping the growth and development of the Redmond area. P.egionally significant commercial and residential development occurred first on the southwestern and western portions of the City. The completion of State Route 520 in 1981 greatly reduced non-peak hour travel times from Redmond to Seattle and central Bellevue. The focal point of all the major transportation corridors in the area is the City Center. the downtown area of the City of Redmond commonly referred to as the Gity Center, is located near the geographic center of the conrnunity. The City grew up around this area and was the focus of the City's incorporation in 1912. County law at that time did not allow the sale of liquor outside of incorporated Cities. Near the time of incorporation Redmond had 5 taverns and 303 people. The City Centpr has five existing ma�or physical features which wili play a significant role in its future development. � 1. Samnamish River Regional Park: A 300 foot wide, 6 mile river front park which forms the western edge of the City Center. This facility has the potential of becoming a significant aesthetic and functional element in the downtown. � 2. Redmond Golf Course: An eighty acre scenic and unique urban property . which is at the major entrance of the City Center. 3. View: The City Center also offers outstanding views of the Cascade Range and Mount Rainier. 4. The Old Town Area: A small area of the City Center which offers Perhaps the best hope of retaining some of Redmond's heritage. Buildings in this area have existed since the time of its incorporation. � 5. Undeveloped Land: The City Center of Redmond has a large amount of vacant or underdeveloped land and is in a high growth area. A low end pra�ection indicates 800,000 square feet of new commercial development by 1990, compared to an existing 1,300,0�0 square feet. This number could be substantially higher if a major retaii development is located in the downtown area. Redrr�nd has an opportunity to significantly impact the long term growth and development of its downtown by its actions in the next 3 to 5 years. � EXISTING BUSINESSES � The City Center currently functions as a large convenience center with some limited office and specialty retai ul��he major retail nodes are anchored by large supermarkets and variety drug stores. The downtown has a very limited number of comparison good outlets and no junior or majflr • department stores in a high income market area of over 180,000 people. The retail, and to some extent, the total downtown development picture has been retarded because of three super regional shopping center proposals in th9s area over the last decade. MAJOR URBAN FORM ISSUES The most significant determinants of the future of Redmond's City Center have occurred in the last 5 years. The result of these actions has been to focus interest and activity on the downtown in a s9gnificant way. The first event was the adoption of the Redmond Comnunity Development Guide in 1919 which recognized the importance of the downtown to the community and set up specific policies and programs to address its development. The focus of the program is land use regulations which use performance standards instead of a permitted use chart and site planning requirements to coordinate building siting, parking and pedestrian circulation. The performance standards are designed to deal more with the impact of the use rather than the use itself by controlling signs, parking, outdoor storage, and traffic generation. Design Areas or Zoning Districts are drawn up to preference certain uses in designated areas such as locating high traffic generating, convenience uses near the entrances of the City Center. � . The site planning requirements include what is called a linkage system. These are landscaped walkways which are required throughout the City Center. New development proposals must do their site planning in coordination with the linkage system by providing direct primary building access onto these landscaped walkways. This program is designed to enhance pedestrian circulation and to provide a common element or design linkage which ties the City Center area together. `� 4/ \,�,, ter adoption of the Development Guide, the City participated in the �,rG� ubregional Planning process. In this process the City designated its � ,G� downtown as its major activity center. No effort was made to include the �' �' proposed Evergreen East regional shopping center, which is located away l ��\� from its downtown, as any type of activ9ty center. This was the first (J official action that withdrew City support for this proposed project. With withdrawal of support for Evergreen East, efforts grew to support . Bellevue's efforts to derail the proposal. Though located in unincorporated King County, both Bellevue and Redmond played a significant role in the County'.s decision to deny approval of Evergreen East. Just prior to the decision on Evergreen East, a second regional shopping . center proposal emerged. This proposal is planned to be located on a picturesque golf course located adjacent to the City Center. Citizen � objections to this proposal have been intense due to the loss of the open space and the golf course. Since the ma�ority of the property is still located in unincorporated King County, the rezone application and environmental review is being handled by that jurisdiction and is still active. However, the City currently has an option on the property to purchase it for 6 million dollars. A general obligation bond issue is proposed in May of 1983 to cover the purchase price. A defeat of the bond measure would likely proclude the City from purchasing the majority of the property and the shopping center issue will re�nain. Following a major change in the administration of the City, a third major development concept was initiated. In 1930 a resolution was passed by the City Council indicating a preference development of a major shopping �camplex in the 250 acre "Maingate Area" of the City Center. The City hoped in taking this position to combine the commercial development with other civic improvements to create a focal point for the community. The � City sought out developers interested in the proposal. The Ernest Nahn Company and Daon Corporation formed a partnership and secured 87 acres within the �4aingate area. The City and the developers undertook a cooperative planning effort to evaluate the Maingate option. The City's proposal included: 1) A revised Land Use Plan which called for restructuring of the Design Areas; 2) A � Transportation Plan which r�ould improve access to a regional scale center as weli as other areas of the City; and 3) An urban design element which . would visuaily and functionally t9e a proposed regional shopping center into the balance of the existing and proposed downtown area. � The Daon/Hahn proposal was a mixed use development combining: 1) A regional shopping center of approximately 1,000,000 square feet; 2) 250,000 square feet of office; 3) 200 housing units; and 4) � Comnunity Center. The regional shopping center was designed to integrate into the downtown area by fronting its ma�or building acces$ towards the developing commercial area and not surrounding the center with parking area.