The URL can be used to link to this page

11-10-80 PC Agenda ■ '1 R /.. Golden Valley Planning Commission ;I I November 10, 1980 I '� (Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road) 7:30 p.m. A G E N D A I . �proval of the h1inutes - October 27, 1q80 '� � II . Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning `� APPLICANT: General Mitls, Inc. "� LOCATION: g200 Wayzata Blvd. REQUEST: Rezone from "Open Development" to "Industrial'' III . Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: General Mills, lnc. LOCATION: g200 Wayzata Blvd. REQUEST: Rezone„ from "Open Development" to "Business and Professional Office'� IV. Report on the HRA Meeting - November 6, 1980 V. Report on the City Council Meeting - November 3, 1980 ;',� � VI . Recommendatiorts for Use of Year VII Community Development Block ; I Grants.- ! VII . Review of the Guidelines for Development, Golden Valley Open Space ' System ,i � V111 . Review of the Golden Valley Housing Policy � � i i � ;, I i I � ,� i ;I `I I !� i � Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 27, 1980 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 7:30 p.m. on October 27, 1980, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden - Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chairperson Eastes called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners : Eastes, Forster, Polachek, Sehlin, and Thompson. � Commissioners Edstrom, Hughes, and Specktor were absent. Also present was Martin Farrell , Assistant City Planner, and Dixie Peterson, Secretary. I . Approval of the Minutes - September 22, 1980. It was moved by Sehlin, seconded by Thompson, to approve the minutes of the September 22, 1980 meeting, subject to a change in the motion made by Commissioner Specktor, to read, "seconded by Sehlin", on page 9. The motion � was carried unanimously. II . Report from the Olson School Reuse Committee. Martin Farrell provided some background information regarding the Olson School Reuse Committee. Stephen Litton, 1850 Kelly Drive, Chairman of the Olson School Reuse Committee was present to answer questions. It was moved by Sehlin, seconded by Polachek, and carried unanimously to accept the Olson School Reuse Committee's report. 111 . Preliminary Plat Review - Fredsall 's Addition. APPLICANT: Dr. Roger Fredsall LOCATION: 520 South Westwood Drive REQUEST: Preliminary Plat Approval . Martin Farrell presented the Staff report and recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat as presented. Commissioner Sehlin questioned whether the road was to be private or to be maintained by the City. Commissioner Eastes noted that at least two of the lots did not appear to � meet the 12,000 sq. foot requirements for a single family residence. Commissioner Polachek stated that in the past they have approved other Plats with smaller lot sizes. � , Page 2 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting � October 27, 1g80 Roger Fredsall , 520 South Westwood Drive, the proponent, addressed the Commission. Dr. Fredsall stated that all questions of titles should be cleared and all questions .of surveys should be resolved by December. Dr. Fredsalt also replied to Commissioner Sehlin's question regarding whether the road would be private or not and stated that he would like to dedicate the - road to the City as part of the final plat. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Sehlin, and carried unanimously to approve the preliminary plat for Fredsall 's Addition. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: Q. Petroleum LOCATION: 8950 Olson Memorial Highway REQUEST: Rezone from "Residential" to "Commercial" Martin Farrell presented the Staff report and recommended approval of the rezoning petition. • Commissioner Sehlin questioned the number of variances that would be needed for the proposed addition of the convenient food mart. Martin Farrell enumerated the necessary variances, and said they would have to apply for a "Conditional Use" permit if the service station were to add an additional use such as a convenient food mart. The Planning Commission would then have the opportunity to address the matter again. Commissioner Thompson stated that anything that can be done to improve the ingress and egress would be a great safety factor. Mr. Kevin Ganyaw, ttie proponent, 1784 Jackson, addressed the Commission. The informal public hearing was then opened to the public. Mr. Liss, owner of the property to the West, and the National Camera Building, stated that he agreed with the rezoning to "Commercial�', but stated there was a problem with the large semi-trailer trucks parking on his property and causing damage to his parking lots, and that he anticipates further problems with a food mart being placed on the property with the additional trucks that would be needed to service the mart. Mr. Donald Hoigard, 421 Hanson, stated the property was originally a residence and that the home was removed and replaced with a Shell station. He said the property should have been rezoned at that time. • The informal public hearing was then closed to the public. Commissioner Sehlin questioned the proponent on the problem with the semi-trailer traffic. , , Page 3 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting � October 27, 1980 The proponent stated that he understood the problem, and that it should be aileviated with the installation of the curb and gutter to clearly define the area for these trucks to enter and exit. At the present time there is � not a clearly defined area for the traffic to enter and exit. � It was moved by Forster, seconded by Thompson, and carried unanimously to approve the rezoning from "Residential" to "Commercial" for the Q. Petroteum property. ' V. Report on the HRA Meeting - October 14, 1980. Commissioner Thompson reported on the HRA meeting. VI . Report on the City Council Meetin s - September 29, 1980 October 6, 1980 October 20, 1980 Commissioner Thompson reported on the City Council meetings. VII . Planning Area One Citizen's Advisory Committee. Martin Farrell explained the function of the Planning Area One Citizen's Advisory Committee, and suggested that the Planning Commission take an • active role as far as making general recommendations as to how the Community Development Block grant money should be spent for Year VII . Commissioner Sehtin volunteered to serve on the Planning Area One Citizen's Advi�ory Committee. Commissioner Thompson maved that the matter of recommendations for the expenditure of Community Development Block grant funds be placed on the next agenda so that the members will have some time to prepare their recorr�nendations, and to give those members who are absent this evening a chance for some input on this. The motion was seconded by Sehlin and unanimously approved. At this time Chairperson Eastes informed the Commission about a course being offered by the University Extension on "Land Use Cont rol". Any Commissioner interested in attending the meeting should contact Sue Eastes. VIII . Set Date for Informal Public Hearin - Rezoning APPLICANT: General Mills, Inc. LOCATION: g200 Wayzata Blvd. REQUEST: Rezone from "Open Development" to "Industrial" Martin Farrell explained that General Mills has again agreed to come before • the Plenning Commission, and requested that a date for an informal public hearing be set. Chairperson Eastes asked for a comment from the City Attorney regarding her participation and that of Commissioner Forster in General Mills� items and , , Page 4 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting . October 27, 1980 whether this would be considered a conflict of interest. Martin Farrell replied that he has discussed this with the City Attorney on occasion and that there is not a conflict of interest, and if necessary, �e could get written verification. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Polachek, and carried unanimously to set the informal public hearing to rezone from "Open Development" to "Industrial" fior November 10. ' IX. Set Date for Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: General Mills, Inc. LOCATION: g200 Wayzata Blvd. REQUEST: Rezone from "Open Development" to "Business � Professional Office" It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Polachek, and carried unanimously to set the informal public hearing to rezone from "Open Development" to "Business and Professional Office" for November 10. X. Final Draft of Business � Professional Office and Conditional Use - • Section of the Zoning Ordinance. Martin Farrell gave a brief explanation, and after some discussion, it was moved by Thompson, seconded by Polachek, and unanimously carried to approve the final draft of the Business � Professional Offiice Section of the Zoning Ordinance. It was moved by Thompson and seconded by Forster, and carried unanimously to approve the new Conditional Use Section that will be amended to the Zoning Ordinance. , XI . Open Space Report Chairperson Eastes read the letter from Mayor Thorsen and asked for any additional recommendations on the Guidelines for Development of Golden Valley Open Space System Report. It was then moved by Thompson, seconded by Sehlin, and carried unanimously to place tF�is item on the next Planning Commission agenda. Commissioner Thompson pointed out that one of the Planning Commission recom- mendations has already been accomplished and that was the purchase of the Valley D' ior open space parcel . � � -� - Page 5 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting � October 27, 1980 XII . I-394 Impact Study The (-394 Impact Study was presented to the Planning Commission for their information. ChairPerson fastes stated that the Council has asked the Planning Commission to attend the Novem6er 6 Council meeting, at which time there will be a - Pubtic Hearing on I-394• Meeting adjourned at 9�30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sue Eastes, Chairperson Dixie Peterson, Recording Secretary � ro ,� � November 5, 1980 T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Martin Farrell SUBJECT: Petition to Rezone - General Mills, Inc. ' �9200 Wayzata Blvd.) BACKGROUND � ANALYSIS: The request which aris.es on the�paxt o£_General Mills, I�c..