The URL can be used to link to this page

98-060 - 07-07 Adopting Housing Element Comprehensive Plan and Supporting Technical Background ReportResolution 98-60 July 7, 1998 Member Johnson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ITS SUPPORTING TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley adopted a Comprehensive Plan, including a Housing Element, in 1982; and WHEREAS, the state legislature requires that the comprehensive plans of local governments be in conformance with metropolitan system plans prepared by the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley has undertaken extensive review and analysis of the City's current housing issues and opportunities, as documented in a Technical Background report; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared an updated Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan based on the Technical Background report and in accordance with the metropolitan system statements; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, following a public hearing on these documents, has recommended their approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a formal public hearing to consider the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the Livable Communities Action Plan on June 18, 1996; and WHEREAS, the new Housing Element was designed to incorporate Livable Communities Action Plan items already being implemented by the City through its participation in that program. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that the updated Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and its supporting Technical Background document be adopted. Mary E. Anderson, Mayor ATTEST: Resolution 98-60 - Continued Shirley J. Nelson, City Clerk July 7, 1998 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Bakken and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Anderson, Bakken, Johnson, and Micks; and the following voted against the same: LeSuer, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk. Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 HOUSING GOLDEN VALLEY 1996-2016 Resolution 98-60 - Continued DOCUMENTATION OF APPROVALS Plan, including Livable Communities action plan items, recommended by Planning Commission for City Council approval -- June 10, 1996. July 7, 1998 Plan received by City Council, with approval of Livable Communities action plan items only (CC Resolution 96-57) -- June 18, 1996. Plan authorized for forwarding to Metro Council and neighboring communities for review and comment (CC Resolution 97-39) -- April 1, 1997. Plan approved by City Council (CC Resolution 98-60) — July 7, 1998. Resolution 98-60 - Continued CONTENTS BACKGROUND LIVABLE COMMUNITIES COMPONENTS OF THE PLAN PLAN MAP PLAN IMPLEMENTATION HOUSING GOALS HOUSING POLICIES HOUSING OBJECTIVES 3 112 5 5 0 7 11 July 7, 1998 Resolution 98-60 - Continued HOUSING GOLDEN VALLEY 1996-2016 BACKGROUND July 7, 1998 The official title of this document is the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Golden Valley. It is more often known as "the housing plan". State law, which is the source of all the regulatory powers that cities are granted, requires each city in the Twin Cities Metro Area to have a housing plan. State law further requires that housing plans must include provisions for promoting the development of housing affordable to low and moderate income persons. Beyond state requirements, housing plans may include any other issues a city deems appropriate. All proposals for new housing areas, infill housing, or housing redevelopment must agree with a city's plan in order to be approved. Golden Valley's housing philosophy since the early 1970's has been rooted in accommodating a diversity of living environments in addition to its solid base of traditional single family neighborhoods. The definition of diversity has encompassed a range of housing costs, choice in housing type, a variety of housing densities, and innovative design practices. The City recognizes that, as an interdependent component of the Twin Cities Metro Area, its housing stock should reflect a metropolitan responsibility to providing opportunities for a variety of housing concepts. Changing trends in lifestyle choices, household composition, economic conditions, and environmental consciousness all call for a corresponding diversity in housing. Golden Valley believes that the backbone of a mature and socially healthy community is its intrinsic socioeconomic mixture. This includes but is not limited to a diversity of races, lifestyles, income levels, and age groups. To maintain such an ethnic and socioeconomic mix, the City should encourage a variety of housing opportunities. A varied housing stock has the added benefit of being Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 able to support a broader variety of local employment opportunities as well as shopping, entertainment, and service facilities. A diversity of housing provides residents with the option of;staying in Golden Valley after they have outgrown the traditional single family home. As a family matures, its members have different housing needs. The children of Golden Valley residents should have affordable rental or ownership opportunities available to them within the City when they are ready to leave home. Older residents should be able to find low maintenance and/or specially designed housing when the single family home becomes too much for them. Such "life cycle" housing considerations promote stability within the community. When Golden Valley began its efforts at housing diversification in the early 1970's, the City was already 80% developed. Detached single family homes made up 85% of its housing stock. There was no housing specifically reserved for low or moderate income persons. Through the City's efforts, quality single family homes continued to be built in