- The economy forced the withdrawal of both Daon and Hahn from active participation in the Maingate Progr am however other ma�or developers have expressed interest in the proposal. The City is sti11 processing the land use changes necessary for development in the Maingate Area. Either the Maingate or Golf Links regional center proposals if developed will have a tremendous impact on the City Center and the community. WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNED We have learned in downtown planning for° Redmond, that there is a number / of basic elements that are helpful: �/ 1. Cooperation at the regional level is critical even if not mandated by Taw. � 2. In the enthusiasm of downtown development, don't destroy the City's existing special qualities. • �% 3. Make sure the policy-makers and administration know where dorm town program is going to lead them or it may not get there. �_., 4. Impress on as many people as you can the idea that a cities downtown sets the image for the community and whether good or bad, affects the whoTe commun9ty. For further information: ,.- �� Mike Cummings, Assistant Planning Director Department of Planning and Comnunity Deveiopment Redmond City Hall ' �� 15670 N.E. 85th Street ; ' Redmond WA 98.052 (20G) 882-6446 s'� _.-- � ( � - __.. . �'_ . ._. � . , � _ ------ '. ._ _ / . ./� ;�ti '�. ' ; _ w.a o�„�,� � - — —- �`- O � � - . . . ' . ,i a _ _ , e,�.�,, • . �•b _c-'_�" / �� ` . . ` o� _- .. .. p ; ; a4 �o p� d , ; � . O .0� � OQO__ � %,-' . O o�` •- -q cP L�-� �;� .�d � �a'vi] Sp � ' �C7 ° p � '° , ' � ❑c� ° _ � Q d d r Maou �O� I J I .:SS�D. �' ' _ ae 2f 0��. _o � � �/ II i � . av0 �� i I, � n p o G ` � �` •U � -- - / �— ` - _ �� °-°u ° . O ,i i n �' o ed i 00 � U � �o .g � - � � ❑ �' I! � � o;: a .E:� r°, rr� � _._ /d� i • � '� p � °°` �" �� L P, n Aa n yGL one -h % �i O. .� a ....,OJ]� 9� ° �:.5 �� II � �� d c 'C QD �4 II � � v Q7. [�'I 0 � �� , � 17 'i , . � Il ap f- - -- — - - , .� r°�_ 'p ' . �t -L�:... _ , n $ I, � . ,i ' ' -L _ . f�, � s '�n ; ' L'_-__.� -I� '_'^'_ CQ�� , li I � � II v �,. , i =-�- .a ° II � � ��. I!�� i � n � r ,-- _; -�-T-i_1L ''""''""""�� 1 �� ., I -1� � �� .� _- _� ' o c ' `-� J 1- i i ; I r . ___��_�L}.��.A.O O �� —' J ' ' � � � � � " � Q . .�., � i ; , _ � � �� Dq. -��, ! � I �� __�� , n � /�� `� i � I l =_=---.h-r��.�� j; �'��/ I � ' � ! u� �°` � �' I � I C� �;'��; _ a i a�� '- - - �--L_�—_�._ y ! 0 .'.�., �s , �- ,�,..��»�A — � ., _ s��,� `�� ' � � _=-_--" -_ — .___�,-�,,,,-- - ' -- - -__� �' --- - -- --- . � / �� ' ` �i ., i r i � �.. � I , � � -- � /J ` � � I � • � �'- i . � � ' � i � . , i . � / '� • , . � � , ; , ;. . . . . " �°� li`� _ � = o � � CITY OF � � KIRKLAND ��„_�� 123 FIFTH AVENUE • KIRKLAND,WASHINGTaN 88033 • (206)822.9271 -'71f V�� _ 1983 APA I�+,TIO1�I, pLAIaTING 0�'ERII1�E _ Panel on Development and Recievelopnent of Suburban Ca�nerc;al Centers - • Sunday, April 17 - 1-2:30 p.m. * � * * �r * * TI� RIRKIAND� �NGION El�IIZIENCE . This. � packet of material supplements the inforn�ation presented at the panel on this topic. Additional relevant materials are on display at the City of Rirkland booth in the Exhibition 8a11. A s�nary of the attache�c7 pages follows: Sheet 1 - 7.Wo exhibits from the 1975 Economic & Design �aluatiaai of the Rirk- land Central Business District are useful in clarifying the major land use and urban design co�icepts embodied in later planning. The CBD core anci eore frame are identified as are the east-west pedestrian `` � spine and the high density•residential land use clistricts surrounding the C�D. - . Sheet 2 - A detail of the current zoning map illustrates how the land use con- cepts have been codified for the retai.l core area (Zone CED-A) ar� the shoreline area (Zone CB�-D) . Page 109 of the Code shaws applicable requirements for a restaurant use in the CB�D zo�e. Of particular • note is S�oecial Regulation �2 which requires new private develc�nt t�o provide public access to ar� along the waterfront. Sheet 3 - The Park Place mixed use project o�nsists of 210,000 square' feet of flo�r area, which is about acie third of the entire C�D. �ese two schematics shaw how the uses are arranged in a five builc7ing composi- 'tion. Note the pedestrian walkway that exits the site in the lv�r right vorner. This fl.aws into ttie pedestrian spine which crosses .Peter Rirk Park. Sheet 4 - � privately fundec7 vore area Local Improvement District� (L.I.D.) projects have been �:o�npleted since 1979. L.I.D. 117 rebuilt one block o� Can��ercial Avenue which was then renamed park Iane. Ztao--way traf- fic anc] parallel parking was re�laced with oaie-way traffic, angle parking, widened sidewalks and street furniture. L.I.D. ]19 aoquired twu parcels of land that formerly housed service statians and replaceal the�n with a 60 sta17. municipal parking lot, landscaping and globe luminaires. Sheet 5 - The City has used a oombination of local and federal block grant funds for construction of a n�nnber of projects in anc] arow�d the CBD. Aaditiana]. inforn�atios� about the foregoing may be had by writirtg: Joseph W. Zbvar, Director, Dep�rtment of Planning arid Conma�nit�i Developnent, � City of Rirkland, 123 Fifth Avenue Kirk].arK7, Washington 98033. y- ,.�.. „9 ...L,____ �-�-�-a-a-- _.. 8.. . S� +:;.0 OO . 00 � . . _� 0 000_p_Q� oo_0 OOCOOCO p n ocG�o� n c �' D6oVOp op�pco ❑ ^ ,�70� Qp��p�O- Z a'-�COO'n�a O� - OeOpflepp°[f fl- cm�� rabddp[�a. . -. '� -- : : -: �. � �;�.. � o � . Opoo O�oo O p - � o_Ddano p La0 0 Oo� _°OOanoonpp �o on a[5 n 0 p n a oo r�a o �p� o � p •.� � .�.,o, --- - _ _ __ . . ._ o �� -0a':O� O� --�ooa nr rao p-o- --o d � o Q o _. e .. • �• �O �Qp '� d-•�. -° UopA � P o O �_ 0. p a 0 - _•a -_ o ••P�O_ - - � , p �U o � . �� .,O ��Oq°p � a�o no��.�pop_��oanpp�.• �� - � • 0 �� O Qooa .n..