__i_�_to------, �r_ezone a�proximately� 3�•3 acres of land jcurrently zonedl"Open Develop- 1 � ment" to an "Industrial" zoning districtJ �On September 22, 1980'J `Genera i s—came—be-F-ore�t�e f1-ann i n Comm_r-_ss�on�r-rth-_�.tie__s_ame re uest. At that time,�the Plannin_g_Corom_i_ssis�n�deferred action until the�to� ponent cou_Ld�provide the Planning Commission,with a master plan for 'utilization of the subject property. Attached are copies o�let-te��s �om enera iTls, a copy o ffie m nutes from the last Planning Commission meeting, and also a copy of the staff report for the original rezoning request. • RECOMMENDATION: The request is the same as the previous one submitted on September 22, 1980. I would like to suggest that the Planning Commission view this request from a atrict land use point of view. I atso recommend that the Planning Commission give favorable consideration to this rezoning petition and recommend approval . . • • OENERAL MILLS, INC. • EXECUTIVE OFFICES • 9200 Weyzeta Boulevard • Minneepolis,Minnesota STANLEY V. TABOR Viee President Corporate Real Estete September 30, 19g0 Chairperson Eastes and Members of the Golden Valley Planning Cormnission Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Va11ey, MN 55427 Dear Co�nnissioners: As you are aware, on September 22, 1980 the Golden Valley Planning Coimnission voted to defer action on two General • Mills, Inc. rezoning petitions, concerning its headqua.rters facility, tmtil a detailed master plan is produced by us. Please be advised that General Mills, Inc. has� no present intention to construct any buildings on the land covered by the rezoning petitions. Therefore, a detailed master plan, as you have requested, would be of no practical value to either the Golden Valley Planning Cor�¢nission or to General Mills, Inc. Accordingly, we hereby ask that the Golden Valley Planning Conunissic�n take action on the rezoning petitions as submitted by giving a positive or negative recorrm►endation to the Golden Valley City Cot.mcil. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, `._ ,�-��.� (,- �--�`-�--� ssvrr:�m� � , Mailing Addreea:P.0.8ox 1113.Minneepolis,Minneeote 55440 This is recycled peper� � � General Mills, I nc. General Offices Post Office Box 1113 � Minneapolis,Minnesota 55440 Real Estate Department October 28, 1980 Mr. Martin Farrell, Assistant Planner City of Golden Valley _ 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MlV 55427 Dear Marty: It is General Nlills' intention to present to the Golden Valley Planning ComQnission on November 10, 1980 the reasons behind our rezaning requests. Mr. Stanley V. Tabor will be attending. Following is an outline of what will lie covered: I. Rezoning South of Betty Crocker Drive A. Open Pevelopment to Industrial B. Reasoning: • l. To conform to existing adjacent zoning and it would put service station into conformance - Housekeeping. II. Rezoning North of Betty Crocker Drive A. Open Development to Business and professional C�ffice B. Reasoning: 1. To conform with the City of Golden Valley's Comprehensive Plan � which designates the area, except aro�d Bassett Creek, "Limited Business". 2. To give the world notice that sometime in the future it is likely General Nlills will construct offices on the land. • a. Q�II's space needs increase by about 11,000 sq. ft./yr. based on an increase of 50 employees/yr. b. GM!'s Building Growth: 1) 1957 - The Main and North Wings were constructed, totaling 263,100 sq. ft. 2) 1965 - The West Wing was constructed, providing an • additional 88,262 sq. ft. of office space. Thia is recycled peper� Mr. Maxtin Farrell • October 28, 1980 Page 2 3) 1968 - The East Wing, containing 70,600 sa. ft. of office space, was added. 4) 1980 - The West Wing had six floors, totaling 120,000 sc{. ft. added on. c. Assurances that can be given to Golden Valley: 1) That GMI will not construct anything to detract from our $35 Million investment. 2) That waste will not be conunitted on the property. 3) That in the case of any construction GMI will conform to zoning restrictions regarding such things as density, set- backs, height, etc. III. Why a Building Growth Plan Does Not Exist • A. Because the ways to look at and deal with space needs are constantly changing with changes in upper management and its management style. 1. An example - Previous management considered food operations at ° 9200 Wayzata Blvd. , with additional offices built behind WTCN. Then later it was decided to lease at Shelard Tower instead. Finally it was decided to add on to the West Wing. I will be in touch with you later this week to check on any developments. Sincexe , ` 1 • � .��_�,�� Scott R. deLambert Rea1 Estate Analyst SRdeL:rb • 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 Farretl 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 Blvd. REQUEST: Rezone from "Open Development" to "Industrial" Martin Farrell presented the Staff report and recommended approval of the Rezoning. Scott DeLambert represented General Mills, Inc. Commissioner Thompson questioned if General Milts 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 that while tF�e property is zoned "Open Page 3 Minutes af the Planning Corttmission Meeting September 22, 1980 � 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 ptans 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 ballfields. 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; Sehtin, Yes; Specktor, yes; Thompson, No. Motion carried. , It was moved hy Edstrom, seconded by Specktor, and carried unanimously, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council request General Milts, 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 Commtssion deferred action on a rezoning for the Lundstrom rezoning from "Multiple Family" to "Business S Professional Office" until they provided a traffic analysis of the area. . • September $, 1980 T0: Golden Valley Ptanning Commission FROM: Martin Farrell SUBJECT: Petition to Rezone - General Mills, inc. �9200 Wayzata Blvd.) BACKGROUND � ANALYSIS: The request arises on the part of General Mills, Inc. The request is for the rezoning of approximately 30.3 acres of land currently zoned "Open Development" to an "Industrial" zoning district. The address for both subject properties is 9200 Wayzata Blvd. and both sites are directly adjacent to the corporate headquarters of General Mills. Currently, approximately 12.3 acres located on the northeast corner of Wayzata Blvd, and County Road 18 are zoned "Open Development". For the purposes of this report, these 12.3 acres will be referred to as Parcel A. Also zoned "Open Development" are approximately 18 acres of land located directly south of Betty Crocker Drive between County Road 18 and the Brookview Golf Course. For the purposes of this report, . these 18 acres will be referred to as Parcel B. Parcel A does not have any structures built on it and General Mills does not have any plans for future construction on the site. There is a scenic pond and also a road that provides access to T.H. 12 situated on the site. The area is nicely landscaped and provides an aesthetic front yard for the main office building. Under the current zoning, the only allowable uses would be "Any building, structure, improvement or premises may be erected, established, altered, enlarged, used, occupied or maintained in the Open Development District under the provisions of� the Zoning Code for the purposes permitted in the Residential -District, under the same restrictions applicable to the Residential District." Given the present zoning, General Mills would be severely restricted if they ever wanted to develop the property. All the land to the north, east and south is zoned industrial . The western border of the property is County Road 18. The Comprehensive Plan call for "Limited Business" for both parcels A and B. Therefore, the requested rezoning would remain consistant with the surrounding land uses, as well as the Compre- hensive Plan. Access to the site is provided by T.H. 12. According to the latest plans for 1-394, part of the site will eventually be taken for public right-of-way. Bearing this in mind, the probability of any future development on Parcel � A is increasingly unlikely. Page 2 September 8, 1980 Merr� regarding Petition to Rezone - General Mills, inc. • Parcel B consists of approximately 18 acres and is currently the location of a service station and maintenance building. Currently, the structure exists as a legal nonconforming use. Rezoning the property would make the station a conforming use of the land. All of the land to the south of Parcel B is zoned "Industrial" and the property to the north is under cons.ideration to be rezoned to Business and Professional Office. The Comprehensive Plan designated the property as a "Limited Business" area. Therefore, rezoning Parcel B would remain ' consistant with the surrounding land uses, as well as the Comprehensive Plan. Part of the site is used as a parking lot and access to the lot is from Betty Crocker Drive. Betty Crocker Drive is primarily used for travel to and from General Mills and traffic is not a problem. Approximately one half of Parcel B was part of Parcet #4 looked at by the Planning Commission in their Open Space Report. Attached is the section of the report that dealt with the site. Parcel #4 includes the east section of Parcel B and the property directly east of the existing office building. At the time the Open Space Report was written, the City had no interest in acquiring the property. RECOMMENDATION: ' � The primary reason for General Mills, Inc. requesting an "Industrial" rezoning is to create a consistant zoning district with all of their property south of Betty Crocker Drive under one zoning category. Parcel B is already used as an industrial use. General Mills has no plans to develop any structures on either of these two parcels in the near future. I think that their rezoning petition is a reasonable request and recommend that the Planning Commission give favorable consideration to their petition. , • 1 t1 . , . � �/ _ 1�� Y I' 1 � [`• �/ Z � �.