remaining vacant areas, but space was also found for townhouse and apartment -style housing, both rental and ownership, in a range of prices. By the early 1980's, Golden Valley was 90% developed. Detached single family homes comprised 79% of the housing stock. There were 234 housing units set aside for persons of low or moderate income. As the supply of vacant land was exhausted, the City began looking at redevelopment opportunities for housing. Today, the City's 10.5 square miles of area are basically fully developed, though redevelopment of obsolete uses and infill development of under -used areas still occurs and can be expected to continue into the foreseeable future. An estimated five square miles of the City's area is taken up by its 8,532 dwelling units and related streets; of those totals, only 0.4 square miles holds all 2,080 units of Golden Valley's apartments, townhouses, condos, and two-family developments of eight units or more. Detached single family homes account for 72% of the housing stock. There are 332 low or moderate income housing units available, though 213 of them are reserved for senior citizens. Despite the increasing age of Golden Valley's homes, 40% of which were over 30 years old in 1990, demand for a Golden Valley address remains high. More information on housing in Golden Valley and on the research underlying the housing plan can be found in a separate report known as the Technical Background for the Golden Valley Housing Plan. Along with other documents named in this plan, the report is available for purchase at City Hall and a reader copy is kept with other City publications at the Golden Valley Library. 2 Resolution 98-60 - Continued LIVABLE COMMUNITIES July 7, 1998 In 1995, the Minnesota state legislature passed the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. Billed as "an investment in the health and vitality of the region", Livable Communities provides financial incentives to cities that make a commitment to uphold the program's basic principles and to actively work toward certain housing diversification benchmark levels. Since the program is in keeping with Golden Valley's own housing philosophy and goals, the City has signed on as a participant. The Livable Communities principles advocate: A balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. 2. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental, and location of housing within the community. 3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life cycle. 4. A community of well maintained housing and neighborhoods, including rental and ownership housing. 5. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. 6. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment. To better focus the ongoing efforts of participating cities, the Livable Communities program has established benchmark levels of measurement that serve as reference points in selected housing characteristics. Participating cities pledge to work on expanding local housing opportunities as indicated in order to close any gaps between existing conditions and the reference benchmarks. In its Livable Communities commitment, Golden Valley has pledged its best efforts toward increasing the percentage of modest -cost homes, increasing the percentage of non -detached housing styles, and increasing the average density of non -detached housing developments. Additionally, the City will make an effort to maintain current levels of rental unit affordability and owner/renter mix. Many of Golden Valley's ongoing housing activities provide direct or indirect support to the City's pledge, but Livable Communities program requirements call for participants to specify a list of housing action items by which a city's level of effort can be monitored. Golden Valley will fulfill those requirements by making the Livable Communities program an overlay of the City's regular housing plan. More information on the Livable Communities program can be found in the Livable Communities'Notebook. 3 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 COMPONENTS OF THE PLAN As specified in state law, Golden Valley's housing plan is composed of goals, policies, objectives, programs, and standards that serve as guides to how the City will maintain and renew its housing stock now and into the future. The following paragraphs outline Golden Valley's definitions of these terms and how they are used in the plan. It might be helpful to think of "building" the plan as one would build a house: with a foundation, structural framework, building blocks, tools, and structural specifications. The Livable Communities overlay then becomes the roof, capping and supported by the other components. GOAL: "An idealized end state that serves as a focus for planning efforts. Goals reflect situations toward which to strive without necessarily expecting full attainment." The foundation of Golden Valley's housing plan rests on its four goal areas of quality, variety, affordability, and nondiscrimination in housing. Policies and objectives, as well as Livable Communities principles and action items build upon this foundation. Golden Valley's four housing goals are listed on page 6. POLICY: "An ongoing guide or set of criteria for undertaking legislative or administrative actions in conformance with plan goals. Policies are specific enough to provide direction in a decision-making context, and are intended to be used whenever applicable throughout the life of the plan." In other words, policies provide the structural framework for making housing decisions that will properly implement the housing plan by building firmly on its goal foundation. The City's housing policies are listed on pages 7 - 10. OBJECTIVE: "An intermediate milestone on the way toward a goal. Objectives are specific, measurable, and achievable, and are generally intended to be met within a short (three