__ � c�a�•Pc_qOnDq'P?a�ca �� _ '— . - ..... _ ': �--' / Q� O �.O �'� ---� �j r.r c�a::.%�� -'- - - ':i-- i \ a o B _n O°a tl �b ao4'�,t' f ,.' -- - . k-_�.:,. �_ c � 0'.\ . .�. �C-�, �n ❑p� a_ ,. ^ ,�,, a o o -- ---�� : . .� � �� ^ °"`_—' (� ° 'D � /�� -------- -..� ._ 0o e � ! o , I o�\ a p ,p;�.0 0 l�--• � � o �+�� o � • ;�, � p•� -, o ��, J � / ��{J,�� j ��a�o'��' ' � � �-��G° �rF��° J � �4�� / � �'`/ �a �°pti-\D°� � � �'�'•,,', � � i °a oo,.:�C�;;'�i� J/ � !/ �' ,,,. ; ;. �; •,o n o 0 om/;� � ;.�� ! '- �%,r, �� ;. � a a— a �j i: Cp , I/ ,� .� ' � ./�jr �' % �a� 1 '0 o Op � -�j� G/�� o , � n O oao0, V� �/ ` ��-#��' I �❑ � O Q�r� i�Ji� ,,��j` � ; .a�-, ° •v U��' ° �.:�� o,�'�'�°d ° ��,tl ,�� ' D O ' O nn0� �p O" �I.�Q G � 4 C r,� R'�/ O do pp ��--�� t�� oI 0 Qal:Un n � � ; a � ' �o ❑� ;��D�' \��;�� Kirkla �•I.�D . e r��-- ��.��.a�'I o OnD� ��-F ' l jQ� � 1 ra�i // p � ��o�� U� !'�� --�� Areas } , � o ��0_U DAQDD R �:,i r• �ti➢ Q '�':� ��O °a 0 o p ��i +'ana pRn�; /{ q'�---��, S ; �7 �]' �^ n ,'Jf' e ' /j i�+ p L7 �O I._'___�� ✓ ;..: � . ECONOMIC 8 DESIGN EN,qLUATION:�K� C��t� g��ess District � „�, � � � �—� . � . • � -- - - - -- -- -- g� O� B�OE�„�' �Q; o O��p I oo �nDaao c ppGOGQ 6c o onoon A �/ O�. p�Q�`p\A,� lo � n�+ � 0000 wD omOO, �� u�i �, t ��Op�'Y� ��`. � �pd �o .' cp�_p n� � p�a�a„r.G.�l1,�,�r1�, o u on; . � O� ! � an \ �� — �-•—� �� , �,�vB'' OG•�.��O .�y� � � 0 D ! : '� O � O o p °lur.n,e E,.O\\V� �' Oo0 o O � 1 0 �n �� p � I0t t1 no 0 � O�OOD••�d0• - Qe"V �.1 u •u�- � ---------- \ Oq, ., 1 i CO u 0 Op : Qopp M �vne�vas "� �O\ �, �:QO�,'f�' {� � � �D�OO OO�OD�'� � a _ �s �, ,,�� -� ""�,,o� "' _' 9 �� G O �p o �- �go� %�°� - � i ±l2 �U�o'L�� t ( , ,'� , :is j� � -�i 4..' 0 o P J L� •..•'• a__""'�r"C/�:'��i` r� t o° j Y � � �/ oQ ,_. :� k�,.. �� P� y �. o • �„'r"-� '� �� a "'` 1 - °d n 16,�",` ( 4I'� ... . .::..u'�:•j� ��''� -o -�,��!:,� s �+ p��.� ,�� o 00 ? �/ ,:. �' ��s '.� • 4-r-„ . . �4� o � � o ❑ a� �� p a o v�,.�-s�� ;p�i," p � o m�f�, . - ♦ �!O� � p 0 0 ��(j n, �/`' � , � ' ,� . p ;Q'_�° 0' . oo /%- • �`_, o 0 t • 6 . ! . ��'J��Y � _�� d,I� � �p . ° �0 .g /�'. _I ° o a D / ;� �o ��g�� o a ♦ � ��1�at�7�:;t�;� _" :�� r:°° . ' q'��oo op � . � C =�� Q�/ pede�trian � � ;x�:.� . �] � o .��o om ; ;;��Iternat�ue� • , . p7�p�J � - J1p-o�-�a(� °° ��' �`� n , e --II-�—_-�si�►oa �!' CLuster � . � o- -� ,,�� • �'� r� �� i: /� M � � � ; 5chefne � o ; o 'w:«,-6 --��i,; ' ."_'ad_ oon oo �•; '� , � o , . . O G O O � d I " I" ,,� n oa,... � ..:3.'. -,`.. .... � n4 S �/ �V _.__ -- -.�_.. ._... . n/ 0�IG°F�'iP�If-111n G ECONOMIC & DESIGN EVALIlATiON: Kirkiand Central Business District m �� a�,�,, � � , __� P i, ��,T�� 1�i:T r•!tfr�T'^' .� ^^' • �� . --� L -3t___._� __ �: �' ''' PLA.-� �.. '=='-f— � �.\ � _ _ � ;,,E� ��,, � _ �� .,�'� � � `'`` �� _ _ _ . . . '� � �- ' '. � ,, � _P� .——. ._ ._._�._._.. - �' ' ��. . ._ .1; t .�1�:�'• \�� -3 ' w A' (;:=;�'�� `r"�.,�-��:/�� . ' . 'G 639/1` � —r-r! C , �.. ,WD , ' � E -T,.� Ff` ;..� 'PUD ,~'- � i � '` ` -. - �' �p��, `�^- r-^�'' . ; :-- °•-- - g� �....,.Y;, ^ .-'� "�'I Poritplacd� B iE26: ':o: ;�� \ I ^ �. .L_.__! _��. p;,,.:� j { 1 r I E Fj,±.� � � f ��. ``� s :;^ - - �� ytY ..n..�. �� . !� �. `i i . `�: ``,.:�; .'� "� �`c F��f' �� — P P A �� '� �,� � � p ��e '� B - .� , . , WD.I� �- q � , ,� j ,. � .� ' M _ �\ `� �' � •�--�� GE'R 2.4 d� .6 � . • . ...,. �. _ _ - ', ��. P -- ' '--.CBD - T r.5, \ -?_r ��..:..,:�.i,� ,. ' C �\ MDSS � F � �• `\ B � �� t� .A . � 1 ; . � � a r � �,� � , .,, �;,. .;, � � r �. .'' - f�0�. 9'J� /� _ / , - r WD I � �E Q - � %� % ..� ,...... E t`'. ZONING MAP ' ",� „�„ K �' '' // f`--i�- :�"r ,� % � � , �� .,,;.�' /- —� �$i RS 5.0;' •. ', ;;-' {'�' '"' �----'p � • ' If 1 � North • - _ F�_ /� C- R � . WDI _ _ .; . .� ;�'_ H LLI r - � k Scale:I"=600' � f ..��` • flA B.fi' �- - -- ,' E �RM RS 8.5 l, 'RS 8.5 � � - � [ o z� `36 -�� - �;, �% RS 3,fi� • "a � � � `.__1-RS 8.5' . , N - , � j • — . � RM 36 '� `�---_� ; :� '�1E 2689 ' ' .� .� - , ' � � n . � °p��'�*�'�-d��*°" USE ZONE CHART MiNIMUM3 �WV�9 0 p i O �use �dt'�� `�,^'�` ��" �`''�r`��``$`�r'�o`',F ..�cF�cF��"d�eQ� sv�aa n�Trons � B D=D 5025.`d Restrorant ►recess IIB Nwq 0' 0� 0' Tne 100i 41'�OOre See E 1 per 1.Ite�trueturet.othe'tlun moraqe ttruetures.wy Oe r�teryert of t�e MpN . or T�rnn eDter 152 � ter �ere9e SCe. eu� pterltne. ipr tAe repul�tton - 11A1n9 RQB• 125 sq.1t. tht�toero. �'e9�dinp moorages.sea the�oor�ge Ifftings 1n �� .�' lewtlon IS a1 groS9 2.Nust WOr1Ee pul11C pedestHan KctiE frae the rigMLO1-rey to an0�loaq tAe � .1� � tlaar pta eMtre pterlront of tAe wq�ect pr�pertr rlt�tn tM AigN raterlt�ierl. �ecn � in tAe raterfront wy Oe qlred Dy LM Ctty 1f pulltc eetesf along[�e ratarfrea �� of Me wbJect property caa Ee rcnchetl froa ad�ofning property. In eLdttfon, e CitY eey repulra tMt oart or all p/tua�iqA►aterlfire�artl ba Aereloped n pablle use aae. lEe C1tr�hall reputm tlqnf Eastqnatinp tHe puElie pNestrl acess�ntl puENc usa aees. �l� 9.TM fetlatng regulattm�ppttes a�ir�r n�.,ve�ecs��r.w�.Lt�e w�t• �� of L�ke Street Sout�u�0 eentatnt wra Man 5,000 ipwn teet o/lot area: �caotiquous plxe epual te 20Y et the average De�eei r1dtA att!e apen t��%7 free ot ell lullalnqs mA ee Ge.etopeG u a pultfe use �ree en0 anen �t torrWcr. 7M Gest�of tEe p�pife use�roa ti te ee�oen��uiir.oa.o.ea e� TUa�ntr�dt �1on an) tM C1tY. �Th1S corrltlor ent Ee �EJuenL ta eltner tha iqrtn or sautn )arA tUer t�m tlrosa t�ted. G�t�11�. �rAtcturer �111 result tn the r1Amt v1a torrtGOr frv Lat tf 0' Street 91ven d!`eloyeent m�Ejacent p'apertin. 1.TAe datga uf W tita�ust De cmp�t�Ela rltn tna uentc e�tme ef tM htQ- trmit. S.tAe Ctty uf requiro tht appllc�nt to 1mt�11 �Dulter betmn tlu snpleet pr aty md�yotM�prcpertY. TEe Cttr rill use tAe rapufrments oI Cnepter f5 n •guile for repulriqg�qiffn. 6.Mr pertfmi ef�ttructure tMt aiteeE�JO te�t�DOVe nerage Eu1lEtrtq tle��tt rnt De set O�ct 1ra tM lrvnt orperty 11m 1 fmt for eun 5/eat M�t portt e:eee0s 70 Ieet aDOne mr�ya putidtng elwattm. �.eacon�es..r.,rte.a.o u�� ew un e�yn uceri�ve�oa��e+s�t tenc is• �EOVe I1nisMd�tde. • 8.A takboct or tat[ IOeA wv1C�arn[mpr111aq m�ero Nq tpS e/ tM yrezf �100r �Te�pi LMf �yr�yA�iltlE 11 it Y111 ee empat�ele v1tl1 Iq�rp� YfQf. Th!C1L7 a7�1�1t MIRf C/ppl�'At1011�RE II�O;t Ot�ll��1/1Llt1011f p1111t! Aff1QA t0 rQEYL!OT N1f1W{Q�Il IA�lRR t�p�ct{. Cf1Yf 1A 1�C111t1lS�nE Ar1K 9.See�ttdi�26 uf th cf�dup�teer�/pr rhryLtton�roquAinq bvltAe�LS u�0 I�nC Wr- f�ee�otliftutlm�. (a�OOftim,rNp to C��Dter I to Cater�ine�at atMr pro- Hs1m ef tpif Codt o7 WYI7 te tW tuEJect Wo7ntl. • d0161 im etrror Infmiytion�tout WNlnq pq part�r�p are�s.see[nmtar 105. p o Fs Letalli o/tM naylat�ons le tMt c�tepo.