�� jr�i#��.. �;#s� �'►t#� � � � ��'� .�l��ii: ! • R#�i �!l�i►.�F: /� �A ��. JMfs :'f!; . .�ll07` ' .�l:?�'�R. � � I ?�.: •.`':� A!:i('?1:a?' . R _'�� ' � � �'p •.� � ��•: � a ..,y.`y�ri�:�• � ; , ., �. � Ja ti� .i. ..�,�.��+'j� ,J J jy�•l.�'-��.,'�' . • •�.�:J«-�•r•, � � .'v pJ�' 1 .E ��'f��.�� •~,'�'�� ;, .+`s ` M ';'•. ,:=�s ;�;"'�. .:�a.�.� p .,��. ;. „�"'`�,.� y= M` - _ / :.a.:.;..: ��'�:4;1�.;� ;,�. �::,• �'.'. �� - ...�:r��. �a :,,�,:a�•.•� , C...= / :. ; :,:,rn�-... ! r. .� ,.;:1:..' �. � t:a:; ' ��'a.�.J' �. � �. : � �as:�:�t�:.:.. �.�1'�, 2��'� :-�?,`7� �j �.�;.. : R. �'-y�ic3:.+�;y;� :'��•°:.a .a _� / ��:1�: .;) . a:s::►:?I�: �( ...:. . . `t�s*:*:s::. .�=+c;�;cl,?.�''.,`r��i. �;�"�-+.•�1�'.� !i'►,lF,►i.�k' � `.;:��.rs�.�} ��. .:,l.l. :iii::►;4:�: _ , .,jr:il��., �.t:-�:��.1: ::l�:i:i►:�:i: ,�, .. .. '3.l,a;..d.iv'� l•;;;s;:�-`: • :.�;:: : . : i.� � ). �:,n1•:� t�� ,f !..�.:=�_3 �" �: � ��!�I �.� .M'l 7 ) �,�.,�' `!:..j. .�i `:�1�:.:,::':. .�• .�-. :�..: J ��.•. ,� �:�: '�;t:;l:l:} .� �� . • ;it:i::.r..:x . 3,��1�{; .��.f.:�3.�.� �•`��eil'�.;�' `'?i:i!i;!�!i� r, �.)J•t I �" .y .��.��. '�.�.t�. :�►+. •:�rJ_j,�_:,a.�.i; ;.�.X f . . ':;R..':. .��Y, � � :�:. -% �s:�;i: `,� �} •! • .� I' �''. �) f♦�yr�l:� �rT.�r+.i'••,J.�.�:� �� •.1.�..�:9.%. �f."':*tiF;i ' •.�i��Jl.'y�., �/ ..,r •.'J��. ��.1'��:� „`�}r�r7-�� '.,ti�i� ".•..;�'.�,� ':�:?i;:i►t :,%:.'�' ,�j� • ., •„�'+11.' '�.:.. j � i:.�j: �'<i.��,�:� ;,t`;.:}':ti.i,�,j.. ..�:� ��: ;:��•- �'.., .; .y��. ''•�..� • •► -••j"� : .!'•� � •'+:i' j '.i.�•i�.t. ;Y:- `',. y.: ..• ��' . ;R'• j-,l'i.rJ':�� 't.�.�"';+?�j,'y3��:ii t 1 �•-'�7�,'`'�. •'� ,�'1; .,��.,�i�;)f; ;'Yy f • .J'•�,i�,l:'•:i�:,�•'.ral:�'�. � )s1'�.' .�.,:•.+` ••,..;j...,• �ji� :,�',. 'j'.• . +`�'+� ° ,�:•'J• �� V •.i:`i�.-'�1�'�= •- ti�r�_r�.��P�:}.! / �.' f :;%;- + :,�l: .Y V : / 1� �.C�5 -c�. ;:��;�f ��•�• Iv�:�:?. _3't..'r.r. •''�'..�!Li r. �� :�i'''� .' i;�•�+J :•t:,i. ��f•�-;• •.,`r• -:';�,�r,.�,:.�,' � �. �.;. �i:;::i.:��'ar�:;i�':,:.j';;•;�. , j.: .��:�� .: ��; `� � i.�' '.. ��4 ti . �i�. :•'..��'•':3�:1_t j:�l i•:..✓ f �;:1�;�,'�� _:,,,f,� .; ' •�1.: ,1.`,:_I,j� iJ�°a�`j�'�'`'+'._ �': � .��: ;��; �.;.• .:.:�:, �'.;. � ;:- -.:�; � ,'t . .)�' ,),�)�`,' ��3.��: ,..�;,,,r,-.��;:'� � �: �3.'. ' v!� . ,.. ,' 'a ;+l'•.��; ,� ;°j;-�,�;.�_...i;,2_,=� ?. ... , ''. ! .�i�' l ' , 1.3 .4'�j-1 l��!��.:.�:� ~s•:;3':1�� • ...� �?. , .;•�� -•.. '��'_;: '�,,..:= ;��y' •;f�:;� . �>'',� Y <-.,i .:.}� ;..:: . .:;�,.,.; .:i�..�j:+ '1. •:,l^:j�:�4�.i�r=•�:., : � ;��:�j.3...:�.;�-�;y � �:,; < ,� : .a ..a : �} �:�=�`►''.•��.j '�:;�:. �:':,;).�...;.;ir;�,},a �,t.� .j;.�i,. ;��..d .i @;;�;)• � - :'.�.:�� '-�.��.•:j:�1. . y:.l1.,,a,,�,..�.;"�f � �� ,,� , • , ,, �� =��. ..3 ;,�-.: .��,j�..i:.� ., �q�c�t. ;:��3,�::��.� .,�, :.. .{:..,�� . :�•�.:,�:::� � v_� . :,�.::?..�-.,:;�,:,:,y,: � :,,,, � ,"�: � n �2 .3 �4.�5 �a,�tv,,,o� ��:?;;.° O �.' J � f� N � O � � H � V Cu�� ?o�1t�1�,: 1J��rl i�Lo t'��►'� 'R+aQ�r��v Z��►��IC� � It1'D�S�i ��sL • 1 � OPEN SPACE REPORT December 13. 1979 Page .3 . • RECOMMENDATION: The area along Bassett Creek has a very high value�as a passive natural area. In view of the present stewardship of the land. it is felt that � public acquisition wouad be unnecessary. However, the Planning Conraission does str�ngly recortrnend that this property be included in a long-�ange Master Ptan by Ceneral Mills, Inc. along with Parcel �2. PARC_ - •d�fd SoJf'+1� �+'� �Y �GCE� �• l� LYing south of Parcel 113 and east of ihe General Miils Nome Offices� this site is a iow. relstiveiy fiat t�act of, l�nd. Again, �o i�dication ha5 beer, �ecetved by the tity Officers as to the future devet�pment status of this p�operty. PROPERTY OIrNERSHiP: Ceneral Milis. Inc. . ACREAGE: 45.51 ACCfSSfSSIBILITY (PL): 800ne Avenue Mcrth - 8etty Crocker Drive T.M. 12 (Mest bound lane� � PR�SENT tONING: I�dustriel SURROUNDING LANO USE: North - Open Development o , South - Pub11c Nighway (Siate) East • Instituttonal Mest • Open Development. Industrial RECOMMENDATION: General Mflls� Inc. has agai� indtcated that for the time being it i�tends to �etain this ,�ite as a passive natural area. As with the previous two sites, the Plann�ng Commtssion does not feel the need for public acquisition. However, when considering the possible future development of thts sfte, ft be- comes even m�re imperetive that the City Council request the development of a Master Plan by General Mills, Inc. in order to better ,judge future land use �mpact. , PARC_EL/6 � ' Lyi�p east of Vinnetka Ave�ue and South of ihe Valle D'or townhouse development. this site is tocated between dedicated la�d to the north:and tity a+ned t�nd to the south. The �rea has the potential to �erve the 6�ook- view Recreation are• •s a n�utral extension. The ttte is heevily r+ooded with iow ter�ain and ttotated ponds. i 1 q� - `—��,�I� ��i,I� L ' �'I"/ ��a�•�rr�_;�:';�_ .�':��' � _ 4 ~' �1' 1 � ;,.,_- �,;(�� III ��F�z =I M�.,�, �, �• t i __ • \ 1 �� w�:�:�7"..�...�i� : - w� � � � �_�� f� � � c - � � � `_ � � ��•�—�•� • � �� -� ��--�- -� , > � i' �� [�;�:, �� ..�� ,.� I,1�� ■ � Y uo AGY.:: I � 1�I' �_.� �---�- — ---r�' C .. � � . �j�� , ,��,�� ;� ��,� _„ , � �� ,�,� ; , �� _ -�� , �` o � �� ; ; �,,,�� : �� i ��' � � `�+ _�.� ' ��,� �� .:��, �� : I � ' �'��° :(��-��..�� - �� .�� `� �J►��.-, �� . ��e� _�� 3 s\ �l��c:'�'-��' � � � iL��i+.� �:�:, � .C'�r �. I I • L��co ap_�e �i �ill. ��i� — �+��c� ��{�9 - _ 'a. 1�` ��1'000�° �" � .�. ��rnl'Hj:1mt1C1'�"4° �� '+J. ! �� '��— i�jj � �R t**-- -_ �I:�°" -. . � � "�� t�cu`�� -j �� ~ �� / ■1 � - . �-�Go.Lc� �= � _ __ ''��, ��p' � I�° � - � _ 1 ��..CI ��y Ce�� , �I j�'`�I ::I�F :�� .� � t-'^'�-- �� J �1TI� / •.L� I � �" -�-'L � o;1��Q l - _ _ _ �. � J�mc�tY�',..�� _ ��1� �il}�� i � �.:�� ;�' �_ �J ,�' �o� .�°.� ��G�� ° � '�' "�.� _�- ° �`i�/ ' ��/,� � �:'��,oa'��'''';'T�9 i� �� m� -� .'.�0 _ ��[�=4. � �"'t"�� a, : t:�i: -i�i1 m�a� -� 1�'I• r-„�_�_'.�, _. � Y � � iI�'I� _ ��d �ill(� ��. ��•. 3B '�l'� � �',� { J "�iS■�� ; l:_, �`s; _;� � �'�� 6 � - ��- - +� ��I- ��Q� � �--r�� ' _ � ��: .-- � � � � �a �`�' � ' �'�.� � ��. ��;�� ! ,�.� �i I., � � �. ,.: „ � ��°�. , l �. . � < -� �i � �. � _ ' !��I�..,��I.��:t; L � — — - ,.� s '':�,x,�� ;, ��..�,� —��— r d�� I�"'"� � (1 —��e � .�. _y.� ,..- �� r�� '� � �� -��, " =a�� !�'/ • `�: —v �i�. , , � November 5, 1980 TU: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Martin Farrell SUBJECT: Petition to Rezone - General Mills, Inc. �9200 Wayzata Blvd.) BACKGROUND � ANALYSIS: The request, which arises on the part of General Mi l ls,�_c�-T.is—to— _ �zose a rox i mate l_v_'� 9 ac res of l and duuen_t y zoned"� Ope_n Deve l op- � �rnent" to a "Business and Professional Office�}zoning ��rict. This reques�aYso c� ore the Planning Commiss"ion on �eptember 22, 1980.� Act i on on th i s request was a 1 so deferred because Genera-�—M-'r�fir,—finc did not supply the Planning Commission with a master plan for future development. Attached are a copy of the minutes from that Planning Commission meeting, a copy of the original staff report, and a letter from John Brenna, the Director of Parks and Recreation, regarding the . future use of the subject property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Ptanning Commission give favorable considera- tion to the rezontng request and further recommends approval of the rezoning request. SPECIAL NOTE: �Before the Planning Commission begins discussion on this rezoning �petition, there are two facts that should be made clear� ! _ �1 ._ The proposed rezoning request shall be vtewed �based on the �xLs_tisg Business � Professtonal Office zonin� district.� �Ballfields are not a conditional use in this zoning district. Tfierefore, i-��t�e--property-i s rezon��t�ie use o��he bafir= fields on tf�e site would not be allowed. �2� I f, and wflen, the proposed Bus i ness � Profess ioRaLOff_i ce__� �zon_i n__c,�d_is_tr_Lc_t_i_s—adop-�ed--I�y�the C i ty Counc i 1 , �a ba 1 1 f i e 1 d �would 6e a condi.tional use. General Mi lls u�ould t en 6e�--`"� �orce to come back to the Plannin Commission for a conditional u�se_p.er-cni�-�--_�hexef_o r_e_, t he u se of 6a 11 f i e 1 d s on t he s i te' �should not be a topic of conversation at tf�is time.; J . . � • . City of Golden Valley Memorandum To : Marty Farrell From : Director of Parks and Recreation Date s September 12, 1980 Subject t General Mitls Athletic Complex At present, General Mills has stated that they would deed a portion of their property for park purposes for an athletic ccxnplex and an employee recreation area that would be located on the corner of Highway #55 and Highway #18. • Un�il such time as a zoning change can be accomplished, and a public hearing completed, we are in a status quo mode. �.�� ``�� . /'. I J hn L. Bre a 0 Park and Recreation Department . JLB/g • Civic Center,7800 Golden Valley Rd.,Golden Valley Minnesota,55427, (612) 545-3781 ��_,n ' I � Page 4 Minutes of the Planning Cortmission Meeting September 22, 1980 • VI . Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: 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 Mills? Scott DeLambert replied that four baseball diamonds , a volley ball court, and a track are proposed, and will be paid for by General Mills. The City of Golden Valley would maintain these on a lease situation that woutd most likely be set up for ten years., At this time the hearing was opened to the pub] ic: 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 bal�fields are a concept. Items being addressed now would be addressed wher� 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 3g acres , and stated he has enjoyed the wooden area and the good times in the past as a neighbor to General Milis 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 la�d, 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 hiy 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 Ptanning 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. Vlil . 