to five year) time frame." Objectives are the building blocks that fill in the structural framework as it rises upward from the foundation. This term does not appear in state law, but statutes do require cities to deal with actions for plan implementation, which comes to much the same thing. The City's current objectives are listed on pages 11 - 12. PROGRAM: "Usually an established source of assistance - whether financial, legal, physical, or informational - offered through a public or private agency. A program could also be any coordinated set of actions designed to yield a specified product." M Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 STANDARD: "A specified index of measurement or threshold of acceptability." Programs provide the tools for putting the structural framework and building blocks in place, and standards are the structural specifications. Golden Valley has identified programs and standards within its policy and objective statements as appropriate rather than listing them independently. PLAN MAP One housing -related component of the comprehensive plan is not included here: a map showing the planned physical distribution of various types of housing. As a fully developed community, any decision Golden Valley makes to expand an area reserved for housing must result in an equal decrease of area reserved for some other use and vice versa. Also, deciding on appropriate new locations for any type of use depends in part on keeping it near other compatible uses and away from conflicting uses. This inter -relatedness of land uses makes it essential to have future land use areas mapped together in a single document, which in Golden Valley's case is the land use element of the comprehensive plan. Policies and objectives here in the housing plan may make reference to the land use plan map, or comprehensive plan map as it is sometimes called. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION As indicated above, policies, objectives, programs, and standards all contribute toward turning this plan into reality. Local regulations having an impact on plan implementation can be found in City Code - primarily in the zoning and subdivision chapters - and in the State Building Code, adopted by reference in City Code. The main responsibility for implementation lies with the City Council as Golden Valley's formal decision-making body. The City's Planning Commission plays a strong supporting role in its capacity as advisor to the Council. The Human Rights Commission and other Council -established bodies will also be involved. The City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority provides added power to acquire land for redevelopment, secure financing, and eliminate blighting conditions, should any of those actions become necessary. Golden Valley relies on the Hennepin County Development Planning Unit to provide expertise and administrative assistance for Community Development Block Grant activities, and on the Metro Council's Housing and Redevelopment Authority for administration of low-income housing programs; similar partnerships may be sought in order to help Golden Valley make the most of other available state or federal housing assistance programs. 5 Resolution 98-60 - Continued SA HOUSING GOALS July 7, 1998 Promote the maintenance of a high-quality living environment, the preservation of stable residential neighborhoods and, where necessary, the upgrading of the existing housing stock in the City. (supports Livable Communities principles 4 and 5) Encourage a sufficient variety of housing types and designs to allow all people a housing choice. (supports Livable Communities principles 1 and 3) Employ available programs, funds, and planning approaches as appropriate in order to provide housing opportunities at a cost individuals and families can afford without compromising essential needs. (supports Livable Communities principles 1 and 6) Advocate equal opportunity in home ownership and renting. (supports Livable Communities principles 1, 2, and 3) Resolution 98-60 - Continued HOUSING POLICIES The City shall remain open to new partnership opportunities with Hennepin County, the Metro Council, and state or federal agencies in its efforts to implement this plan. When an appropriate development proposal is identified, the City shall assist in attempts to obtain any applicable funds designed to maximize the opportunity of providing a variety of housing types, costs, and densities. Sources may include, but are not limited to, federal programs such as the Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) or Section 202 financing for senior housing, state aid such as the Low Income Tax Credit Program or the Low/Moderate Income Rental Program, Metro Council funds such as the Local Housing Investment Account or the Livable Commun- ities Demonstration Account, or nonprofit assistance such as the Family Housing Fund or Habitat For Humanity. The City shall continue to offer the flexibility of the Planned Unit Development option to housing developers who demonstrate an ability to successfully apply contemporary's land planning principles and coordinated community design philosophies. The City shall accommodate energy conserving technologies and construction techniques, including active 7 M Cb L a 0 c� L July 7, 1998 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 To protect the integrity and desirability of established residential neighborhoods, the City shall evaluate the discontinuation of isolated and aging nonresidential uses through buyout and/or amendments to the comprehensive plan map as opportunities arise. To help protect the quality of its housing stock, the City shall promote to real estate agents and prospective home buyers or sellers the practice of contracting for private home inspections prior to purchase of any Golden Valley home. Promotional efforts may include but shall not be limited to periodic educational items in City publications and information made available to the public by City staff. Except where a particular funding program or regulation specifies an alternate, the City shall use HUD's Section 8 housing quality standards to determine whether a house is in need of substantial rehabilitation or beyond repair. The City shall, if necessary, use its legal condemnation authority to remove substandard housing for which rehab- ilitation has been determined economically unfeasible. The City shall annually reapply for reservation of funds through the Minnesota City Participation Program, providing low-interest mortgages to qualifying first time home buvers. 