Loading...
10-27-80 PC Agenda � '` r'-',:;::::�.� :j. �� '4� � `'=��`'r Golden Valley Planning Commission ; �::=:=::=:-:=-� �::.�._Sry�. October 27, 1980 (Civic Center, 7800 Golden Va11ey Road) AGEN DiA I . A�proval of the Minutes - September 22, 1980. II . Report from the Olson School Reuse Committee. III . Preliminary Piat Review - Fredsall 's Addition. i APPLICANT: Dr. Roger Fredsall LOCATION: 520 South Westwood Drive REQUEST: Preliminary P1at Approval i IV. Informal Public Hearin� - Rezoning ; ,,:::_�`:., APPLICANT: Q. Petroleum ` �;�.-...,.-,. , :.;=;'�`? ; - LOCATION: 8950 Olson l�morial Highway � <_�:.�:-�r-. REQUEST: Rezone from "Residential" to "Commercial" V. Report on the HRA Meeting - bctober 14, 1980. Vl . Report on the City Council Meetings - September 29, 1980 . October 6, 1g80 October 20, 1980 ; VII . � Planning Area One Citizen's Advisory Committee � �� ..�• �� /'U /� l��� � � , � � � s .�� , � � � / � ..��. � { �. �� ��� D . �'�. __ __, �i-. `����;� � �9� � � s _:.�..�_:_, e E:: '�:;'.. 6?;�accr� � e �=�� �' � J � `��- s' ; . + /' � � .:i ��.;�:�� Golden Valley Planning Commission October 27, 1980 Additions to the Agenda VI11 . Set Date for Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: General Mills , Inc. LOCATION: 9200 1�layzata Blvd. REQUEST: Rezone from "Open Development" to "Industrial" - IX. Set Date for Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: General Mills, lnc. LOCATION: 9200 l�layzata Blvd. �---, ♦ REQUEST: Rezone from "Open Development" to �' �`� "Business and Professional Office" ..l�?!�,....,�� �"'�' X. Final Draft of Business � Professional Office and Conditional Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance. XI . I-394 Impact Study. ` � -��, - :� , � .`�� ' Minutes of the Golden Valley � Planning Commission September 22, 1980 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 7�30 p.m. on Sept- ember 22, 1980, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. ViceChairperson Forster called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Those present were Co►flmissioners: Edstrom, Forster, Hughes, Polachek, Sehlin, Specktor and Thompson. Commissioner Eastes was absent. Also present were Jeff Sweet, City Manager; Martin Farrell , Assistant City Planner, and Dixie Peterson, Secretary. I . Approval of the Minutes - September 8, 1980. Commissioner Edstrom requested that the Planning Commission Minutes reflect that at the request of the City Council , the Planning Commission attended the City Council Meeting on September 8, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. , and that Commissioner Specktor was in attendance at that Council Meeting. The Planning Commission meeting followed at 9:30 p.m. � It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Sehlin, to approve the September 8, 1980 Planning Commission minutes. The motion was carried unanimously. . II . Report on the City Council Meeting - September 15, 1980. Commissioner Sehlin reported that there were no Planning Commission items on the City Council agenda of September 15, 1980. 111 . Report on the HRA Meeting - September 16, 1980. Commissioner Thompson requested that his report on the September 16 HRA meeting be deferred until the next meeting. IV. Informal Public Hearin - Rezoning APPLICANT: City of Golden Valley LOCATION: Northwest corner of Lindsay Street and T.H. 100 frontage road. REQUEST: Rezone from "(I-4) Institutional" to "Residential" Martin Farrell presented the staff report and recommended approval of the rezoning. Commission Edstrom questioned if the Planning Commission's recommendation of Juty 23, 1g80 was the same as the zoning request before them now. Martin � Farrell stated that it was. Jeff Sweet, City Manager, represented the proponent. Mr. Clayman, 5600 Phoenix Street, asked what the plan was for this property and what type of residential dwelling would be put on this property. Martin Farrell replied that the highest residential use for the property would be a duplex. Page 2 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting * September 22, 1980 � Kit Nissum, Lindsay Street, questioned if the access road on Lindsay Street to T.H. 100 would be closed, as they were told at a meeting several years ago. Jeff Sweet replied that the State Highway Department has asked that this access be closed because it is dangerous. The reason it has not been closed is because of the fire station. The City will pursue this and address the closing of the Lindsay Street access to T.H. 100 when the rezoning is discussed at the City Council meeting. Mr. Corcoran, 1015 N. Lilac Drive, questioned how many duplexes or single dwellings are planned for the site. Martin Farrell replied that the City has no plans for developing the property, but simply rezoning the property so that it can be sold. The property will maintain its residential character once the property has been sold. Jeff Sweet clarified that the City may not demolish the structure itself, but that it may sell the property and have the builder demolish the property. There being no further questions from the audience, it was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Sehlin, to approve the rezoning from "(I-4) Institutional" to "Residential" the property located on the northwest corner of Lindsay Street and the T.H. 100 frontage road, which previously housed the No. 2 Fire Station. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Specktor, seconded by Sehlin, that the Planning Commission re- • commend to the Council that they explore the possibility of closing the Lindsay Street access to T.H. 100. Commissioner Hughes expressed concern that this may interfere with the neighborhood's access to T.H. 100 and asked how the neighbor- hood felt regarding this. Edstrom stated that these advantageous accesses to T.H. 100 are safety hazards and strongly urges that they be closed off. Motion carried unanimously. V. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning. APPLICANT; General Mills, Inc. LOCATION: g200 Wayzata Bivd. REQUEST: Rezone from "Open Development" to "Industrial" Martin Farrell presented the Staff report and recommended approval of the Rezon i ng. Scott DeLambert represented General Mills, Inc. Commissioner Thompson questioned if General Mills has any plans for developing this property. Scott DeLambert replied that General Mil.ls has no plans at this time for developing the property. Commissioner Thompson also questioned plans for I-394 in regard to this property. Martin Farrell stated that a small portion of the property probably would be acquired, according to the latest MnDOT proposal . . Commissioner Edstrom expressed concern t�at while tFie property is zoned "Open � ' Page 3 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1g80 • Development" the City still has some control over the proposed use of the property. At various times General Mills has been asked to disclose what their plans are for that piece of land. Commissioner Edstrom stated he was reluctant to "clean up General Mills' housekeeping" without having the benefit of General Mills development intentions, even if they do not have any specific plans. Commissioner Thompson questioned the permitted uses that would be allowed on property zoned "Industrial". Martin Farrell responded to this. Commissioner Specktor expressed concern for the natural areas on this site, which have been looked at by the Open Space Committee, and said they would be losing control over their responsibility of planning the best use of this property, if the rezoning is given now with no idea of the plans General Mills has for the property. Martin Farrell responded stating that only a small portion of the subject property was in the Open Space parcel and that the land was currently being used as industrial use. The hearing was then opened to the public. Donald Ralph, 440 Decatur Avenue, stated he agrees that he would like to know the plan of General Mills before this is rezoned. He expressed his concern for the large amount of traffic in the area that could be increased if this were rezoned. He also expressed concern for the amount of traffic that would be � generated if ballfields were put on the property. Martin Farrell stated that this petition did not involve the ballfietds. There being no further questions or comments from the audience, the hearing was closed. It was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Specktor, to table General Mills request to rezone the 12.3 acre and 18 acre site from Open Development to Industrial . Roll call was taken: Edstrom, yes; Hughes, No; Polachek, Yes; Sehlin, Yes; Specktor, yes; Thompson, No. Motion carried. It was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Specktor, and carried unanimously, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council request General Mills, Inc. to prepare a master plan for utilization of their property, before further consideration by the Planning Commission of General Mills request to rezone. Commissioner Thompson questioned if this request has ever been made to any other proponent, and whether they have the right to do this. Edstrom stated he feels this is reasonable, and recalls having asked the local hospital to provide similar plans. Specktor stated it is up to the Council to act on this recommendation. Martin Farrell responded that on one other occasion the Planning Commission deferred action on a rezoning for the Lundstrom rezoning from "Multiple Family" to "Business � Professional Office" until they provided a traffic analysis of the area. � � Page 4 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1980 � VI . Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICAIVT: General Mills, Inc. LOCATION: 9200 Wayzata Blvd. REQUEST: Rezone from "Open Development" to "Business � Professional Office" Martin Farrell presented the staff report and recommended approval of the rezoning. Commissioner Thompson questioned who is to develop the baseball fields , the City or General Milis? Scott DeLambert replied that four baseball diamonds, a volley ba11 court, and a track are proposed, and will be paid for by General Mills. The City of Golden Valley would maintain these on a tease situation that would most likely be set up for ten years. At this time the hearing was opened to the public: Don Ralph, 440 Decatur, commented that they have just one road for getting in and out of the area and was concerned with additional traffic being generated. Marilyn Gorden, 2101 Marquis Road, referred to the area being in a flood plain � and commented that a low income housing project was built across from County Road 18 in a flood plain. Kathy Kozar, 9147 Highway 55, questioned if the ball park were to go in what other access would there be. Pat Freund, 9145 w• Highway 55, questioned what General Mills plans were for the foot traffic that would be generated by the ballfields. Would people be walking across the condominium property to reach the ballfields? Martin Farrell suggested that the Planning Commission was losing sight of the situation. The ballfields are a concept. Items being addressed now would be addressed when it comes in as a conditional use. The question at hand is whether or not the property should be rezoned to "Business � Professional Office." Annette Kronin, g145 Highway 55, questioned why General Mills has made several inquiries into buying condominium land if they have no plans for the area. Leo Mullen, lives on the property bordering the 39 acres, and stated he has enjoyed the wooden area and the good times in the past as a neighbor to General Mills and hopes they do not end now. . Commissioner Hughes stated he agrees that open areas are nice but that owners have the right to develop their own land, but he would like to have a specific development in mind before 39 acres of land are rezoned. • it was moved by Hughes, seconded by Sehlin, to deny the rezoning from "Open Development" to "Business � Professional Office", a 39 acre site of land located directly north of Betty Crocker Drive, based on the fact that it has been submitted without a specific proposal for development. � ' Page 5 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1980 � Commissioner Specktor asked if Commissioner Hughes would withdraw his motion so that this rezoning request could also be tabled, and request a master plan for this rezoning, as well as the previous rezoning request by General Mills. Commissioner Hughes stated he would not withdraw his motion. Commissioner Edstrom stated he supported Commissioner Hughes motion. Commissioner Thompson made a substitute motion that the Planning Commission defer action on the rezoning and request that General Mills provide their development plans for this property. The motion was seconded by Specktor. The motion was carried. Commissioner Hughes voted against the motion. VII . Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: H. I . Enterprises LOCATION: Southwest corner of Winnetka � T.H. 12 REQUEST: Rezone from "Open Development" to "Commercial" Martin Farrell gave a brief staff report, and recommended approval of the rezoning petition, but voiced his objections to the proposed project as a gross over use of the site. He advised the Planning Commission that favorable consider- ation of the rezoning request does not mean approval of the proposed project. • Mrs. Beverly Kottas, the proponent, addressed the Planning Commission, and entertained questions. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Polachek, and carried unanimously to approve the rezoning petition to H. I . Enterprises, 7921 Wayzata Blvd. Vill . Concept Plan Approval - P.U.D. 30 APPLICANT: Henry Hyatt LOCATION: Mendelssohn Avenue North REQUEST: Concept Approval for P.U.D. 30 Martin Farrell gave the staff report, and recommended denial of Concept Approval for P.U.D. 30. Henry Hyatt, the proponent, addressed the Planning Commission and entertained questions. Mr. Hyatt stated that he requested to be heard before the Planning Commission to discuss the general use of the property, and that this is a very preliminary concept plan. Ft was never his intent that this be proposed as a plan for development , but rather as a talking piece to discuss the generalized use of the property. Mr. Hyatt stated that they had heard from various sources that there has been an interest in potentially looking at this plan as it links � to the Gallant's defaulted P.U.D. He stated he was not coming before the Planning Commission with a specific plan for a specific development. Mr. Hyatt stated he was before the Planning Commission to see if there is a desfre to have some form of assisted housing on this site. J ' Page 6 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting � September 22, 1980 Mr. Hyatt detailed the technical aspects of the plan and stated that the density permitted under the ordinance for a two story structure can go as high as 16 units to the acre. He referred to the standard for building coverage under the zoning ordinance, and stated they, in fact, comply with the upper limits of that standard, 20%. He conceded parking was limited but stated he has data on garage usages in Section 8 developments, and there are indications that even when one garage is provided per unit that the usage does not exceed fifty percent. He again reiterated that the plan presented to the Planning Commission was for illustrative purposes. Commissioner Thompson stated that the Planning Commission is concerned with land use and questioned Mr. Hyatt as to the number of units he had used in applying to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Mr. Hyatt stated there had been a typographical error in one of the documents, and they had actually applied for 37 units. Commiss•ioner Specktor questioned if Mr. Hyatt had met with any of the neighbors previous to this .evenings meeting. He stated he had not, and that he would be willing to meet with the neighbors if the meetings could be productive. Commissioner Edstrom stated they were prepared to ignore the plan and discuss the concept. He said there were a number of things they would be interested in and that the Planning Commission has not had any direction from the Council � on this matter. He questioned Mr. Hyatt on the issue of the Gallant properties to the East. Mr. Hyatt replied that this matter was brought to the Council and the HRA. There was a directive from the Council to the Planning Commission to discuss two or three items, including the concept of 100i assisted housing and the concept of the development of the Gallant property. Mr. Hyatt had copies of the minutes with him. Commissioner Specktor requested to see a copy of the minutes. Mr. Hyatt read from the June 24, 1980 HRA minutes. He stated that one of the reasons he did not invest a tremendous amount of time in the development of sophisticated plans was because he thought there were many other issues beyond the development itself that the Planning Commission was asked to address. He said he was embarrassed that they seemed to be discussing a set of plans. Martin Farrell stated that this issue came to the Planning Commission through Chairperson Eastes. At that time they discussed the possibility of setting up a housing policy committee that would taok into the suggestions made at the Council meeting. The Housing Policy Committee has been formed and they have met on several occasions. They are in the process of putting together a housing policy. At that time it was also brought up by the Planning Commission that if any proposed development under Section 8 would come into the City, that it would have to come in on an individual basis and be dealt with in the same manner as any other Planned Unit Development. For that reason, Mr. Hyatt was requested to come in under the P.U.D. Ordinance, as any other developer would. • Commissioner Thompson concurred, and stated the point is that this is a P.U.D. , and we are talking about land use. Despite Mr. Hyattrs statement to the contrary that this is a pretiminary plan, Mr. Hyatt has asked for approval for 37 units and that his plans call for 37 units. Commissioner Thompson stated that he felt the Planning Commission should look at the proposed plans. 