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. It was never his intent that this be proposed as a plan for developrt�ent, 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 desire to have some form of assisted housfng on this site. • September 12, 19$0 T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission • FROM: Martin Farrell � SUBJECT: Petition to Rezone - General Mills, Inc.. (9200 Wayzata Blvd.) BACKGROUND � ANALYSIS: The request arises on the part of General Mills, Inc. The request is for the rezoning of approximately 3g acres of land currently zoned "Open Development" to a "Business � Professional Office" zoning district. The address of the subject property is g200 Wayzata Blvd. The site is located directly north of Betty Crocker Drive. General Mills, Inc. corporate headquarters are located to the south of Betty Crocker Drive. Currently, the 39 acre site is vacant and zoned "Open Development". Bassett Creek runs through the south end of the site and there is a scenic trail running along the creek. It is General Mills intent to leave the creek in its present form. They also do not have any plans for corporate expansion on the property at this time. General Mills, Inc. has discussed the possibility • of entering a lease agreement with the City of Golden Valley that would alTow the construction of four baseball diamonds on the west end of the subject property. Under the proposed "Business � Professional Office" zoning district, baseball fields would be a conditional use. However, before the baseball fields could be built, General Mills would have to go through the application process for a Conditional Use Permit. The surrounding land uses vary a good deal . The area south. of Hetty Crocker Dri�ve is zoned "Open Development" but is being petitioned to be rezoned to "Industrial". 7he actual use of the area to the soutfi is and �as 6een industrial since 19�7• County Road 18 borders the west side of the subject property. Brookview Golf Course is directly east of the site and is zoned "(I-4) Institutional". The property to the north is diversely zoned into 4 different zoning districts. Starting at the west end of the land north of the subject property and moving east, the land is zoned ''Industriat", "Multiple Family (M-1)", "Residential", and "Business � Professional Office". If the site is rezoned, then the setback requirements would have to be met according to each zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan designates the majority of the subject property as "Limited Business" with the exception being the area around Bassett Creek. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area around Bassett Creek as "Natural Area". Therefore, a "Business � Professional Office" zoning district would not be • • Page 2 September 12, 1980 Memo regarding General Mills Petition to Rezone inconsistant with either the Comprehensive Plan or the surrounding land uses. This particular site was looked at by the Planning Commission in their Open Space Report. Attached to this report is a copy of the Planning Commission's report regarding this site (Parcel #3) • General Mills plans regarding the property have not changed since the Open Space Report was written. - One of the major drawbacks to the site is that the majority of the site is in the flood plain. If, at some future date, General Mills does wish to develop the site, a great deal of soil correction would be necessary. Also, any development within the flood plain would require a Special Use Permit through the Board of Zoning Appeals. RECOMMENDATION Originally, General Mills, Inc. requested that this property be rezoned to "Industrial". The reason for this request was so all of their property in Golden Valley would be under one consistant zoning district. After several meetings and consultations between General Mills and City staff, the rezoning request was changed to "Business and Professional Office". This use would . be more acceptable and more consistant with the surrounding area. I do not see a problem with the rezoning request. General Mills has stated that the only plans they have for development in the near future are the ball fields. It was the City of Golden Valley that requested the recreational use of General Mills property originally. Also, any future development would again comg under scrutiny by the City through the flood plain ordinance. Given the aforementioned considerations, I recommend that the Planning Corr�nission give favorable consideration to the rezoning petition. � -��, _.._ v-•c�'�,�" _ zcoa�eccsn.n ,`,s • . _ i CIT� OF CL'/MWTX Gro.e . n � �Yf,n 5529i_�-�� e�'I.c 9. �i� �� hH'aTi: �8�� ..1GO�.�SF 4 t1014,� '�� GOLOEN YAI.L •io• o � ��T� 6 l, e. �t .,. q ?sl*➢f's� 1 , � �I � � ''° �ok' .. � � , +8.�. �: i .., t� , ° „ o ¢ ' I:%I. O' � rJ .� � �' 1� � �xj �M,x[ _'_ . U � f f�J. � . � ��e. � I a . � .i � ? J.. � � G ' _`S 'i .__"- J �?.o�d��'. , � ..�� \ � �` � � �JJ • �II O�� `.`_ • �4 \ \\ \ � � 1� �: - - • K;;11,�p � ''.. \ ye•,, ,� i1 � ;,,, a .._ •c r P� �10� s _. .^ ,.Q- \ �l _- " / . t:� � �'e.'' o \,L ; 1 - ` +s L° N � � o �y. .. ��:J� ' � '��u r .�" \ -- o°`'S f \ � �,.� o , R� ,t 64,t�p� � � �'h p • � ^ 1 ` j e ' + � f �� \o ,i o� '�o�•. G \ , ` Q ` _ -+� ''o � � } Q... °^ _ �e��.' 1r� ►f" \A' �( � ��'` \ � r' �'1 J ~Y � '• � _' V Y ' ` ,q _ � � p �ja �\Ea 1, �' O � ' ~ � N m - - - � ;� � � � :; � � d � �`� �� • - ' � T� ' � _ - - yy , '', � -f - --. � ,� � N _ � �� ; � ` \ � . ` (s� � • • - \ � N 'M � �� e :�s � • �w � r\�° ` 1 I � 1 � `"h V •• * \�` - - ��y.� � � '• � ' �ne 1+� _1 _—�J_ � � .-� �. .. � e � . o � � � � �5o a ` � � -, .., Z1e.G "..r' ' Ii{.1:y _> 'J � � '.__"____�'___-______'_ -� I'!--� ^' _MSL 'g .ov� �, tp• � � m � • � � a ��Y i I 2�� K . �. ; : .�G m I �� y !, '� �r+ hO.N ' " �= I�� ..�� S .} �y �.yt i m � I � � � 7 ; i.b, u I' � > . .. � � � !77 !!8 JIS !If K� �� ' , �` , �bo.i7 ' ... ,k_ , W `� "�'Lb41=..- �y:��'. � � SEN.S�qU AYE.s ' K _`:vK�;�� p ,:= ..-----�,--------- ' a � s• ��.,o .e ae. � .. ►'N- \� � p� +.n ��.' o� p III ! � � � e fL�n )S p; V ` ��- \� � • � � g ao'�I ` t: � ;eie)q � e m��us) 1 v� � � \ � � 4• e � O . � � v � iG •� ° � (t7te): '� • y � � : ote,wl r �u. �;�c a � (,, \ o -i �� o K.r � ,�° �` � 4 � ' W . ��J � � s _�eo"��,.5� �1 .:�� M ., a? "' �� t^ _° � i"` i � � 'd�o D: � , � �, � ;nsc� o .m •� � � '\ 0�6 s�. ..,�aa � , i z.�• -----��------� � `tl • �! \ �� 4�^s . ` � � r N � DECATUR A�^ s -J _ A�� ., � � --- --� ... � ...4 e n, e e e , . . �,1 ,i„{ �_ .� \ � \� N 8 �e �I� mo•'� � � • e .'�I 'J � � $ � \ � _ _ > o, ; � v `+ �' � o `, �� j � , c t ~ �1 �A �.N. � av� .. � Y+�. � I 'a,� wa � 1 1�� z a ti ..►- 1 r I H w � ' � N � ' � ` i • O a�� . - - ' N� ` ' I a. �•26 .92 �.�149�Z-- -'� '° YOONE �,:o e�n:e AYE. N. ° � _„� �1:—a...:�.�s.� • .J. �ir Z �1 I '' �� 1�� },� � H i cy o � � i � � 1 �Jr � /' �' � - q . l� �jp � � •; r.. a I � ' , OPEN SPACE REPORT ' 'December 13. 1979 • Page 2 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP: A. Mary W. Prazak B. General Mtlls � ACREAGE: A. .88 B. 51 .77 ACCESSIBILITY (Pt.) : A. Ensign/Duluth B. Flag Avenue North - Maper Street : PRESENT ZONING: A. Industrial T B. Industrial/Business b Professional Office SURROUNDING LAND USE: A. North - Residential South - industrial East - Residential West - Residential/Institutional RECOMMENDATION: Future land use decisions relative to this large tract of land will fiave a very significant impact on the stabiTity and quality of the surround- ing� neighborhoods. The owner of this parcel , General Mills, Inc. , had indicated to the Planning Conmission that they have no irtmediate plans to further develop �this prope�ty. It is the recommendation cf the Planning Cammission that: A. General Mills. Inc. continue to maintain the current open space status of the northern portion of Parcet �{2. • B. With respect to long-range planning considerations, the City Council should request that General Mitls, Inc. pre- pare a Master Plan for the development of this property, submitting such plan to the �ity fo� �eview and comment as well as for inctusion in the City's long-range comprehensive planning strategy. � PARCEL �l3 • ,d� f�o'f�'f'+1 0� I�E°f`tY ��K'E� ��• Lying within the �cuthwest quadrant of the City this site affords to the Communtty a very attractive open space. P�esently, no security practices - have been tmplemented by the owner and no immediate plans to develop the site have been indicated by the owner. Again, as in the case with Parcel �{2, a trail runs through the property adjacent to the Bassett Creek corridor. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP: General Mills, Inc. ACREAGE: � 39.18 s�` PRESENT ZONING: Open Development SURROUNDING LAND USEc No�th - Residentiat . i`�dust�isl.=Business/Prof. dffice • South - Industrial , Public st�eet • East - Public Street, fnstitutTonal . • West - Public Highway (County) '19 8 -- -� � --,� -�— � J< -� "''� : .• � `�� ----� . 1� I ��'�� 1C, �! i r ��a�i�,�+�=''�: ��' J .r �� Irl,� � a3,�,ti,, �� _a.�• i �a � �1� ► � �. ,�� / ��' ,� _, ��I-�, _�. -- ' �� .. �- = u �� j �'�� ' , I►,. `sw_��.�+� j�_ T � . j� � i�`�� ---1�_ �� I� ,. � ,� ,,�;�,-� _ :£�;�: �-,—_-a�� _ _�� ,-� � � �,i� �� - i O �l - �� - � �`� � _� � �1 i ��i��'�,�� - ��, � �� a � � �°��; , „�,�� r 1�� ,s��;�-*�� f �°�: i�-r' � ,+�`a '1 � - -'��, � .� �� • I I ' ��'�� • -��;��*�, '� ...�� _ ��. -�� l��.-' ��,�� ,�� • �-•"`��°u�^ ' �,'2�ii' s\ ��J�i�� , � I�� L�nCC�°,o�� 1� C�yI��.'� _ �, ; �;.,.�; 'b. l �� a� � — � - ��9��,\At� °'�� me�er�-r.ci�S_?�i�p _ �� ' � _—�:�`��y,�V'a'f'r�I�e�fr,. �.� T� I�w fiiili�d�:�� c`,/ � `� .. �� / ■1 � � � � �� " �_T " i �_'- 4��a°�� `�I �� .,� � •�• - �� -� ;,:� "a �'�� -��- I�' �- �� "�„'�'�� s�.��.- � - ,i ��,.��;L �' f I��' �.� �l��i�a� � � �r <! ��J �°�' ��-�- � ��'�'�� '�� ' �� __.. � , ,iI � �'= °� �� — -#�.� �9 ' 'a " �� '`P�° - � '° m- _ �:�: , .-� ��`'�� r� , - � �,,�r � '� - ,I`€'i _ � � - �a`� ��° �,i� � � •.� �►�- �B �� C� �—"J%� � � �-^ �i ' }a �� _ � �°F`- �� P� ,�,� r �a��. t:�. E'� - ,� .