�.se�C��oter IOQ. or MtNif Ot tl�reqyiatfpx la�tl�ls uteqory.fee[Mpter 95. er Oet�11s o1 vlwt Mr fueW tA/l M1a�t Ih/t:�M CMGtN I!S 0 o Fer at��.tp.refiq r:�utren suuc.�ee CMOter I1S. � - TMt Oe�elqwnt�Y.�ItO M M �lited ynl'tr tM Stty'{ S'wnline Lfter Vreqre:tanw�t t�at tla:uiMt�. � �f�we lanel!wtenAr+M(R4 n1�•aLR11�1a te � � . . �hte.��s tnt<1r�o*te t�te.��af•�1�s�le,M�nsitr._._ ..._ _' Kirkland Parkplace � `�� } i -�ti �, �'�— �, �t! •-\ ;i� . 9�`� `� '�' 4��` l, `� • / �q� � � �" �\;`� j�'.FYI�� •Jl`�• Q� �` �� ,�} `;� � .� ,� �� ,. Q�. �,t�, Q ^ 4'� �, � /q V .l-�d Q - o ,. ``�Q �?�, �'v :�., � .� Q �' \,,��;,:� ,��1�"� �'. � , 4'-� � �� ,�. ,r ;--�, �,� �� 'Q �4�0 ,��.; i!' ' \� ~`� �:, , �k ,�'' , (��QjT �r ' � V� a y�.� � � 4 '�' . ;� ,..Y�' 4°, � �:> e 11, ` "�, ," ��, !t_- � .� ,c`, " �1 0 / � �' ;�'� u �;f � �� l�" �'�j �' � O� /'�"i ri� �; ��- � ' /F � � ,✓.{t� � � 4 f��!� A � ��,�, �\�� -�y � � �� , .{ � �� .= ��.� � _ :� � � e� SPINE � /. � a, B �� 44 � Concepts ' ' . Mixed LJse . �t_� ' �",, • . � CINEMA ��.\,.. - ��.,,; \ �\\\� I � OFFICE � .,`�� RESTAURANT � i .: ' ��- FIETAIL 1 � � , � SITE . _ \\��\\ , \�\;�� \��\ � �aT� `�\\;��' i `.,� • � 1. � I � I � I � � '�`. I 1 a:..� I •i-- '•.ai.'� :1:.. r i �` - s=�� I � w�:� r • - �t�r• ---��i��=�.' � -- ' � -. • I - r��' - �� -- �.. ;:�J _.-- _ _�--'—.•�_i-�.,�'r = -:�s � � _ — _. ;,;-...: -�a::S � � - � � ,� �'-�r`s�'� ; `�y.:-�-='�- -- -��---C�:;,ti . �i n�� .u '°�_-- ,--`�,.t; �" � , ` , 1 i J �N- .R .��f h�:+��_��'°'oi� �? • . `�.� � '��y�f ��y..,o ° •�� i�'; ;s�: �` ��, °--r -- �o� • -- � .�` b.._c°'}� " ° l. ••; '�':�'. .E 'J`�t(f r .��'... ` . � ^R,..�.e'�. �_ �� _ \` _ '�� j',IY . '�..F° . .�+Y��'�. �� _� � � ��L../"��`- 6t•�'f'�� •��y".'•�5..�.. �1``� � c�d�V"� -r!�:wl'�"•• �'7`� ~'�Y';:�=.. . -��-,� .�-�� N �� 1�r� .i �Q ,\ �� •ip$i�� ` � �' �. . � 33` (: f '6:�. �, �„ t.J:'r,`:�� ,�° ��p� \� �. :�' ��.� .4 1� ��% u �.�.�a e� � � � �ri% ,i , � � 1 � �s :; � �` - `��:;� �� / \ � �`�"• a � � "�,-=` ,�' �t {�.(` ` � ' � y��. � ''r ,4 h� . �� l W �} �.'�� '� �`�. � • , , � ,�` :1��: �' ;-��_. W �a �' � f�� ' i,, ; S' b o + � � --! -y ' aa.�.; do Oo Do UU�l � ��QOO��c�epo � x � �s � -� �� ' � � � _ � ` . v . . . V . �ot� � '�:A10E STREET 4 '� � � �� .r �� D .. . � . . . . . � : � � . . . . . . �.:, ��:•.. � .�,_:,.,_, '.`��._.....�'�.:;_._� e � „': .. ` : y,. �rt' �u # � � '�\ \ •J: �'y—�� --� � 7 \ \\ �V �\ \ ..\ , i :� 7 . [ .. ,. . . . � � '� �,°••� `` �,�y��. ,\�r- \� \\� \� ,� \ \ \� \'� ° cs�.'� i kQ t � . . \ • . �'. � w +t � �'1 i � f �-� %// ;/� / , &�/ /• ' �I� •/ ,~� e^ $ ; I , f`; ��, / ��<,�% �',(��:'*. j . � � 0.� '.1 Y�_ �1f� _� '� �/ �� i' r �• �,.'�� , a. ' 'f'�� :,r � � . ��.-•' _: / .�/�/ � �. �=" . �` ?� . � � / , �i . i i" . �� / . � ,� � v �� 4;�=- ' l �` . ,-�.� � \�.\ rt_^` . \\�\ � ` �. , LS . �. j � � � ;u�� \ �.�` �, t�w, t ' � ' � ._ _ , \ � . ��'— ---°+` � � '� � � ,'� ,,�� : � , ..,._w ..�.. _ . � , . .,_ _ _. �., a _ �: View looking west � �000�o oa9 0 0 ��eoo ��oa� 0 o Q[�a�9 O,o� , ------� ---------� -----�--� --------•--..e � �' i -- - - � �. _ :.i '_ .� '.7M�A .m9 �.. .� ...._ .v . ....:�d _. _..._. _,� .Y. ...�.--'..-..__.__._�.. �_. _.._� ., '�'!!S r-.. .., - ��r -: .. . _ , � ' " �� ' , aoQ(�aQ(� .� _ :._ = - -.- _� _ -" ..�. � . . _ . _ . ; � :,m _� � .� �, .��. �, _ _ . . _ . % ; .;� -��<�� * , � � � •� � � 4' �^ '" • _ � , � � �. � `. . � '. • �. � '-. ' ' � .� ..i, �..�. ..... .._ �e r„-�.�. t_��:di'..e.�:.'r:�sY ..yr-.v.t�_...�..ami�1 C:..rs+:':1� .,.* ..i�1`1 '�y r::., SiFI Ava Y .. � �s .�„� .�.�w � 6 ::�-�-u�� .� �,. . `.�«,, � : _ 9 , � �s :, � > e °f 7 .. ' : � . , , � ..�:�'.:;3 , CITY � 6 0,�_> i�� a �. M �•u��s�o��N��e000��a��u�sso�si MALL ,,;� � � ��d�5 .,,, a--:� . .��••• VLACE .�pt . . r� � "' ' � p`-,- ,° k ��4�,.�,•= ,a° :`�� _ :s > X �� ' qQ C�9�4PeD - '#i .. �a r.�_�._��i ��t•� > �' �a..q�. .... . :'�� .. _:•L �; A �'�e. F:� � PETFR '� , '_ �sa�'� R`' L�X�":.�J�� .s � .�> K18K r�j -'` -°'-'-- � ,�, , �.,•-� aAxK r��• ,° �:..,,- ; ��_ - � .r_,� � ��" _ a.,5 ..�::� ; 6� '- .•. '� � h - ° j't^ e �� 4 t+°' ......... �...st�N.• ,�ar ds i ' - :.:,. �:. ��.,_�.�x 4 � . � _ j �p. � S � �-�: , � - r �` � ; � _ r�� ''. }' F;< O .�.�� c�a� ; � - �,r 4 P j > � �b—� � �.P b '� \ ',y��. . :. . -',� � F '.. :YAl11NA� \ . . • Kirklantl Ar� . �'�:. � .' ar.,. �., - iAAK..-�S'r. T�y`'�� r��'"��`'°"�7��"'�°L E ..' nT, m,'�".��w',:s�*....a-r.-�.w. :_+r.^2 rL ['.� - � . /�� - �5� � .° y. G' l ys`^��S t r � � ".. _ • `' •• '�.�s� °�c�t�'s�� "o� �� :' _ P, � LEGEND c = '�:i � �-�a s . "a?' �� __t ' •�:`-' '• '� �� ,�� a t: � � ?s .r?��! �`� ��.:..,r�y L '.�.a.,� �y° 'v"`�;,�ta� "_ � � ' �au....,e,�..• ��,y,� ~� � �2M Ar� sp ¢ ,d ,•_ � � �--°��°r� 2 -. .,c�, � � , ; ►......evEOestRUN e� z _ �..s� �, � : a _ � �,'� r.wee+vbwaa:� .�� BLOCK OAANT PpOJECTB P � � ! -�,�:-a.y- Z � 8 !� � �tj � - � rNJtS�I�O � r�� m> � ° �1581SO NEIGHBORHOOD DE8lmNAT�! NONTN 1 � � . � � T'r ,.�sw , ��. � w :. �. x. '� 4� ��.,,.� �e,:a+�:�y.�.%C»�:aaa.sa�C.�.i-�� "a,a. '°sa�r'� � • � _ . - 1) SENIOR CENTER-406 Klrklae�Arenue � Ner eonstructton W�aeent to exittt�1lbrary providee a inultl-servlee ce�ter 9or aenioes and elditlonal space for the 19brary. f164,0pp Block Grent, SSSS,ODO Bond Sales, f40,000 ppnetions, 562,000 Ctty funds. Black Grent funds assisLed onty the tenior center poKton of tice construetion project. - • � P) XOUSING RFVAiR-32)-prM Arenue SouLA fits home ru p�leted.mi�r repairt rero mde on the roof,aM the seser ras eonneeted. !1 tptel of f209,896 in Blocic 6rant funds M've�en received far Xousirtg Repetr tn Lhe C1ty from 1975 to 1982. 3) STATE STREET NEIG+iB0RH000 SIDEHpLKS-�d Avenue Swth��2ad Stroet SoutA Conatructlon ot 1,0�11nea�feet of eurb,gutter,uM atderalk elong the seutA slde of 2�Arenue South bepreen Lake and SUte Streets,aM on Ue eest sitle of 2eb Street South to 3rd Avenue South facilltates pedestrien�ecess to aeb fram tAts ema, heevily popul�ted rith senior citlzens. f21,276 Block 6rant . f24,6�4 C1ty tunds. 1) CBD OESIGtI STUDT-Aiong P�rk Lana fros Uke Street to Metn Stroet Block Gr�nt fwids provlde0 tor study and pre-deslgn of faprorcmenta eompleted throuph a loui Improve�nt Distriet whose formetion ras fecilttated by the Bloek Gnnt pro�ect. Treffic eirculatlon and parkiiw petterns rere rodeslqned to arrent eonftguratton. t3,409 Blxk GraM (study and decign)�f166,603 110 • (eonstruction). 