7 ` Page 7 Minutes of the Ptanning Commission Meeting September 22, 1980 • Commissioner Specktor stated that when a plan comes before this body for concept approval they basically look at two things. First of all , whether it is a good use of the land, and secondly, no matter what density is proposed, they can recommend a density that they are comfortable with as the best density for that parcel of land. Mr. Hyatt stated that in his discussion with staff and certain people on the HRA that this area ought to be treated as more than just a particular site and that it ought to include something that could be done with the Gallant defaulted PUD. He said he was open to working out a plan that involved both properties. At the same time, he recognized that a 100i assisted development of 20%, 30i, or 40% assistance linking both this property and the Gallant property could be feasible. It would involve a. very complicated process of tax increment financing and community development assistance could be used. He said at the suggestion of certain staff, he went so far as to contact Gallant and see if his property was available. He said it was available but at a price that was impossible. He said at that point he knew it would take public action if the Gallant situation was going to be cleaned up, and that is why, in part, that he came with a plan that was merely a concept. He came prepared to discuss what he thought was a City Council or an HRA directive to discuss Section 8 Housing in Golden Valley. Commissioner Specktor questioned if the 37 units of this concept include the � Gallant PUD. Mr. Hyatt stated there is no encroachment at all on the Gallant property. Commissioner Specktor questioned if he would come in with a second concept, then, for the Gallant property. Mr. Hyatt stated that yes, he would and that concept would involve probably two, three or four site plans that involve a variety of different kinds of uses and that he thinks it is very clear that it would have to be a partia�ly assisted development. ViceChairperson Forster then asked the Planning Commission to stay on the subject of Concept Approval for P.U.D. 30 and not Mr. Gallant's property. Commissioner Specktor asked the Chair if the Planning Commission had answered the proponent's question as to whether they were interested in having Section 8 Housing explained. Commissioner Thompson objected, stating that it was not the point of the meeting, that they were discussinq land use and not Section 8 housing. The Informal Public Hearing was opened to the public. Mr. Adams, 2348 English Circle, made the following three points : 1) he feels that assisted housing of such density avoids the problem of poor transportation in the area; 2) shopping is limited in the area; 3) traffic at the corner of Medicine Lake Road and Mendelssohn is extremely bad in the morning and evening, _ and to add to that congestion would require traffic lights in the very least. Bruce Duffy, 2304 English Circle, stated that one of the problems they have • been having in the Kings Valley Development is the runoff that they have been having. With all the blacktop proposed for the driveways they will be flooded out. ; Page 8 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting � September 23, 1g80 Martin Farrell addressed the question. At this time all the proponent is required to present is whatever he deems necessary to explain his general intent. No project would be allowed to be buitt in Gotden Valley without coming under the careful scrutiny of the Engineering Department and a drainage plan would be required during General Plan Approval . At this time we are looking at land use. Commissioner Specktor added that if a motion were to be made on this Concept, the concerns that he raised could be included in the motion to be included in the General Plan. John Dessund, Vice President of the Kings Valley Homeowners Association, stated that he is also concerned with the water and drainage problems in the Kings Valley Complex. He stated because of the improper drainage and water runoff from Duluth Street, they are flooding out in Kings Valley and having major foundation problems. He also mentioned that density has been considered the major problem in their complex because of water, no drainage, and an improper sewer system. He stated that they did not realise those were private streets in the complex when they bought, and because they were private streets the builder was able to put in a greater density of individuals per acre. He feeis that Kings Valley was not watched closely enough and he fears other developments will not be watched closely. • Don Otto, Kings Valley,stated he agreed the density was too high in Kings Valley. He questioned how much tax money would the City derive from P.U.D. 30 compared to Kings Valley. Jean Johnson, Kings Valley, stated they were concerned with their property values. She stated they objected to the Gallant project, and are concerned with rental property so close to their property would decrease the value. Joni Levine, Kings Valley, expressed concern over the number of children in this proposed developmenf and wonders where they will play. She feels they will either end up playing in their Kings Valley area, McDonald's parking lot, or the � 7-11 Store. Carl Anderson, Golden Valley, opposed the proposal . Steve Wells, 2228 Kings Valley East, stated he was also concerned with water. They have a small problem with children from the area coming down the embankments toward the ponds. He stated they had a fire there last year which was attributed to horseplay. He feels the 37 proposed units will produce a large number of children and some effort should be made to take care of the needs of these young people. He stated Mendetssohn Road traffic will increase and become a hazard, with 37 additional units. Lisa Bistamins, Cameron Trail , questioned if the appropriate provisions for necessary transportation, such as vans, etc. , to approach the handicapped units, � have been incorporated into the plans, so they can be of real use for the people living there. ' Page 9 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1980 � Marilyn Gorden, 2101 Marquis Road, questioned one car garages for 2 and 3 bedroom units with families. She suggested that 2 garages may not even be enough, and with the additional cars from 37 units traffic on Mendelssohn will be horrendous. The public hearing was closed, and the proponent addressed all of the questions that were raised. Mr. Hyatt stated that he felt the area was appropriate for this housing development. There is convenient shopping nearby, and with an average of one car per unit, the people will have access to the three shopping centers that are nearby. There is an elementary school with a daycare facitity nearby. There is bus service available, not just rush hour service, 14 inbound, and 17 or 18 outbound buses. There is recreation nearby, including a large park. There is a church nearby, and the site is served by sanitary sewer, water and gas. They will address the question of storm sewer drainage. A traffic study has not been investigated but they will be more than prepared to do a traffic study for the site, and the city could review this study. Mr. Hyatt stated full taxes are