�� # `- `-:,_ � �� T�I - �,� - - �� ;�- ��. , ��- _ ��:�� ,c,� ;-- ,. I��' � �� 'I�� :� � �� . • � t T �. �;�.��n ��.�".1 ��,�� . �� ' - - I��j �!�c�v z��'„u+��- �1'�� '� ._�� _ �� ,,�!la „� _i�. . -- � !I��j ' -� ��` r� ��- - � �� ► � � v � �� ►� � ��.� � ��;!��U �, , � � - --� -� �:�� , � �: ��.-.�� : �a - ��/ s� ,1 *. � �``�� '� � �. ,:.�. �� .or�.1 ;;,�/. ^ ,.� � '��l��p�;p��- �� ' _ ,�: -.i'.��'�h�"�0`�id_i'.�� yl �I � � � �7'1m��—��I �� =�1�`I ,. �A!��M��v`��` � �� _, .� -� .� �l �$L� - , � p�' . 4� " +.�ai':�rlfR'9��0�,��"-��7tj�.��.:o ��1 r�ti \\ �� °� ��x.'�i �� J=..�r��'"'" y� - � r1_��a lr�:j`��Q�,lPc��a��.�R,�� - � �.� . �°'�`�u: �. i�� ,..� . -��-ooco� ��G �,�,�i' .�+ _ � � �� % I � �'�""`?�' g� � �j�. tir�°�n�' a isF�;�F.aG��`�-��`s��i�\ ,� r� , '�i �� !4� � � °�r: s : Tf_ \�� . t,.� � . �°�J'•�°B�Li�I��. e��`e ��,-�� "-� �'r �- ,�,-+� �+� r ��. �l��., �.��,�, ; � � :�� —��n�� i�� . � � ,�— -��,.i _ �`�� _ � /�� • �' \ s �� ;' i ) �. < . � �, . � !,� • � \l�\ \�-.� •�` �5.. ' .`�� II � �' -• � ��5 ��$`i, A . in� ��1(��_ �-� �� c �:'. �uu�i•u n��i /.I►: I _ I/�'��\:-,`-__• _ _- - _ .1- - _- _ -- , II �� I a� ,1 ^ `� ,� IlIIIIiII� �� r�� i�ii�i� i : iiii iii ,��o� �� November 5, 1980 T0: Golden Valley Ptanning Commission FROM: Martin Farrell SUBJECT: Future Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds Staff is currently in the process of applying for Year VII Community Block Grant Funds. Attached is a copy of the timetable which indicates that the City Council will conduct a public hearing requesting citizen input into the future use of the CDBG funds. I thought it would be appropriate to request general recommendations from the Planning Com- mission before the City holds these public hearings. Also attached is a copy of the Comprehensive Strategy established by • H.U.D. for the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program. If you have any suggestions for use(s). of these funds, use this strategy as your guide- line. • � ULY�...�:,1;4..,I t� N ' '.�iC`"i,fi!'l+�b�i 9 _ Augusi 22, 19n0 � - --�' Partici��ant Corrmunities/Planning Area Citizen Advisory Committees � � � Hennep�n County � . . . - � URQAN HENNEPIN COUP�TY YFAR VII APPLICATION ° � SCHEDULE � � The following time table fpr development of the Year VII Urban Hennepin County has been prepared and is being distributed pursuant to Hennepin County's respon- � sibilities as set forth in the j oint cooperation agreement. - � September 20, 1980 Cooperating communities appoint individuals •. ,, to serve on the Planning Area Citizen Advi- sory Comnittee. October 4-December 1 , Cooperating comnunities conduct lacal publ•�c 19II0 hearing(s) for input on developrt�nt of Year VII Corrgnunity Development and I�ousing Assistance programs. , December 10. 1980 Cooperat�ng communities subm9t preliminary Year VII Community Development program and �' Housing Assist'�ance Plan to Hennepin County for distribution to Planning Area Citizen � Advisory Corrmittees. �.. December 15� 1980- PACACs conduct and complete review of respec- � January516, 1981 tive planning area communities. � � February G, 1981 Formal action��on submission of Conmunity De- velopn�ent program and Housing Assistance Plan . to Hennepin County for inclusion in the Year , . " = YII Urban Hennepin County CDBG application. � � Mar�h 9-29� 1981 t�ennepin County, participant communities and , PACACs resolve any continuing differences in _ the Year VII Conmunity Development Program or Housing Assistance Plan. Final draft appli- � cation document is prepared and distributed for review prior to'A-95 Review submissiorr. April 2. 1981 Application submitted to ttetro Council for A-95 Review. �•tay ,, 19II1 1�p�lication submittal to fiUD for final ap- , � proval . ' . August 1 , 1981 HUD approval of Year VII app]ication. . � ' � • . ., . .. � �. bl . � , , � � HUD - 7064 Attachment �' COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM INTRODUCTIOM The statutory objectives of the CorrQnunity Development Block Grant Program include 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 corrrnunity development activities and needs. The strategy thus serves to focus available Federal Housing and Corr�nunity 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 Gortununity Development 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 partnership and cooperation with participating conenunities. The Urban Hennepin County Comprehensive Strategy provides each participating comnunity fYexibility in the development of local programs to address identified Urban Hennepin County needs. The local programs are reviewed � to ensure consistency with the overall Urban County Comprehensive Strategy. ' Program 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 projects and activities which principally benefit low and moderate income persons. A project or activity is considered to principally benefit low and moderate income persons if 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 community development and housing assistance plan, the annual community development program and other generally available data will be used. Gertain projects or activities 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 cormnunity 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 proportion of low and moderate income residents in the county, 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 wi�l continue as the primary Urban County priority. In those cor�nunities where minimal housing activity has taken place and/or where a significant need continues to exist, particular emphasis will be placed on providing appropriate assistance. Because of market and programmatic constraints and the uniqueness of circumstances existent within each cor�nunity no uniform approach is possible. Therefore, • the Urban County, in cooperation with each participant, has developed and will implement an action plan designed to address unique co�renunity problems and potentials. If a participating cor�nunity does not propose activities or does not take action necessary to provide housing assistance, it may be appropriate for the Urban County to impose a sanction against the community, such as placing conditions on the grant or reducing the grant amount. 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 accep�able performance. Administrative A reasonable expenditure rate of Community Development funds must be maintained. It is essential , 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 sha71 be subject to reprogrart�ning. . Comnunity Deveiopment funds which remain in the activity budget after the activity has been completed shall be reprograr�ned to another activity. All participants in t�e Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program shall certify and insure compliance with the Entitlement • Grants Program Assurances. (NUD Form 7068) 1 . NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION STRATEGY � The strategy to be followed by Urban Hennepin County to address identified neighborhood revitalization needs emphasizes upgrading the housing stock. This emphasis is to be supported through the provision of public improvements necessary to upgrade a declining neighborhood. Strategies have been developed in cooperation with the participating comnunity and affected neighborhood which include activities deemed appropriate for improving the neighborhood. Glenwood Lake Neighborhood - Golden Vallev This strategy is designed to directly aid low-and-moderate-income homeowners in the defined neighborhood in various ways. First, special assessment grants will be available to help reduce the impact of costs for street improvements and storm sewer facilities on income eligible households. Additionally, CDBG and MHFA funds will be available for housing rehabilitation grants and loans. Funds will also be used to pay for the removal of diseased elm trees from property of income eligible households. Community Development funds have been � allocated to this strategy during program years V-VII. West Robbinsdale Neiqhborhood - Robbinsdale The strategy for revitalization in this neighborhood is directed toward � improving the condition of the existing housing stock through rehabi- litation loans and grants available and through the development and implementation of a housing maintenance code. To address another priority need, recreation space in the neighborhood, the strategy includes funds for the acquisition of land and development of a neighborhood park. Cor�nunity Development funds have been a7located to this strategy during program years VI-VII. Morningside Nei hborhood - Edina � The strategy �or revitalization in this neighborhood includes housing rehabili�ation assistance; public improvements to water, sanitary and storm sewer systems, streets and sidewalks; and upgrading the existing park. Special assessment grants will be available to income eligible persons. Cortenunity Development funds ahve been allocated to this strategy during program years V-VII. East Ea91e Lake Neighborhood - Maple Grove The strategy for this neighborhood is designed to provide urban type public improvements, housing rehabilitation assistance through the MHFA program, and expand and upgrade an existing park. Special assessment grants are included in the strategy to assist income eligible residents defray the cost of improving the neighborhood. Community Development fun�s have been prograrrmed into this strategy for program • year.s V-VII. • Zane-Creek Neighborhood - Brooklyn Park The s�rategy for improvement in this neighborhood has been developed by using the neighborhood park as the focus. The strategy includes development of the existing park with a variety of recreational op- portunities, both active and passive, and a park building. Con- struction of a ramped sidewalk leading to the park adjacent to heavily travelled streets are included in the program. Community Qevelopment funds are prograrrened for these activities in - Year V only. 2. URBAN COUNTYWIDE NOUSING STRATEGY � The Urban