5) f8D STREET CROSSiNG- Intertatlon o1 Park l�na�n0 Me1n Street � Prorided�destrl�n�tety erossings in eonjunetlon rith lID t�pro�enents aler�g Vark Luro, f3,g30 Block 6rent. 6) �IORP OENOLiTION-IlortMast torner ot TAtrd St►eet and K1rtl�nd Avenue ►rovided for denlition of plightteg armory structuro�grading,q�d p��leg ta� wrNng lot. f11,COD Blxk 6rant,51,110 C1ty tunds. • 7) CEMTRAL IUr PEDESTRI�B SAFEry tSLIIMD-CeUreen!tA�nd 6tN Streets � Wlt peovtde�pfety isl�nd mid-block for pedest�qns crossiig Central Wy trom tAe IbrNrk eNghOorhaad tp peter K1ri PaNc an0 Park Place. f1,994 Blak Grant, f�,063 City funds. !) IIORKIRK t►E)GXgpR�{pp0 S1DEFi11LK5-6tA Street- 7tA Il�renue tp PeLer Kirk StAool ConstrucNon of pedestN�n ralkrars beween ieter Kirk School, lb�kt�k mstdenttal arn,�nd tUe Centnl Busl�ss Dt�trtct. :20,015 Blak 6nnt.f7.947 Ctty funGS. ,� SEMIOR CITIZEN XOUSING-StA Ilre�we�nd 10tA Street , ho�lded Iund�to�u�n slte for�uturo unler hpusinp. fi69.9d1 Elak 6r�nt. l27.561 C1tY fundf. • � �� U � < .�� g� �� sg ❑ �� s �� . � � � � �� . � � �' �� :� �� a .�� e� � � , � ,� � � . �� :�� .� � � � � � � ��. q :� :�. � g�� °°� . �� . � � � � � � �� e � � � ..�� .�� O` ;�� :�� < Q$� s�� C'' � .� � �a�o PI � �. � ;U � �� ' •��.'�� ,�, i� � �• t-:`e�� !�� '� in �i9c �u� u �a�� ' tp c, e ��y.. �g O � � � � p �k > � O � 0� � �d � M �. ��9 � � �� W� � � 3� .� ..� � � ��. �� s � �� 0. � .� .� . � �� 'd�� zrY � 3 �C�+L�° 3' � 3 �.°'� � � � V A U �o �'�N �;-� �e ,� E�� .. m.��$� �� °' .5 y9 �� °�� E .5�•� ��°�� ,a 3� �,9 � p'� � �.�� `•d�`' � ^a � ��•6� .5� �� °'',�� C,�do ��°:�—�' � �`�>N � �` ��t�1 � O � �� 83a� C� � �j C m ��J�+� � ��:: � �, ,� �� . � � � 8� �'� � �� ]� � � � � �� ' r � ^ � � y�-,.v � � '�} � !9 � �� a� � d� � �� ,�� . .� �°. ��: � ��.. � � � �° � �� :� �� g� �.� . �� d � �� r :�:�� ..� �� . � .� �� $:� �� .�� N °°b �� ' �� .� � �.� �� . � .� . � � � � � �� , � . � � � � �'� �� 3� � ��t 0. '�� e.�� .�� a�ffi��a �� A�s � �� .�° a� • T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 8, 1983 � FROM: ALDA PAIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF ACCESSORY APARTMENTS The Golden Valley Planning Commission on May q, 1983 deferred further discussion of the issue of accessory apartments until fihe June 13, 1983 Planning Cor�nission meeting to allow staff time for compilation of information on the need for regulation of accessory apartments. Staff was requested to check on the number of inquiries and complaint calls related to accessory apartments received by :City staff and to . contact staff of adjacent communities regarding the accessory apartment situation in neighboring cities. City Planning staff has received in 1983 a total of three to five inquiries concerning accessory apartments. All inquiries involved either residents asking whether accessory apa�rtments in �e3ghboring homes were legal or potential buyers of homes with accessory apartments asking whether continued accessory apartment use would be legal . The City Building Official reports that the Zoning and lnspection Department staff receives two to three inquiries a week concerning accessory apartments. These • i.nquirles include residents asking whether they may add accessory apartments to their homes, neighbors complaining about accessory apartment uses and inquiries from potential buyers of homes with accessory apartments. Planning staff contacted staff of the Cities of Crystal , New Hope, Robbinsdale and St. Louis Park concerning tMe accessory apartment situation in those communities. None of these adjacent communities has a zoning ordinance provision allowing accessory apartments in single family residential zoning districts. The City of Robbinsdale, however, reports that the major portion of the City is zoned R-2 i:n which accessory apartments are allowable as a condittonal use. Accordi.ng to Robbinsdale Planning staff, the City receives a number of requests for Conditional Use Permits for accessory apartments in the R-2 Zoning District and .Tn most cases requests are made to legalize already existing accessory apartment uses. Rob6insda}e staff repor�s that such Conditional Use Permit requests are generaily approved with a minimum of opposition. The Robbinsdale City Council reviewed the question of accessory apartments a few years ago and at t�at time took a strong stand against loosening the zoning ordinance either to provide for accessory apartments in the R-1 Zoning District or to allow accessory apartments as a oermitted use in the R-2 Zoning District. Robbinsdale Planning staff states that there are a number of illegal accessory apartments in the R-1 Zoning District and that the City has not taken an aggressive stand to eliminate the i1legal uses. Planning staff reports that the City of Robbinsdale is in the process of reviewing the Cfty Zoning Ordinance and may consider the accessory apartment issue again as part of the current review. � Golden Valley Planning Commission -2- June 8, tg83 � City of New Hope Zoning and Inspection staff reports that the issue of accessory apartments was considered by the New Hope City Council at length approximately one year ago after the issue came up in connection with a number of orders to correct � illegal accessory apartment uses. The City Council at that time decided not to make provision for accessory apartments. City staff reports that the City of New Hope has problems with mother-in-law apartments advertised and sold as separate living units. These cases come to the attentton of the City because New Hope requires inspection and correction of code deficiencies prior to sale of a resldence. The City of St. Louis Park Zoning Administrator reports that St. Louis Park also has problems with mother-in-law apartments which become separate rental units for unrelated persons. The definition of famtly in the St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance has no limitation on the number of related individuals comprising a family but also specifies that a family unit shares one kitchen and dinin� area. The Zoning Administrator reports that in the past there has been negligence of the single kitchen requirement in the case of related individuals leading to the establishment of separate living quarters which become rental units. The St. Louis Park Planning Commission and City Council studied the issue of accessory apartments a year to a year and a half ago and decided at that time not to allow accessory apartments. St. Louis Park staff receives a number of requests and inquiries from residents wishing to add