paid and the municipality should be reimbursed for the 50% abatements normally received for these kinds of developments. Mr. Nyatt stated that the question of rental versus ownership is not a Planning Commission matter. It is beyond the land use matter. Mr. Hyatt said he is prepared to take representatives of Kings Valley to see his previous developments to alleviate their concerns about the impact of this type of development. . Mr. Hyatt said projections indicate there will be approximately 56 children in the development and that typically they will be preschool or elementary school age. Mr. Hyatt said handicapped units are a matter of state law and there are stringent state and federal standards that must be followed. Mr. Hyatt stated that Bitl Hennemuth, Rieke-Carroll-Muller Associates, architects, was also here with him this evening. He stated they are dealing with people of experience and they �are prepared to work with the Commission in terms of finding a development that makes sense on the site whether it be a lower density, a higher density, or a different structure type. He would hope they had the ability ifi it is the desire of the community, to work directly with tf�em and with this Commission in finding an accepta6le use for this property. ViceChairperson Forster closed the informal hearing for discussion by the Commission. Commissioner Specktor moved, for the purpose of discussion, to recommend that the Concept Plan be approved at thirty two (32� units, and tf�at the General Plan include: an adequate drainage plan, provision for play areas for children, an adequate landscaping plan, an internal traffic plan that takes into account the needs of handicapped vehicles, that the proponent meet w�itF� the neighborh.00d to discuss the provisions of Section 8, tF�e proponent develop a management plan in conjunction with the human rights commission and tFie proponent meet � with the City Council to discuss the possibility of includ'ing tC�e Gallant property in the development. Commissioner Thompson requested permission from the C�ai.r to ask the proponent who will pay for the maintenance of the private streets in the development. Mr. � Page 10 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting � September 22, 1980 Hyatt replied that the development will be under single ownership and control . Therefore, the development itself will pay for the maintenance of the streets. They will be under a very tight document called a regulatory agreement with the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Commissioner Thompson questioned if this were supposed to be 100i subsidized. Mr. Hyatt replied, "not necessarily. " The state has also expressed interest in doing a partially subsidized development. Commissioner Thompson objected to Commissioner Specktor's motion and stated this P.U.D. has nothing to do with the Gallant property and that it should be reviewed as proposed. Commissioner Edstrom stated that in the past they have requested developers of large P.U.D. ' s to meet with adjacent property owners of undeveloped land to attempt to coordinate the development. Cortenissioner Thompson urged the Commission to defeat the motion and stated that this is an overuse of the property. He does not think this commission has the authority, nor is it in their best interest to set an arbitrary number of units to be built.Commissioner Thompson did not think that the developer, with all his good intentions, has devoted enough study to the area for the number of units the site can adequately handle. "I am not about to send along to the City � Council a smaller number of units without seeing a plan. I am reacting to this plan." He said, "It may be a preliminary plan, but that is all that we are looking at, and I am not going to redesign his plan for him at this table. I would be happy to defer the matter for further study but will not send along the recommendation as I do not think it is in the best interests of this City to do so." Commissioner Specktor pointed out that at the concept approval the Commission does not have the right to ask for a detailed plan, but by requesting the number of units and by requesting the stipulations that were put on her motion, "we are giving them some guidelines to develop their general plan. If this is approved by the Planning Commission and by the Council it will come back to the Planning Commission with tf�e general plan within those guidelines and then the plan can be taken apart by the Planning Commission.'' Commissioner Edstrom stated that if the Commission continues to recommend against without attempting to modify at this level , that ''we are setting ourselves up to be thwarted by the Council . We are not going to win. We are appointed by, and our entire constituency is the Council . I am going to say something that is very unpopular right now. All of you are citizens of Golden Valley, residents, voters, taxpayers. I commend you for being here tonight. Everything you said I have taken notice of. I am not going to base my recommendation or vote to the Council on your wishes. The Council has appointed me and the rest of us to this Commission to advise them on land use and land use only, and I would never presume to tell the Councit what the citizens of Golden Valley want. So if I � vote one way or another it is because of my feelings of land use." He strongly urged the citizens to represent themselves at the Council meeting. Commissioner Specktor addressed the audience and stated she made the motion so that their valid concerns would be addressed by the Council , and stated that � Page 11 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting • September 22, 1980 she believes the Council is committed to diversified housing, whether it be at this site or elsewhere. Commissioner Hughes stated he would vote against the motion because the density is still too high at 32 units. Commissioner Thompson further stated, "Even though we are talking about land use, we are also addressing subsidized housing. For us to "ok" the development in this phase is also going along with the type of financing in this development. I am very much opposed to financially segregated housing. A community is healthier if it has a diversity of incomes in it and not scattered in ghetto locations throughout the community. I think it is wrong to have people who are all within a certain income group living by themselves in a set devetopment. On principal ( think this is wrong." A roll call was taken as follows : Edstrom, Yes; Hughes, No; Polachek, Yes; Sehlin, Yes; Specktor, Yes; Thompson, No. Motion was carried. IX. General Plan Approval - P.U.D. 29 APPLICANT: United Properties LOCATION: Rhode Island Avenue between Golden Valley Road • and Country Club Drive REQUEST: General Plan Approval - P.U.D. 29 Martin Farrell presented the staff report and recommended denial of P.U.D. 29 as presented. Boyd Stofer, Vice President and Director of Development for United Properties represented the proponent, and gave some background information on the plan. Dick Wolsfeld, Bather, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis and Gardner, gave a traffic presentation to the Planning Commission and discussed three things: 1 . The arr�unt and character of traffic versus a general office use; 2. Access patterns, and, 3. Parking. Ron Erickson, an architect for Fifth Northwestern Bank, addressed the Planning Commission and answered design questions. Mr. Wally Klus, Banco, discussed the average number of transactions during the day and stated that the average transaction is g minutes each, and they would have five tellers at the proposed bank. After numerous questions from the Planning Commission related to traffic problems, pedestrian access, etc. , the meeting was opened to the public. � Mr. Hal Lutz, 7547 Country Club Drive, stated Mr. Stofer met with fiim in his home about a year ago presenting the plans for the site and that no mention was made then of any bank being proposed. He stated he objected to the drive-in bank facility in a residential area. r ' Page 12 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 198Q � • Mr. Dennis Jackson, 6745 Country Club Drive, stated he finds the proposed plan totally unacceptable. He stated he is a member of the Valley Square Commission and that the plan is unacceptable as related to the ring road. Commissioner Edstrom stated the kind of bank they are talking about is a major generator of large volumes of traffic. He stated he does