Hennepin County housing strategy serves ta direct scarce housing resources to those sectors of the housing market which will provide the greatest benefit to lower income presons. This strategy emphasizes rehabilitation, new construction and rental assistance on a Planning Area basis. The strategy serves to facilitate the spatial deconcentration of lower income households by increasing the choice of housing opportunities in suburban Hennepin County. This effort is supported in part by the Area Wide Housing Opportunity Plan (AHOP) in this area. � Identified needs of specific household types (families, large family, elderly and handicapped) determines the overall emphasis and priorities in the Urban County housing strategy. The areal emphasis on rehabilitation is generally determined by the extent of housing built prior to 1940, number of substandard units and lower income residents. The emphasis on existing rental assistance is determined in part by availability of �rental units meeting "Fair Market Rents," and availability of rental assistance funding. Emphasis on new const�uction is determined in part by availability of land and sites sLitable for new construction, both owner and renter occupied, and the number of units currently receiving rental assistance in the corr�nuni ty. The housing strategy includes prograrr�ning outlined in the Housing Assistance Plan (HAP). In addition, the Urban County promotes developer interest in construction of assisted housing units in priority cor►enunities. The Urban County supports the "Metro Mobility" program under development by the Metropolitan Council to facilitate outreach, counseling or referral services to lower income households that would like to reside outside areas of lower income concentration. In recognition of the overall program priority to address E►ousing needs, the Urban County has allocated approximately $5.5 million or 43 percent � of the anticipated entitlement amount to housing and housing related activities over program years V-VII. Housing Reha�ilitation � , As one of the most viable forms of direct assista�ce to lower income persons in tE�e county, housing rehabilitation assistance through grants and loans is being used to aid many households which would otherwise be unable to maintain and improve their homes. In an effort to address the needs reflected in Table I of the HAP and the increased level of interest in rehabilitation by county residents, the Urban County has allocated approximately $3.2 million to various types of reE�abilitation assistance over the three program years. Rehabilitation grants are available to income eligible households in all Urban County corr�nunities through a combinat�ion of funding from the CDBG program and Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) . The Urban� County administers the MHFA Home Improvement Grant Program which provides an additional $250,000 annually in rehabilitation grants to Urban County residents with an adjusted gross income of $5,000 or less. Maximum unadjusted incorr� for CDBG funded rehabilitation grants follow the Section 8 income guidelines. In addition to funding rehabilitation grants to lower income homeowners, the Urban County is using Year V funds to evaluate the appropriateness of the HUD Section 312 program to address mu�ti-family and commercial rehabilitation needs. • New Housing Construction In order to address the situation in the existing housing market identified in the housing needs section, the Urban County proposes to use approximately $2.3 million over tE�e three year program to assist in the development of new housing. Assistance will be provided through the acqui�sition of sites and public site improvements appropriate for the development of owner and renter occupied housing. Due to the present low vacancy rates and the continuing formation of new househol�s, tfie construction of rental units remains a high priority. Table rII in the Program Year VI HAP reflects the established pro- portionaT distribution for owner and renter occupied housing. When CDBG funds are utilized for land acquisition to encourage the con- struction of new elderly and family assisted housing units, the follow- ing conditions apply: � --Prior to site acquisition HUD will be requested to preapprove the site for a specific type of development. --When the site to be acquired is not preapproved for a specific development, language shall be included in the purchase agree- ment restrTCting future utilization af the site to assisted housing. Any alternative use, unless determined to be eli- • gible for CDBG assistance, will require repayment of grant amount to Urban Hennepin County as program income. � In previous years the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Affordable Home Mortgage Program was utilized extensively in the Urban County. This program and the HUD Section 235 program were the only ones operating which provided construction and mortgage financing for income eligible househoids. Action by the State Legislature in 1979 extended the bond- - ing authority of NW FA, and, therefore, assured the viability of the Affordable Home Program for at least through 1980. Continuation of the program beyond t�is date will necessitate additional bonding authority by the Legislature. A variety of projects to assist in the expansion of owner and renter occupied housing opportunities are proposed over the next three years. As an example, in New Hope a program is being implemented to purchase an estimated ten existing single family homes for rental to eligible families along Section 8 guidelines. Scattered site acquisition for assisted �ingle family construction is proposed in Richfield. Four coirenunities on the Sout� Shore of Lake Minnetanka are combining their resources in a cooperative approach to the development of assisted housing. A small rural town and the surround�ng township have proposed a joint assisted housing activity. i � , � Existing Rental Units: • Continued utilizatio� of the Section 8 Existing Rental Assistance program will take place to the degree of funding availability. Due to a recent policy revision by the Metro HRA, rental assistance will now be available to eligible residents in the outlying communities of the Urban County. Application of the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program provisions for mobile home pad rental in the outlying areas of the Urban County will be investigated. Expanded utilization of Section 8 Existing program is not otherwise anticipated due to funding limitations and the low vacancy rate/high rent leve7s. Special Housing The housing needs of families with female heads of household will continue to be addressed through the rental assistance, rehabilitation and new construction programs. Efforts to assist handicapped households are expected to be provided through rehabilitation and new rental and owner units. The special needs of the mentally handicapped are currently under separate study within Hennepin County and will be appropriately reflected in a future housing strategy. New construction assistance for handicapped homeowners is especially • difficult under existing program guidelines; however, special efforts will be made to utilize the Section 235 program for this purpose. 3. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROUEMENT STRATEGY The strategy to be following by Urban Hennepin County in addressing public facility and improvement needs places emphasis on those activities which will directly benefit lower income residents. Almost a quarter of a million dollars has been designated for special assessment gr�nts in Year VI to help lower income households handle the cost of replacing various public improvements including new streets, water and sewer lines. In Robbinsdale, a fully developed community, a sma11 neighborhood park is to be developed in a neighborhood which has no park and only limited access to recreational opportunities in other parts of the community. This is to be done as part of a neighborhood revitalization effort. In an effort to provide a full range of accessible services and programs to senior citizens in the Urban County, centers for the provision of services and programs geared to the needs of elderly are proposed in three fully developed corrmunities, and two in the more rural areas of the Urban County. In order to minimize the envir.onmental impact of Dutch Elm Disease • and Oak Wilt and to minimize the financial impact the cost for removal of diseased trees from private property has on lower income households, CDBG funds will be used for public removal and grants to income eligible homeowners for removal from private property. 