accessory apartments or questioning whether use of accessory apartments is legal . � City of Crystal staff also reports receiving inquiries from residents asking whether � accessory apartments are legal . The City of Crystal currently does not allow accessory apartments, and staff reports that the question of making provision for accessory apartments has not come up before the Planning Commission or City Council . � As a means of obtaining background information on the accessory apartment situation in the City of Golden Valley, staff suggests encouragement of a survey conducted by the League of Women Voters. Commissioner Leppik reported to the Planning Com- mission at the May 9, 1983 meeting that the League of Women Voters recentiy initiated a study of housing and that the Board of the League of Women Voters, fn discussing how the League could make a contribution, considered undertaking a survey on the subJect of accessory apartments. The League felt t�at as a group separate. from the City it might be able to obtain information on the number of accessory apartments already existing in Golden Valley. At the same time, the League wished to obtai.n a reading of resident acceptance of the accessory apartmeht concept. Commissioner Leppik said the League would be willing to undertake a survey if the City Council would find it helpful . The League would appreciate a City contribution to help with expenses similar to City support of the League Tax and Service survey conducted in 1981 . Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council support of a League of Wommen Voters survey on the issue of accessory apartments with support to include staff input into preparation of a questionnaire, reproduction, mailing and a donation to assist with other expenses. Support should be as requested by the League of Women Voters with care given to maintaining League identity separate from the City. � � T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 8, 1983 FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJEC�: AVAILABILITY OF JOBS BILL FUNDS Henneptn County has announced availability of funds under the 1983 Jobs Bill . An additional allocation of $1 ,051 ,000 was made to the Urban Hennepin County , Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. Instead of distributing additional funds to each Hennepin County community participating in the CDBG Program, Hennepin County is requesting proposals for use of the:money from Urban Hennepin County communities and from interested agencies. A Citlzen Advisory Committee has been established to review proposals and make a recommendation to the County Board on use of Jobs �ill funds. City of Golden Valley Planning Commissioner Gary Prazak, who represents the City on the CDBG Planning Area Citizen Advisory Committee (PACAC) for Area One, also serves on the Citizen Advisory Committee for distribution of Jobs Bill funds. Projects proposed for use of Jobs Bill funds must comply both with CDBG regulations and with requirements under the Jobs Bill . In terms of eligibility under CDBG, projects must meet one of the three national objectives: 1) Principal benefit to low and moderate income persons, 2) blight removal or 3)urgent need. At the same time, in order to meet Jobs . Bill requirements a project must provide jobs � to persons unemployed 15 of the previous 26 weeks. Attached for further guidance on funding eligibility and on evaluation of proposals are a Statement of Objectives for the 1983 Jobs Bill prepared by Hennepin County and a listing of Review Criteria and Priorities prepared by the Citizen Advisory Committee for use in selecting proposals for recommendation to the County Board. The schedule for utilization of Jobs Bill funds is tight. The deadline for Hennepin County submittal of the County program is July 1 , 1983. City Council action in the form of a resolution is required in June if the City wishes to submit a proposal . It is requested that the Planning Commission discuss possible use of Jobs Bill funds at the June 13, 1983 Planning Commission meeting and make a recom- � mendation for consideration by the City Council at the June 21 , 1983 City Council meeting. Public hearings are held on the County level and are not required at the City level . Funds must be expended by July l , 1984. Hennepin County staff emphasizes that a definite project budget and time line are required and that recipients will be held to original schedules . Examples of Jobs Bill projects contemplated by other Urban Hennepin County communities or agencies include the following: � Purchase of land for construction of a library (for which funds are avail- able provided the land is donated by the City) . Relocation within the city and expansion of a business dIsplaced by construction of a parking facility. � Golden Valley Planning Commission -2- June 8, 1983 � Conversion of a public school into a Senior Center and Senior Day Care Facility Relocation of a business into an empty building. Establishment of a recycltng facility. Day Care (either by cittes or by service organizations� Housing Rehabilitation . Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council submittal of a proposal for City of Golden Valley use of $66,000 in 1983 Jobs Bi.11 funds for the Housing Refiabilitation Grant P.rogram. The $66,000 amount would fund eight housing rehabilitation grants and is based on a current waiti.ng list of.five eligit�le grant applicants waiting for funding, on expectation of three additional eligible grant applicants during the funding year, and on the maximum grant allotment of $8�250. Staff, considered use of Jobs Bill funds for the Brookview remodeling project. Approval was recently given for the roof replacement portion �only of the proposed remodeling of� Brookview. According to information received from Hennepin County, the Senior Citizen Center portion of the Brookview remodeling project would be eligible for Jobs Bill funding. Procedure for application of Jobs Bill funds to • the senior center portion of the Brookview remodeling project would involve deter- mination of the percentage of the project consisting of space for senior center use and payment of that pereentage of the total project cost with Jobs Bill funds. The remainder of the project must be funded from other sources. Staff recommends against application for Jobs Bill funds for Brookview remodeling due to lack of other funding sources for project portions not eligible for Jobs Bill funding and due to the fact �that any contract