not object to a bank in the Valley Square Area but does not think the area proposed by United Properties is a good plan. It was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Sehlin, and carried unanimously, to deny General Plan Approval for P.U.D. 29. X. Olson School Report - Polachek Commissioner Polachek reported on the Olson School Reuse Committee meeting of last Wednesday. The next meeting will be October 1 , 1g80, and a report wilt be forthcoming to the Planning Commission sometime in October. He stated the neighbors were very concerned. Don Hughes stated that he has also been appointed to the Olson School Reuse Committee by Mayor Thorsen but that he is not able to attend the meetings which are held on Wednesday evening as he is employed elsewhere at the time. Commissioner Hughes asked for a volunteer to substitute for him. There were no volunteers. � XI . Covenant Manor - Change in P.U.D. Martin Farretl reported on an amendment to Covenant Manor P.U.D. Five interior parking spaces are being added. This change in design will have to be approved by the City Council . XII . East I-3g4 SubCommittee Commissioner Sehlin reported on the East I-394 SubCommittee meetings, and stated they are at an impasse. The last meeting of the Committee will be October l , on October 13 the proposal will go to the Council , and there will be a public hearing the last meeting in October. Commissioner Sehlin suggested that a letter be sent by the Chairperson to the Council regarding the I-394 Position Paper. The Planning Commission prepared and submitted a position paper on f-394 which was reviewed by the Council before they adopted a position paper for the City Council . Commissioner Sehlin requested the Chair to find out what action was taken by the City Council . The meeting was adjourned at 11 :52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, � William Forster, Vice Chairperson D�xie Peterson, Recording Secretary � October 20, 1980 T0: Planning Commission FROM: Martin Farrell SUBJECT: Olson School Reuse Committee An adhoc citizen's committee on the reuse of the Olson School has been formed. They have analyzed the vacant Olson School situation and have arrived at a couple recommendations. Attached is a copy of the letter they sent to the Ptanning Commission explaining how these recommendations were arrived at. The City Council 's charge for the committee stipulated that they address the Planning Commission. Commissioners Polachek and Hughes were appointed to serve on the Committee. . . � • City of Golden Valley October 16, 1980 Chairperson Eastes and Members of the Planning Commission 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 Chairperson Eastes and Commission Members : At the request of Mayor Thorsen and the Golden Valley City Councit , an ad hoc citizen's committee on the reuse of the Olson School has been formed. The charge for the Committee was as follows : "The Olson School Reuse Committee shall be composed of six neighborhood representatives and two appointees from the Planning Commission. A staff inember from the Golden Valley • Planning Department and the Robbinsdale School District will be available to assist the committee. The committee shall be responsible for preparing a list of community concerns which will have to be addressed in any rezoning of the Olson School property. This report shall be presented to the Planning Commission for their review and then to the Council for its approval . The report shall be presented to the City Councit at its November 3, 1980 meeting. Following City Councit adoption of this report, it shall be transmitted to the School Board for the School Board' s and potential developers potential use considering alternatives for use of the property." Since that time that the charge was made, the Olson Reuse Committee has had the following meetings : September 4, 1980 - The six neighborhood members met informally in the home of a member. September 17, 1980 - The first meeting of the entire ad hoc committee. The committee met with Mayor Thorsen and discussed the Committee's charge. =rBetween the September 17 and September 24 meetings, members of the subcommittee visited over 300 households in the area soliciting � comments and ideas regarding the reuse of Olson School . �:�, Civic Center,7800 Golden Valley Rd.,Golden Valley Minnesota,55427, (612) 545-3781 :��.�ft � � Page 2 October 16, 1980 � Letter to Chairperson Eastes and Members of the Planning Commission September 24, 1980 - Members of the ad hoc committee met with an additional 45 other neighbors at Sandburg Junior High and formed the Olson Neighborhood Association. October 1 , 1980 - The entire ad hoc committee met at the Civic Center to express their concerns and the concerns that their neighbors had expressed at the previous Neighborhood Association meeting. There is definite interest amongst the neighbors regarding the future use of the Olson School building. After many meetings and hours of discussion with the 281 School District representative, City staff, members of the Planning Commission, and Olson neighbors, the Reuse Committee would like to make the following recommendations to the Planning Commission: 1 . It is recommended that the zoning of the Olson property remain "(I-1) Institutional". At the Olson Neighborhood Association meeting a resolution was unanimously passed asking the City Council and Planning Commission to make no zoning changes for this property. • The ad hoc committee concurs with the strong feeling of their neighbors on this issue. 2. The ad hoc committee would like to remain informally intact as a subcommittee for the purpose of reviewing and commenting upon any new proposals which would involve the use or sale of the Olson property. It is felt that early knowledge of any proposal would be of benefit to the Olson neighbors. Thank you for your consideration on this most important neighborhood matter. Sincerety, OLSON SCHOOL REUSE COMMITTEE Stephen Litton Chairman SL/dp • • October 21 , 1980 T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Martin Farrell SUBJECT: Fredsall Preliminary Plat BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The background on this particular plat extends back to Dr. Fredsalt 's first Plat Application dated March, 1967. Since that time there have been numerous changes in the Plat regarding applications submitted and extensions granted by the City Council . The last 90 day extension expired on March 2, 1980. The primary problem for the latest delays have been related to clearing title on a few of the parcels involved in the plat: Dr. Fredsall , Dr. Paul Gannon and Nils Hasselman, owners of the subject � property, have now reached final agreement on a final Plat that is satisfying to everyone. The Plat involves seven lots that will be provided with access by Strawberry Lane off Westwood Drive. The City's Engineering Department has worked closely with the proponent and has recommended approval of the Plat. RECOMMENDATION Staff feels that this Plat is in conformance with the City Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance. Staff feels that this is a reasonable request and suggests that the Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Plat as submitted. MF/dp • � � . rWesf linc °i N.W,% o� iV.E. �/+ of Sec.30i T. 29� R. 24 ---- �--- --- 'w 983.10 -- r�„ � ---f-----ss --- � • ,-' ; NATCHEZ AVENUE S0. ; � �i � , � � o �-t- T— -�- �— �o v , �, o -v � o 0 0 0 �; ; . Z z � T ''' � O n, y� ?o s ^ � x'.° �+ •• � ? �� a� � � � !'+ X ��� ° o ��` o � � � T � �~ ° m m �� 3 '�\ n°, / . .- .. a y N�v �. ,- -� - N v a �I •N /%���Ja� 2 � ° o m T� i, :'S.0'34'47"E!:. ' , ., ,o ' .^-1 -13L70��"�•-_ �, � rS.O•dT'S7"f.- � � ' • • F - 9Z.58 '• Line para lef��ifyl►he N - � _ i.!Eisf l�ne ol'W.'�i N.IK� +'�' T� -���� _�:_- `�l�4E:%4i Sea� _ , — o ++ �5.0°34'47"f.�� _�.' _-�.! .... !.i i�-' ',,, a � � - 92.59 - ;.:�`�—.�!; ,�� "�`� i ` _ �v i,�c . . . - �- !�i =-w•:'�----- -� a � � N � ' �'J : --- /-�"= - _ -- � ' Z Z� ? A � �O to tD : : - ����a:�0_�..,� •S.O°3447"�\� / o � O � ° tn e�+'u#,o+ =c" / - 191.70� s i � ^ / � � , � n m N - � ' �� �. �,' t � �� � tn T : BIJILDlNG '�+ + �i, ; W '.�r' e 2 Si � m � s �; � . -�� g �n� ' �� j ° 3 m +� o° v ..���?to� ,' sa o �•65.00 p.�.r' � !q u' � � ° ' � � N 2 '�s � � � �4 h �S L Z 1 8.4 0� I � � 4� :, e, � '� �' =5p.Q0 � r- !^ � • � � : _ o_ "-' , � , �� c� �s+ � 2 , � � �3� .!� I N .,i v r K , �../�i, �° �7' o '��: a� Sfoim Sewer N o' � �+, �i' {►2 � +, �^ �� o '" rEasemenf, o ° . � �+ �1/2.00.