4. HANDICAPPED IMPROVEMENTS STRATEGY , It is the goal of Urban Hennepin County to improve accessibility to pub- lic and private structures to allow accessibility to all Urban County prqgrams and facilities. This accessibility would ensure full and equal access to programs, employment and housing opportunities to all residents of the Urban County. With a combination of funds including CDBG monies , the Urban County will establish an accessible and mobile climate for all residents of Urban Hennepin County with regard to housing, employment and social services. To qualify as fundable activities in the Urban County CDBG program, handi- capped improvement projects must meet a particular need, remove a speci- fic barrier and represent a defined priority. They must also meet the � design standards outlined in the American National Standards Institute, "Specifications for Making Buildings and Facilities Accessible to and Usable b� the Physically Handicapped" , (ANSI A117.1 ) , and the Minnesota Building Code, Chapter 55. To ensure that projects meet these qualifications, cormnunities must de- velop a plan for handicapped accessibility improvements. The plan should include an assessment of the major improvements needed and outline an overall strategy for meeting those needs. The plan should also set pri- orities for implementing the plan and should discuss the anticipated re- sources that will be used, including block grant funds. Handicapped groups or individuals from the cortmiunity are involved in the development • � of the plan. 5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY The strategy endorses eligible economic development activities in iden- tified distressed or deteriorating economic activity areas of Urban Hennepin County. The projects will result in the provision of additional permanent, private sector jobs to low-and moderate income individuals as well as a reduction in the negative impact of the physical areas on the community. A combination of private and public funds will be used to accomplish this task, including CDBG monies. � 6. DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY . � It is the goal of Urban Hennepin County to impler�nt the Community Development Program and Housing Assistance Plan minimizing the direct or indirect displacement of owners or renters from occupied dwelling units. To mitigate any adverse affects resulting from implementation of grant funded activities and assist impacted families, individuals and busi- nesses to remain in their existing neighborhoods when preferred, the following actions shall be implemented: - --Far each acquisition or displacement, activity a determin- ation will be made by Urban Hennepin County as to whether t�e acquisition ar displacement was carried out for an assisted activity. This determination will be submitted � to t�e Area HUD Office for review. --The Urban County will monitor those acquisitions or dis- placements which were undertaken prior to submission of an application for financial_ assistance to determine if the acquisition or displacement was in support of an as- sisted activity and subject to the Uniform Act. --If an owner or occupant of a property disagrees with the determination of Uniform Act eligibility, they may file . - an appeal under 24 CFR Part 42, Subpart J. --The costs of relocation payments and assistance under Title II of the Uniform Act shall be paid from funds pro- vided by the CDBG program and funds available locally from any source. . The displacement of families, individuals or businesses which are own�rs or renters sha11 be undertaken only when 1 ) the homeowner re- quests that the municipality acquire the property due to hardship situation resu�ting from an action of the local government, and 2) the dwelling unit(s) is found to be substandard to a point beyond re- pair. The acquisition/relocation activity is undertaken to protect the resident's health and welfare. When temporary relocation is necessary to complete the rehabilitation of a dwelling unit, it will be so timed as to minimize the period of � displacement. When acquisition/relocation is necessary to implement a physical devel- opment the process will be conducted according to the Uniform Act and every effort will be made to negotiate a settlement. The Urban County, in cooperation with participating cort�nunities, sha11 assist displaced residents or businesses through the provision of relo- � cation counseling and assistance in securing an alternative location for residential or business purposes. � November 5, 198� T0: Go]den Valley Planning Commission FROM: Martin Farrell _ SUBJECT: Review of the Guidelines for Development, Golden Valley Open Space System. At the October 27, 1980 Planning Commission meeting, a copy of the final draft of the Guidelines for Development was handed out to the Planning Commission. On various other occasions the Planning Commission has given comments and added recommendations to the original rough drafts of this document. This finat copy has been presented to the City Council and is for the P]anning Commission's information. . , . • November 5, 1980 T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Martin Farrell SUBJECT: Golden Valley Housing Policy Attached is a copy of the proposed Golden Valley Housing Policy. This Housing Policy was written by the Golden Valley Housing Policy Subcommittee. The Committee was comprised of inembers from both the Planning Commission and the Human Rights Commission. The Housing Policy will be brought before the City Council on November 17, 1980. • . • . HOUSING POLICY IN GOLDEN VALLEY Golden Valley is a first ring suburb directly adjacent to the west boundary of Minneapolis. The preliminary census count by the Bureau of Census states that Golden Valley has a 1980 population of 21 ,913. This figure represents a 9i decrease in population from the 1970 census figure of 24,246. It seems that Golden Valley, like many other fully developed communities, is experiencing a gradual decline in their population. According to the Metropolitan Council 's Guidelines, Golden Valley is considered fully developed. Although the population has declined over the last ten years, the total number of households has increased by 16%. Golden Valley's housing vacancy rate is relatively tow. According to the preliminary 1980 Census figures there are 7,683 households in Golden Valley. Approximately 1% of these units are vacant. This implies that the demand for housing in Golden Valley is high. Single family owner occupied units dominate the housing • market. Eighty four percent of all the dwelling units in Golden Valley are owner occupied and the remaining 16i of the units are rented. The overall h.ousi_ng stock in Golden Valley is sound. More than half of the housing units were built between 1940 and 1960. Less than 5% of the existing homes were built prior to 1940. Housing conditions in Golden Vatley do not appear to exhibit a su6stantial problem at the moment. How- ever, it is -important to establis� a housing policy that will maintain the quality of housing that Golden Valley has thus far enjoyed. HOUSING GOALS Golden Valley has made a number of attempts at addressing housing goals and objectives. Golden Valley's Comprehensive Plan enumerates certain goals and objectives in a form adopted by the City as the official policy. The Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan addressed the general housing concerns in Golden Valley. This Housing Policy is being established so that future housing developments will have certain guidelines that shali . be followed. The primary function of this Housing Poticy is to set goals and objectives that are more specific. These goals and objectives are , � . -2- � based on those in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. How- ever, criteria for developing subsidized housing units are further defined. The overriding housing goal in Golden Valley is as follows : Provide housing opportunities for citizens of all ages and income levels, without discrimination, while maintaining a diversity of high quality living environments through imaginative and sound planning principles. Based on this general goal , the following factors were examined in the Comprehensive Plan: 1. Economics: Provide a variety of housing units at costs affordable to a wide range .of family incomes. � This can be accomplished through H.U.D. 's Section 8 Rental Assistance Housing Program. There is a definite need for affordable rental units in Golden Valley. The City, through its HRA, should attempt to integrate subsidized housing projects with market rate housing. Projects that are more than 75% • federally funded should be discouraged. A good housing mix would be market rate units developed with Section 8 units that are subsidized from 51i to 60% by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This type of mix would help keep subsidized housing developments more in character with the surrounding neighborhoods. All federalty funded housing projects should be carefully analyzed by the Planning Corranission, the Human • Rights Commission, the HRA, the City Council , and any other appropriate City commission or subcommittee. This analysis ts usually -3- � accomplished through the City's P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) Ordinance. 2. Type of Unit: A. Style: A dwelling unit is characterized by two traditional styles: detached single unit and a multiple dwelling unit. Within these two basic styles lie variations of design. The City's P.U.D. ordinance is written so that the developer has a good deal of ftexi- bility in the designing process. B. Ownership: The ownership of a dwelling unit is another distinction by which to identify types of units. � There exist two basic approaches to residency. One is referred to as owner occupied. This may include detached single family units, townhouses, multiple units (condominiums) , duplexes, and fourplexes. The second basic approach is renter occupied units. A rented housing unit can be of any style from an * apartment in a multiple unit complex to a detached single family unit. Ownership becomes particularly important in any P.U.D. housing project. The owner will have to prepare and adhere to a viable manage- ment plan as part of any P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) contract. 3. Density: Another recognized factor affecting a diversity � of housing is density. In Golden Valley there can be found three basic densities for housing: a. Low Density: 1-4 units per acre � r . -1�- • b. Mid Density: 5-12 units per acre c. High Density: Greater than 12 units per acre. These classifications are simply guidelines. Density is a relative variable and must, therefore, be analyzed on an individual project basis. The City of Golden Valley must recog- nize the fact that current housing demands , economic and energy conditions, may dictate increased housing densities. 