paid in part with Jobs Bill funds is subject in total to CDBG and Jobs Bill regulations. HUD regulations governing Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity include as examples HUD certification of all contractors and subcontractors, inclusion of HUD documents in bid specifications, compliance with HUD regulations regarding bidding procedures, submittal of Affiirmative Action Plans with bids, payment of Federal wage rates to all workers on the job, contractor submittal of monthly payroll reports and monthly Employment Utilization reports, and City interviews of workers to verify wage rates. Under the Jobs Bill , it would also be necessary to require that cor�tractors document hiring of unemployed persons. These requirements would likely add to total contract cost and total project completion time. The only way to avoid application of HUD and Jobs Bill requirements to the entire project is to bid and contract work on the senior citizen portion of the building separately from work on the remainder of the building. This is not � practicable in the case of work on total building systems such as heating, air condi•tioning and roof replacement. Staff has no other suggestions of concrete projects on which Jobs Bill funds could be expended within the atlotted one year time period. � Attachments: , 1 . Statement of Objectivesll983 Jobs Bill Additional Appropriation 2. Review Criteria/Priorities/1983 Jobs Bill Additional Appropriation • STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES • 19�33 J08S BILL AODITIONAL APPROPRIATION URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM The Jobs Bill of 1983 provided for an additional appropriation to the Community Development Block Grant program principally for the creation � and direct support of �obs. Urban Hennepin County has received an additional allocation of �1,051,000 under the Jobs Bill which must be scheduled for use by July 1, 19�3, and fully expended by September 1, �.985. In programming the use of this additional funding, HUO requires that Urban Hennepin County establish a set of ob�ectives to guide the selection of activities to be funded with the appropriation. These ob�ectives must reflect the intent of both the Jobs Bill and the Housing and Co�nunity Development Act of 1974, as amended. Two sets of general ob�ectives are therefore applicable. One set from the CDBG program itself: • Principally benefit to low and moderate income persons. � Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight. � • Meet other con�nunity development needs having a particular urgency. And one set from the Jobs Bi11 : • Provide productive employment for 3obless Americans. • Hasten or initiate federal (funded) pro3ects and construction. • Provide humanitarian assistance to the indigent. Proposals for the use of the additional allocation to the CDBG program through the Jobs Bill must be consistent with at least one of the generally applicable ob3ectives from each set. The Jobs Bill strongly emphasizes the funding of activities which will create and directly support �obs. This, therefore, becomes the primary ob3ective of Urban Hennepin County in progran�ning the use of these funds. In addition, HUD particularly emphasizes the funding of community deve- lopment activities of the following nature as consistent with the purposes of the Bill : � Public works and facilities. • Financial assistance to private businesses for economic development. � Housing rehabilitation. • Public services. � � ' . Ob�ectives of a more specific nature follow. They are adapted from the � Statement of Ob3ectives established for the regular Urban Hennepin County CDBG program. They provide further guidance in proposing and evaluating activities to be undertaken with Jobs Bill CDBG funding. • Program and implement Cortanunity Development activities which address Urban County ob3ectives and meet local needs and priorities within established timetables. • Progrananed activities must be completed and their budget expended within two years from the date of authorization to proceed. • Maintain thorough files on the process of program development and activity implementation to meet program and quarterly performance reports requirements. • Provide additional permanent, private sector jobs available to low and moderate income persons. • Economic development activities must have evidence of support from public and/or private sponsors and provide for new or expanded employment opportunities and/or the elimination of existing blighting influences. • Economic development activities must be consistent with estab�lish- . ed local po�licies as exemplified in comprehensive and redevelop- ment or economic development planning. • Undertake activities to stimulate economic development consistent with 1oca1 economic development strategies. • Target funds for use in con�unction with other available public and private resources. • Facilitate the development of new housing; includinq, but not limited to; site acquisition, public improvements, assistance with front-end costs and multi-con�nunity pro3ects. • Offer a variety of housing rehabilitation assistance. • Utilize a11 available housing rehabilitation/improvement programs either in con3unction with or independent of the CDBG rehabilita- tion programs, (i .e.; MHFA loans, MHFA-CETA Weatherization) . • Improve existing and develop new public works and facilities. • Encourage the provision of public improvements to support revitali- zation as we11 as new development. i � � • Assure that program supported facilities and housing units are access9ble to hand9capped persons. • Assure that each accessibility improvement meets a particular � need; removes a specific barrier and represents a defined priority i n the conanun i ty. • Support the funding of public services to the extent they are consistent with the program needs of participating conenunities. • Funding for public services must principally benefit low and moderate income persons. • Funding of public services must be for new or increased levels of service or in support of services for which funding is no longer available and it can be demonstrated that local funding is no � longer possible. � UHC 5-9-83 ' . . � REVIEW CRITERIA/PRIORITIES 1983 JOBS BILL ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COBG PROGRAM The following criteria and priority considerations have been established by the ad hoc Citizens Advisory Comnittee to guide their revieM of requests from Urban Hennepin County program participants