�� � �� y o y � �� �_117.00*- ; ' �i'i � S.0'94'47"E.�i. °b ��. o f 'J � �, i��� i j- //�/���i �� � �� W i __L ��S.0°34'47"E. �� ` ',A''�Ab �( . . /� � '�w`� � o ' �"=.,, , � ;• -.,i„oo , � g:.. .. ,, . �Q -o � � � r of i' ; ' � g p �1r, b �%/ �p0�-°� Z r- L i \ �" ' r M / �� tn . � m � �� � , ; �� �. , ,:��:,;: - - � _ r o� , � `� � ; ;� � �':�'a°'�on-e: ,,o� � — � , / . A '`•^ �J r,'!,i 60 • r:.oe tor a�e•: �• o s,z � �_ � ks.00± � � � ►�z.o � o� �' � �, �� s.o�sa a,-E. . � �. N . �. <S�0'!4 47��E. � m � �o o H� `. o�o � ' � �-�� c y� �� � g� �; n � i o� m o �, � , 1 N 3 � 1e � � N � 1�t� e.e�'++°a � _ i g / � p�' ! �+ : �%�• °o � � g i � �a�� � � �`` i �_'�i 9' ' Z � � ' � �_Y � _ q' • - _� -����7T3.20' 60.00 � � II2.00 � --- 985.85 -- • " '--- 317.20 •� --- Wstar Mtain ff � �u' ,``,- -- W_—W W W� � 2^' o—as ss as--�ss �-ssW— z �; WESTWOOD 6 i � `S�R.C.I. t�nitarr b�wa� DRI V E SQ. v � �--_ '-4°Gas Mair► � �' �' �•_M�nl�,l• TEosi l�ne o�' W.lfe ef N.W. Y � n�`' 60 �^'�� s'a e� KE.%� ef See. SO 4 � •�s' .... ,,, '; r• � o " •� � • i3 . . ?': ::' . � .. .... ., , ;",' » � . . � . . . .... .... . . . ... . . o # � y n � a � � ~ � n � 0 � October 21 , 1980 T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Martin Farrell SUBJECT: Rezoning Petition - Q. Petroleum BACKGROUPJD � ANALYSIS: The request arises on the part of Q. Petroleum Corporation. The petition is for the rezoning of approximately one acre of land currently zoned Residential to a Commercial Zoning District. The address of the subject property is 8950 Olson Memorial Highway. The property is the present site of the Q. Petroleum Gasoline Service Station. The service station structure has two service bays and a small area where the station's business transactions are carried on. The property is now zoned Residential and, therefore, the service station exists as a legal non-conforming use. Q. Petroleum would like to build a 10 foot by 28 foot addition on to the west end of the building. The proponent also plans to remove the two service bays from the structure. This change • would allow for the addition of 1 ,100 square feet of retail space that would house a convenience food mart. This new proposal would require a number of zoning variances that would have to be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Before the proponent can request these variances from the BZA, the property must first be rezoned to a Commercial Zoning District. The property directly west of the subject property is the site of National Camera and is zoned Commercial . The land on the north side of the property, across Golden Valley Road, is also zoned Commercial . The property is bordered on the south and southeast by State Highway No. 55 (Olson Memorial Highway) . The en�tire area around the site, including the site, is designated a "Commercial General Business" by the Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan. Access to the property is presently from Golden Valley Road. The current egress and ingress areas are not clearly defined. The new proposal would clean up the access to the site and would have two driveways running into Golden Valley Road. Trip generation to and from the site would most likely be increased slightly due to the addition of the convenience food mart. Actually, traffic conditions would most likely be improved with the proposed design. Staff does not object to a Commercial use on the subject property. Obviously, the current use is Commercial but exists as a legal non-conforming use. The problem exists in the proposed new use of the property. The addition of a 1 ,100 square foot retail area, along with the existing service station would require a total of sixteen (16) exterior parking spaces. The proposed plan � only provides ten (10) parking spaces. Also, the shape of the lot is very restrictive as far as site development is concerned. The subject property is triangular, abuts two streets and is very narrow. The majority of the Page 2 • October 21 , 1g80 Memo regarding Rezoning Petition - Q. Petroleum existing structure, as well as seven (7) of the proposed parking spaces, fall within the setback requirements. Part of the proposed addition would also be within the required thirty five (35) foot setback. If the property is rezoned to Commercial , the proponent would not be able to build any addition to the existing structure without obtaining a number of variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Staff does not feel that the proposed development would be a good use of the site. Any addition to the structure would require additional parking and the site is simply not large enough to meet Golden Valley's standards for parking. RECOMMENDATION Staff does not object to a reasonable commercial use on the subject property if the development can conform to the City's zoning ordinance rules and regulations. I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning petition. The Planning Commission should note that the proposed use of the site is a poor one and favorable consideration of the rezoning request does not � imply approval of the proposed addition. � � , � . � �1, , � _ _� IJ ' 60 � ��'�., �.�, � Io.. �� ,`i �V ,� �p� s 2�� ' ��y �� • I� r � 'l�J��1 ,��. N� b . � �rl� 1�' N. O ,,,a � � �R - °� �� � °°�5? - ��'n - - - � • _� — `-� ���o0 1 -- • 0 1 � • �. .._.. 1 .'' � i� � 1 N s. . I � O • v+ Ll tiW ,� f � W � P I `��� N o �1� -- - - i . • ` \���5 �, ' N � ° ZOId�1� � �`�' ��a� . , b - n I °v ; vr , U � � o o M °N ' ° 'PJrc�F,s'r: Cp�lrN'�C/Q.� ; i � .;, ' �.; � �_ - -- - -� b e` �'s� �' �' . . i � D I � ` A ��O ,l � '_ _ ^ t � �, —���r—�� b R w I , �5� o � � �' Y O � �NO°lCSC��W � �- 5626 - --- -- � I . . i5 i�B.GS .. . -Z._Zi�.6� � .,.n -. . 4.-s—: -- �O�w 33559 •- 3ca�i ' �1 � 1o12L >>- >>, ,,,� e z �/.�� �i. I o Z� w e+ �O�� jB r� m in u w amoa V i i i � .a�" '� v' � J N O j � to .44 1'r ,-�-" y � N .o m � W= �� o` io �o B5 I IIB.44... S I�,A�� .--, . � � ,�" '�� �' _ r -- • � • • ; • "" 3 ' . 5�•=� ° °D \ " 0 f'� '° '�y o cT u H- '�r, o o Nor1h 325 339 345 � 3�7 42i ' � 0.33 � � °' 5 B � �So.b� . -� 637.6r - ----� NA� Z �50 � o ENSIGN AVE.o s= .. :, ��:<< . w�_ � r1 K �o�i., r �n 150 • � __..._ A o � � ISO q�p 8o tio.54 � o -.;y'Npl��W � � ...� 60 • i � u v � � =° `O �• 424 ° o � _' o p o I � � "� � 33. p� .ee� i5o w n i � o a -� �.� ol � ;814Z)b � r '9�15� v Ni o� � + Nor!n ---� - - • M � � m ' v � - o �I:i — —� FoG G9 � �N. � � o Q Y� �I r , � O. • '�.�O Ir' � �d�4�� b� � W W�m N G � i2 � � o�.eiaa1 o eo icc.3o u °','o� �o � • � rn o,�,' w S o 1 �� b o � bo i 6 6.34 �[ o I �� ` a,�4, o A �� o �� � So j So ; I � ^i ' D o �O•� O N m � � �m y ' � � -+ '�„�`' -� o �� No r*I'r — m b ' f�*1 � �s0 P � +•� � ° S��o DECATUR � AVE. NO o 150 ^ r8 � � � � W �00 - 239.�9 , y� �o J: 60 � :1 q65 0 423 433 i 139 � ' 3 4 9.5 9 - 6 0 2?8.4 4 � -'�- � w = • � ,� � - C�a! - . 8a o 1 Z.�4 -. - � N V .� �'''�� DECATUR AVE. " '�• ° ��� � w�° o = O J;.. y�\• o� 37 ;i i o 8c ec 8o a� -..,._. , �' W Q p j � 4DB 4/6 424 432 440 • �O ��riSi`� � � la'i�C o � � � � -� � �� � _ 3 ' "' � �� i � P � o o A �D � ',x h0'•n p � p v m o ,, % �' ��. � 3 5 6 85 � Q u�: q� - -� i ;z1.i I o Bo 0 60 80 � �� t , � b �e�i p ,'J., � < �' �,. � �. ,� WN D . m �N r/ � 1 15 h, I� �� �• � , o C� � = r y W � 'm oo� � �I f �,� 307 2 ' A � � � � 1 I � O `" o� � � �. � " O 4• 11 � '� �v 60� �� j? o ••2658.92 Rts••• W `� �iB4.92,_ wNort 26 .l �I6a �.3 ee j v"', Aud. 6•?c_6S -- - -- -- � '.••i!4 .�.. '� 42i.85,M _ '"�8� ��.� .. . � °o Y w'- a o s` _ soo � I N r s�,� _ - - � ;�� 60 °_ • �1,° I �� . � � ' , •y' �10 i L. I ? ' -i' I „�y i. 1 1 � 1� �, _' ' � �. i . ' 4�, ' �i ,� . � 0 . � 1 � +•' +� ��' ��� � -� I -�l � � - � � rV � fl �;�.,,, ,�� • �� � '� �' '..�.).� ' � � !1 � ' •� � . . ,,� I .,;`. �S , � � ' � �� }� - �' � ' �"• � 1y � �, � � �d � ' ;� �. � u�j:a y , i � � - - _ ��* �,., � �� - r �l � - , � I ?A':J �a,�� '4 � � � " � � ' 7 �, � � , �;�;r`, � k� � f ' � �y j � r � '°1 � �. �,��� .�. \• � � a I- I a • �# • � �J � ��� ' � � ? -f." d �: ::: v = I � �'— '' L W /JJ � � � � /:�� I i �. '. � p , � � �v , ;. � o � Y —` . � v � � .,� ,,•� �„ � � � � \ ' ,y' s � - '" - _ I �;' �� 3 - �� � � � � � ;�'" ��� - � 3 �;s • v-��' o � U � I �1 �.� V �* -• I .. $� . i� �::I� �, � �t O 1 � ' i �1 _ �I� .a •+ . �,� �G G � � . { �� �� �. � � ; e +•` � '�� 1 �) � P ' ' � • , � •YD � � � , ,. �� � �. � ��,� :a -�-� � a�• . ..- r � � a �� � � \ � � � w- � ' � � � ' � � � � � �' � � � c� �,, � + .a�a, � �� ' ��, d � .