4. Designs: Innovative design can directly affect the impact of other factors, such as the density and energy efficiency. A poor design can cause density to have a more detrimental impact than, for example, a good design with � the same density. Rising fuel costs have necessitated designing with energy efficiency being a high priority. The City of Golden Valley is keenly aware of the continually rising cost of quatity housang and limited amount of land available for residential development in the future. Therefore, future housing in the City must be a result of careful planning and cooperation between elected officials, appointed commissions and committees, City staff, and developers. There are numerous justifications for providing the opportunity to have a diversity of housing in a first ring suburban municipality such as Golden Valley. They include: 1 . Heterogeneity: The backbone of a mature and socially healthy community is its intrinsic socio- economic mixture. This mix includes, but is • not limited to, a diversity of races, life- . r . -5- � styles, income levels and age groups. If a community is to retain this ethnic and . socio-economic mix a diversity of housing opportunities shoutd be encouraged by City officials. A diversity of housing should provide families residing in the City with the option to remain in the City as the family members mature. As a family matures, its members require different housing needs. For instance, the children of parents owning a home in Golden Valley should have the opportunity to reside in an affordabte home in the City once they have reached a decision to buy or rent. Also, as parents reach an elderly age, they may choose to selt their home and move into an apartment or senior housing complex. The City should advocate � that housing be provided to serve those special needs of a maturing family or household in order that a mixed and stable population remains in Golden Valley. For these reasons, it is important that federally subsidized housing projects such as Section 202 - , Rental Housing for the elderly and handicapped and other Section 8 housing projects be integrated together with market rate housing. 2. Stabil�: A diversity of housing can also create a stable population in a community by: a. Maintaining the number of long-term residents in the City. This factor hinges on the availability of quality . housing to families of various income levels. ` � ► -6- • b. Generating healthy commercial districts in the City to serve the local poputace. C. Providing housing for families and individuals with close proximity to major employment centers located in the community. - 3. Adaptability: A variety of housing types , design and density is necessary if the City is to adjust to the changing development patterns expected in the near future. 4. Interdependence: The City of Golden Valley, as a part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, can no longer be thought of as an isolated urban-community. Therefore, the City's future housing stock • (residential development patterns) should reflect a metropolitan responsibility to providing opportunities for a variety of housing types and densities. 5. Flexibility: The changing lifestyles and demographics of a suburban community must be accampanied by � a diversity of housing. The solution to providing single people, young families and the elderly with quality housing involves allocating the construction of various housing types, designs and densities in order that selecting a home and its location remain a respected right of personal choice. � HOUSING PROGRAMS An overview of the housing program elements used by Golden Valley in conjunction with the objectives each supports is displayed in Figure l . a � � �� • The City has adopted several policies that are directly related to each objective. These policies have attempted to integrate the housing goals and objectives together with the available housing programs. The - fotlowing discussion provides a description of how the City's Housing Policies have been used to attain the four Housing Objectives outlined in the Comprehensive P)an. OBJECTIVE 1 : PROMOTE THE PRESERVATION AND UPGRADING OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL HOUSING STOCK IN THE CITY. Policies : A. The City shall make use of all available federal , state and local funding sources to promote the rehabilitation and/or redevelop- ment of identified and designated substandard � residential units or areas. B. For residents in Golden Valley participating o in federally or state funded housing programs , the City shall adopt the Section 8 Housing Quality Standards used by HUD to determine a residential unit's habitable acceptability in , order that the City has a means of detecting ' whether or not a house is in need of improvements or beyond repair. C. The City shall promote the utilization of Federally allocated Community Development Block Grant Funds for the purpose of revitalizing the residential neighborhoods targeted for sub- stantial rehabilitation. • D. The City H.R.A. may use its legal authority under "eminent domain" to condemn and remove substandard housing which has been determined , economically unfeasible to rehabilitate. � J • �8� � OBJECTIVE 2: ENCOURAGE A SUFFICIENT VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND DESIGNS TO ALLOW ALL PEOPLE A HOUSING CHOICE. Policies : A. The City shall encourage design and planning innovations in housing construction and - residential land use development. This type of City-Developer relationship is encouraged through the City's P.U.D. ordinance. B. The City will promote a diversity of newly constructed housing. Various housing projects differ with the housing programs handling the financing. Therefore, the funding percentage range coutd vary with • the project. However, Housing Projects that would be 100% subsidized should not be encouraged. Subsidized housing should be attempted to be integrated with market rate housing. As stated earlier, a good mix would be in the 510 to 60i federally financed range. * C. Residential development shall be built in accordance with performance standards that respect the hydrologic and natural landform features. (Proposed developments on wetlands, floodways, flood plains and severe slopes shall be carefulty reviewed in order that the impact on the natural balance of the environment is minimized.) D. The City will continue to offer as an alternative � for land utilization the development of Planned Unit Developments (P.U.D. 's) which allow the City to be more flexible in site design and density requirements. , ,� . -9- � E. The City will promote the development of multi-family dwellings, provided the density does not pose an overuse of the site and the surrounding environment. Density is relative to each project and shall be viewed accordingly. OBJECTIVE 3: THE CITY SHALL PROMOTE THE USE OF AVAILABLE PROGRAMS, - FUNDS AND PLANNING APPROACHES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AT A COST INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES CAN AFFORD WITHOUT COMPROMISING ESSENTIAL NEEDS. SPECIAL FOCUS ON HOUSING NEEDS OF THE ELDERLY, MINORITIES, HANDICAPPED AND BOTH DOUBLE AND SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN. Policies: A. The City shall attempt to obtain, when • avaitable, all applicable state and federal housing funds designed to maximize the opportunity of providing a variety of housing types, costs , and densities. B. The City shall encourage the use of the home ownership and rental subsidy programs. , , C. The City shall recognize the housing goals established by the Metropolitan Council . D. The City will provide, when available, increased opportunity for low and moderate income persons to reside in the community through the pravision of state and federal subsidized housing and rental ass[stance programs. Ideally, these types of projects should be integrated with . market rate housing. E. The City shall encourage that newly constructed . �1 � _�0 • subsidized housing be developed in locations offering residents easy access to local and regional urban service centers. F. The City shall encourage the use of townhouses, duplexes, garden and patio apartments and scattered site single family units for modest' cost housing. G. The City shall promote the implementation of federal housing funds to acquire land for scattered site modest-cost housing in order that land, as an element of housing costs, is minimized. H. The City shall review and revise its present land use regulations to enhance the opportunity � for modest cost housing in the future. . I . The City shall continue to promote the market- rate housing at a cost similar to the existing market-rate housing stock in the City. , J. The City shall promote the development of town- - houses, condominiums and detached single famiTy homes as viable types of market-rate housing. K. The City shall promote energy efficient design standards when ever possibie. OBJECTIVE 4: THE CITY WILL ENCOURAGE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND DISCOURAGE THE PRACTICE OF DISCRIMINATION IN THE AREA OF HOME OWNERSHIP AND RENTING. . Policies: A. The City shall promote a diversity of housing � N -11- • for all people regardless of ethnic background, age, income level , sex, and religion. • , � w ,' P FIGURE 1 : GOLDEN VALLEY INVENTORY ELEMENTS BY OBJECTIVES � Objective Inventory Elements MHFA Home Improvement Grants 1 . Promote the preservation and upgrading of the MHFA Home Improvement Loans existing residential housing stock in the City. Community Development Rehabili- tation (CDBG Funds) _ Zoning Ordinance (currently being revised) 2. Encourage a sufficient variety of housing Planned Unit Development Ordinance (currently being revised) 3• The City shall promote the use of available programs, Section 8 Housing Assistance - funds, and planning Existing Housing approaches in order to provide housing opportunities Section 8 Housing Assistance - • at a cost individuals and New Construction families can afford without compromising essential needs. Scattered Site Program (Local HRA Special focus on housing needs taxing �and tax increment financing) of the elderly, minorities, handicapped and both double Section 202 Housing for Elderly and single parent families and Handicapped. with young children. 4. The City will encourage equal opportunity and discourage the Section 8 - Existing and New practice of discrimination Construction in the area of home ownership and renting. Community Development Block Grants �