for the use of the additional CDBG appropriations from the 1983 Jobs Bi11 . In order for Pro3ect Proposals to be accepted for funding consideration they must: 1. be complete and include a detailed budget and explanatio� of the proposed activity 2. be carefully and realistically scheduled relative to activity initiation and completion with ma3or milestones identified 3. be eligible and fundable under the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Ob�ectives for the Jobs Bill and the regular CDBG regulations 4. be endorsed and submitted by an Urban Hennepin County participant subgrantee � 5. utilize any existing CDBG funds (exempting Year IX) in contingency accounts and balances in completed or dead pro�ects in con3unction with the Jobs Bill appropriation 6. demonstrate that the activity benefits the citizens of Urban Hennepin County as constituted for the CDBG program 7. demonstrate that activities wi11 benefit to 1ow and nwderate income persons To the extent possible a�d practicable, Pro�ect Proposals should: 1. provide for the completion of existing activities which are waiting implementation because of lack of funding 2. address a need for funding which �s not already fully budgeted for from other 1oca1 resources includinq CDBG monies 3. represent a rather substantial effort both in terms of funding and benefit 4. utilize other sources of public and/or private funding in combination with Jobs Bill money 5. en3oy a high degree of 1oca1 support and commitment from the sponsor � and others who may be integral to implementation 6. crea�e employment opportunities accessible to low and moderate income persons Pro3ect Proposals which directly support the folloNing factors wi11 be afforded riorit status depending upon magnitude and incidence: � 1. principal benefit to low and moderate incort�e persons 2. create and directly support �obs 3. imminent.implementation capability and timely and reasonable completion schedule. 4. provision of permanent; private sector �obs 5. provision of imnediate; temporary public sector �obs � 6. Jobs Bi11 funding represents the most logical and readily available source of funding 7. �obs provided would be made available to those unemployed for 15 of the 26 weeks preceding March 24; 1983 8. a high ratio of �obs created to funds requested 9. cooperative efforts of two or more program participants addressing mutual concerns and ob3ectives 10. provide maximum benefit to the conmunity and help improve the local economy 11. assist in the implementation of pro�ects which otherwise may not get started � and/or will create opportunities for future employment; i.e.; leveraging 12. provide employment in support of eligible and fundable COBG activities UHC May 31; 1983 i • T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 8, 1983 FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE VALLEY SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT • Chairman Thompson will provide the Planning Commission with an update on the Va11ey Square Redevelbpment Project. Attached is a letter prepared by the City Manager for distribution to owners and tenants within the Valley Square Redevelopment Area outlining developer proposals received for the redevelopment project. Attachment: June 2, 1983 Letter to Valley Square Property Owners and Tenants • • � , � • June 2, 1983 . Dear Yalley Square Property Owner or Tenant: The Golden Valley HRA has received proposals in response to the Prospectus it issued for the Valley Square Redevelopment Pro3ect. On May 17, proposals were received for Area D (north of Highway 55, south of Country Club Drive, east of Rhode Island, and west of Pennsylvania). The follawing proposals were received: Colonial Services and Management, Inc. - 84 unit apartment building; H&I Enterprises, Inc. - gasoline station with service center and con- venience stare (1 acre corner of Country Club Drive and Rhode • Island); United Properties - 28,000 square foot office/service building, plus a . 22,000 square foot office building; Shelard Companies - three 36,000 square foot 3-story buildings, with a total development of 108,000 square feet of office space. On May 31, proposals were received for the remaining areas. Area A (Reiss 6reenhouse Property) United Properties - two alternatives: Alternative A, 10-story, 210,000 square foot executive office building on south part of site combined with 96 rental units on north part of site. Alternative B, 10-story, 210,000 square foot executive office building on south part of site with a 6-story, 130,000 square foot building on the north part of the site; Z&S Companies - 132-unit residential development on the north portion of the site. No proposal for the south portion of the site. Mark Z. Jones Associates - a 140 unit apartment building on the north portion of the site, and a 175,000 square foot office building t� be built on the south portion of the site; '� Shelard Companies - a 6 and 4 story office building totaling 160,000 . square feet office space to be built on the south part of the site. No proposal for north portion of "'site. , ,. . -2- • Area B (Winnetica to Wisconsin) ap a ty nves en - a t ree story building, 20,000 square feet each fl oor -- first fl oor commercial , second fl oor restaurant and service area (barber and beauty, etc.), third floor office. This was proposed for the area betrreen Winnetka and relocated Golde� Va11ey Road. Trach Properties - New facade on Golden Valley Shopping Center and interest in area north of relocated Golden Va11ey Road. Area C (Between Winnetka and Rhode Island and T.H. 55 and Golden Ya11ey oa 3T—'ieTard Companies - A four building office development totaling 176,000 square feet plus a free-standing 10,000 square foot restaurant with the Dahlberg Electronics building retained in its present location. . United Praperties - a high tech office service center concept retaining Dahlberg Electronics. No specific site plan was submitted. The Valley Square Commission will be receiving a public presentation from the developers in June. On June 16 at 7 PM in the Council Chambers, those develo- pers proposing plans for Area D will make a presentation. On June 23 at 7 PM, those developers submitting proposals for the remaining areas will make a pre- sentation to the Valley Square Commission. You are invited to attend. • Copies of the propsals are on file in the Library. If you have further questions, please contact A1da Peikert, Assistant Planning and Redevelopment Coordi nator. Sincer y eff Sweet City Manager JS:pb �