—o:s� � � , ,f: P � i ; �:,j ,t k : . � � �+ =� -2 , !'.; � � �` � ` t,�, . p � ,� � ' �� . , . � , �i . � .. , . `� • � � ' _• • � � �� �- - � � � -;�� ; g � ,.� 1. ,"° � � /"�' � �1 . . ^�. Ad, '� (�� G ,f • `•y• , ,.1 � . , � J , ,Jf , .'"'��. - 1 � -..r�. i , � � ; ._ . � ..�.�:, .t , :!': �1 � � NI (• �,� � , •:N;,�aJ(��a+�, ,C . :�` v F� �`'• •'t ': ' " �Y ,t a �_� •� . - � . - g r �' � • . — �� � � ti � � October 20, 1980 T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Martin Farrell SUBJECT: Appointment of a Representative to the Planning Area One Citizen's Advisory Committee Attached is a letter from Julianne Bye requesting the Planning Commission to appoint a replacement for Virginia Levy on the Planning Area One Citizen's Advisory Committee. Staff would like to take this opportunity to remind the Planning Commission that the City will be submitting its Year VII Community Development Block Grant Application to Hennepin County in the near future. Any ideas that the Commission members have as far as finding areas for these CDBG funds should be submitted for discussion at the November 10, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting. • Attached is a HUD Memo describing the Comprehensive Strategy for the use of CDBG funds. � OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ��°'" °�� G2353 Government Center = � � � Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 �'''�6 '- �'M E B� NENNEPIN (612) 348-6418 October 15, 1980 Mr. Marty Farrell City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Mr. Farrell : Hennepin County is requesting the City of Golden Valley to appoint an individual to the Planning Area One Citizen Advisory Committee � (PACAC). It is the responsibility of the PACAC to review and com- ment on the development, implementation and evaluation of the com- munity development programs and housing assistance plans of the Planning Area One communities. Virginia Levy has served on the PACAC for the last two years. The PACAC usually meets once a month; the term of the PACAC member is two years. The individual , appointed to the PACAC, should not be an elected or appointed official . If you have any questions, do contact me at 348-3253. Sincerely, ;' �n.�.�. �� / 'r Ju ianne Bye st � HENNEPIN COUNTY an¢qual opportunity¢mploy¢r ; . , ' � HUD - 7064 Attachment � COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The statutory objectives of the Community Development Block Grant Program inc]ude the provision of decent affordable housing; a suitable living environment; and increased employment opportunities principally for persons of low and moderate incomes. A strategy to address these objectives in Urban Hennepin County has been formulated. The strategy is a careful plan or method designed to meet desired goals. The Urban Hennepin County Comprehensive Strategy repre- sents a coordinated and mutually supportive approach to meeting the housing and community development needs of Urban Hennepin County. The Comprehensive Strategy establishes the relationship which must exist between Urban Hennepin County housing and community development activities and needs. The � strategy thus serves to focus available Federal Housing and Community Development funds and state and local resources on priority housing and community development activities. As mandated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development the Compre- hensive Strategy consists of a general strategy and component strategies affecting neighborhood revitalization, housing, public facilities and improvements, handicapped improvements and economic improvements. � GENERAL STRATEGY The design and content of the Comprehensive Strategy is representative of the administration structure of the Urban Hennepin County Cornrnunity Develap- ment Program. The Comprehensive Strategy has been developed in such a way as to insure that the block grant program is administered in a manner to further the purposes of the Act, and that it be done in a spirit of partner- ship and cooperation with participating comnunities. The Urban Hennepin County Comprehensive Strategy provides each participating community flexibility in the development of local programs to address �dentified Urban Hennepin County needs. The local programs are reviewed to ensure consistency with the overall Urban County Camprehensive Strategy. Pro�ram Benefit To assure that program objectives are met, a minimum of 75 percent of the funds available over the three year program period shall be used for pro- jects and activities which principally benefit low and moderate income persons. A project or activity is consid�red to principally benefit low and moderate income persons it it: � 1 . has income eligibility requirements or 2. the majority of persons benefitting are low and moderate income or . , 3. is for the removal of architectural barriers or 4. is an integral part of a project which will principally benefit � low and moderate income persons In judging program benefit the information contained in the three year cor�nunity development and housing assistance plan, the annual community development program and other generally available data will be used. Certain projects or activi�ies which benefit less than a majority of low and moderate income persons can be programmed under special circumstances. In this instance it must be demonstrated that there are no areas within the participating cort�nunity in which the activity is to be located where low and moderate income persons constitute a majority, or there are so few such areas that it is inappropriate to limit projects to them. In addition, it should be clear that the project serves an area having the largest pro- portion af low and moderate income residents in the corrmunity, is designed to meet their needs and benefits them at least in proportion to their share of the population of the area served. � Program Priorities Meeting identified housing needs will continue as the top primary Urban County priority. Participating communities which have shown no performance or less than acceptable performance in meeting their goals established in Year II of the program are required to develop a 3 year program of community • development activities which can be reasonable expected to accomplish a level of clearly acceptable housing performance within 3 years. Housing assistance provided in the participating comnunities on a cumulati:ve basis over the past three program years is identified in the Housing Strategy section. Acceptable past perfor�nance will be determined by the following factors. These include amount of CDBG funds available to the comnunity over the last three program years, the amount of funds allocated in support of and spent on specific housing assistance goals, the amount of Section 8 rental assistance funds available to the comnunity and the amount expended, and the mix of family, large family and elderly assistance provided. Reasonableness of housing activities will be determined by eva]uating the comnunity development program against past housing assistance performance. To assure that each conmunity understands what is expected of them, the Urban County will specify in writing the actions each participating comnunity will be expected to take. If a participating comnunity does not propose activities or does not take action necessary for the accomplishment of their housing goals it may be appropriate for the Urban County to impose a sanction against the cor�nunity (such as placing conditions on the grant or reducing the grant) which is limited to or concentrated on specific activities located within the participating comnunity responsible for the inadequate performance. Those communities which have achieved clearly acceptable performance will be expected to continue to allocate CDBG funds to housing activities at a level sufficient to maintain acceptable performance. � � ► . � Administrative � A reasonable expen�iture � r.ate of Cor�nunity Development funds must be maintained. It is esserrtial , therefore, that activities be executed within two years from the start� of the program year in which they were funded. Funds designated for activities which have not been completed within this period shall be subject to reprogramming to support current program year activities. Cort�nunity Development funds which remain in the activity budget after the activity has been completed shall be reprogrammed to another ac�ivity. All participants in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program shall certify and insure compliance with the Entitlement Grants Program Assurances. (HUD Form 7068) 1. NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION STRATEGY The strategy followed by Urban Hennepin County to address neighborhood revitalization needs emphasize upgrading the housing stock. This emphasis supports the provision of those public improvements necessary to upgrade a declining neighborhood. In order to determine the appropriateness of neighborhood revitalization, the following three conditions must exist: • 1. The defined neighborhood must have the largest percent of low • and moderate income residents in the locality. 2. The defined neighborhood shall have deteriorated and/or sub- standard housing. 3. The defined neighborhood shall have deteriorated, deteriorating or inadequate public improvements. Neighborhood revitalization activities must be secondary to and in support of housing activities in the neighborhood. Priority is assigned activities according to their ,direct benefit to low and moderate income residents of the neighborhood. An example of a direct benefit project would be a grant for the payment of certain special assessments or other activities which have income eligibility requirements. Indirect benefit projects are appropriate only when direct benefit activities do not exist or when they are prograr�ned with a related direct benefit activity. Examples of indirect benefit activities are general pubiic improve- ments to streets or sidewalks and other activities which do not have income eligibility requirements. An example of a neighborhood revitalization program is a residential rehabilitation program which provides loans and grants to property owners in a designated area where street improvements and other kinds of public improvements w�ll also be provided. � � � • / 2. HOUSING STRATEGY The strategy far housing emphasizes rehabilitation, new construction and � rental assistance on a Planning Area basis. The areal emphasis is determined by availability of rental units meeting "Fair Market Rates," availability of iand and sites appropriate for new construction and extent of housing rehabilitation need. Identified needs of specific household types (families, large families, elderly and handicapped) must be considered. The strategy is to direct scarce resources to the housing sector with the greatest need so as to maxi�mize benefit. The housing strateqv includes prograrraninq out- lined in tfie Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) and neighborhood revitalization ' st�ategy. Housing assistance provided in each participating community over the past three years is shown in exhibit A. The strategy recognizes the issue of displacement and housing locational choice of lower income persons through the Housing Assistance Plan. The HAP establishes gaals for the provision of housing opportunities to lower income persons and a g�eater locational chaice. Urban Hennepin County has and will continue to serve as a housing resource to residents of Minneapolis and St. Paul choosing to live in Urban County corranunities. At the same time Urban Hennepin County supports the housing assistance plans of Minneapolis and St. Paul which will expand the locational choices to those residents of the central cities and Urban Hennepin County displaced through actions of the public and private sector. The Urb�n County will provide technical assistance to participating cocrQrunities to facilitate the utilization of available housing resources in the program � areas described below. - Housing Rehabilitation The strategy for the provision of housing rehabilitation grant assistance calls for the use of Con�nunity Development Block Grant funds to complement available Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Rehabilitation Loan and Grant Program funds. Expansion of the outreach program to inform all potential applicants will take place. Emphasis is placed on assisting lowest income applicants whose h.omes have health and safety deficiencies first. New Housing Construction The portion of the strategy in support of new housing gives eGual priority to site acquis�tion for multi-unit rental assistance developments, single family ownership and multi-unit ownership opportunitles for families when development �will be accomplisbed within the three year program period. (Appropriate public facility and improvement activities which provide a development incentive wi11 have equal priority status) . Lesser priority will be given to site acquisition projects where the land is planned for development later in the program. R�ntal Assistance � The strategy for use of available renta] assistance program resources. emphasizes maximum utilization of this resource with priority determined by extent of need by household type in the Urban County as determined in the (HAP) Housing Assistance Plan. This strategy will also serve to make housing rental assistance available to residents of the out�lying areas of the County where this assistance is r�eeded, but not currently available. , � r i 3. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS STRATEGY The strategy for providing public facf�lities and improvements is based on � documented need. Need will be determined using the following standards: -The activity serves areas having a majority of low and moderate i.ncome residents, and -The activity is designed to meet identified need of low and moderate income persons in those areas, or -The activity is in support of a program for neighborhood revitalization in designated areas. Priority will be given to projects which wi11 directly benefit low and moderate income persons. As an example, a direct benefit project would be grants for payment of special assessments or other activities witfi income eligibility requirements. Lessor priority will be given to activities which indirectly benefit 1ow and moderate income persons. Projects with indirect benefit would be those which do not have income eligibility requirements. Indirect benefit projects will only be considered appropriate for program assistance when direct benefit activities do not exist or when prograrr�ned with a related direct benefit activity. . Exceptions to this strategy wi]1 occur only when the pualic facility or improvement is planned in conjunction with the provision of new assisted housing and/or a program of neighborhood revitalization. In such a case the corrm�itment to assisted housing must be documented by resolution and inclusion of appropriate Housing Assi�tance Plan goals. Further evidence of commitment might include the prograrru�ed acquisition of a site, proper zoning or solicitation of developer interest. 4. HANDICAPPED IMPROVEMENTS STRATEGY It is the goal of the Urban Hennepin County Community Development program to improve public and private facilities to insure full and equal access and mobility to services and job opportunities for handicapped persons. . An additional goal is the expansion of housing opportunities suitable to meet the special needs of physically and mentally handicapped persons. Priority wi11 be given respectively to projects assisting access to public buildings (and services) and private homes occupied by handicapped persons, projects assisting access to buildings occupied by non-profit organizations, and projects providing access to buildTngs occupied by for-profit businesses and organizations. � It will be necessary to describe the barrier to be removed through the implementation of the activity and how the mobility and accessibility of elderly or handicapped persons would be improved. . ,r � � � 5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY � The strategy w.ill serve to direct appropriate economic activities into areas of the Urban County which have concentrations of unemployed individ- uals and/or declining economic activities. Community Development funds will be used to leverage public and private dollars. Eligible economic development activities are those which are necessary to the provision of permanerrt private sector jobs accessible to low- and moderate- income persons. in Urban Hennepin County. Particular attention will be given, where possible, to the coordination of activities with projects, included in tfie Hennepin County - Minneapolis Overall Economic Development Program ° priority project list or projects otherwise consist�nt with the established Overall Economic Development Program goals. � � . � t