0 a m L 0 f1� y HOUSING POLICIESE m Q a` Q C E 0 � a � C v E o U L and passive solar energy features, badvocating—their y advocating their use CY a z in applications for new residential development and by amending City Code or City policies as appropriate to allow residents to take advantage of new approaches. To protect the integrity and desirability of established residential neighborhoods, the City shall evaluate the discontinuation of isolated and aging nonresidential uses through buyout and/or amendments to the comprehensive plan map as opportunities arise. To help protect the quality of its housing stock, the City shall promote to real estate agents and prospective home buyers or sellers the practice of contracting for private home inspections prior to purchase of any Golden Valley home. Promotional efforts may include but shall not be limited to periodic educational items in City publications and information made available to the public by City staff. Except where a particular funding program or regulation specifies an alternate, the City shall use HUD's Section 8 housing quality standards to determine whether a house is in need of substantial rehabilitation or beyond repair. The City shall, if necessary, use its legal condemnation authority to remove substandard housing for which rehab- ilitation has been determined economically unfeasible. The City shall annually reapply for reservation of funds through the Minnesota City Participation Program, providing low-interest mortgages to qualifying first time home buvers. 0 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 HOUSING POLICIES cc 0 M 0 Cb 0 W iv 0 'E E 20 E 0 a M 4t: 0 CY Except where a particular program specifies an alternate, X. ...... the City shall use the Livable Communities definition of ...... X.: affordable housing as the standard for defining modest -cost ...... ..... housing: owned housing should cost no more than 30% of X ... X -X X the income of a household ranked at 80% of the median .X .... income level as estimated annually by HUD, and rental X.: housing should cost no more than 30% of the income of a household ranked at 50% of the median. X., ... X Recognizing that its stock of modest -cost single family ...... .... homes is aging and therefore vulnerable to deterioration or redevelopment pressure, the City shall consider the impact ...... ...... on housing affordability and quality of any development or X.X.V. redevelopment proposal that requires removal of modest - cost homes or would significantly increase traffic, noise, X. noxious emissions, or other negative characteristics in :X ::.X-:-: nearby modest -cost neighborhoods. Such consideration X shall not override other legitimate development concerns, ... ... ...... but reasonable attempt shall be made to mitigate negative impacts on overall housing affordability or quality. -X. In determining the appropriate use of federally allocated X_X XX .... Community Development Block Grant funds, the City shall ....... ...... give high priority to rehabilitating its aging housing stock. The City shall remain aware of, and from time to time may X: consider participation in, other programs for upgrading existing housing. These include the federal Home Invest-....... ment Partnership Program (HOME), a variety of programs X: available through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, X_X. ..... and the Livable Communities Demonstration Account. ...... 0 Resolution 98-60 - Continued HOUSING POLICIES 4 0 R Prior to adopting or amending any development -related or construction -related regulation, the City shall consider any potential housing affordability impact. Negative impacts shall be balanced against concerns for the general public health, safety, or welfare. Where possible, strategies for mitigating negative affordability impacts shall be identified. The City's Human Rights Commission shall continue its role as a forum for discussion of discrimination issues, and shall remain available to participate in the grievance process of the Minnesota Department of Human Services as requested, so that any allegations of housing discrimination can be promptly addressed at the local level. The City's Human Rights Commission shall conduct ongoing education efforts as necessary to promote equal availability of housing opportunities and fair treatment of all renters and buyers regardless of age, sex, income level, ethnic background, or religion. For as long as the City remains in the Livable Communities program, a Livable Communities impact evaluation shall be included as part of the consideration of any housing -related development application. Potential impacts on all Livable Communities benchmark areas shall be considered, but those areas need not all be weighed equally, nor will this evaluation necessarily take precedence over other con- cerns that may be voiced in connection with the application. 10 u July 7, 1998 Ca a �+ y o 0 'c 0 r c E v U O c M 4. 0 9 a z Resolution 98-60 - Continued FPN,q� Sq4h6, HOUSING OBJECTIVES Define various approaches and/or incentives to promote a City beautification program. Research options for amending PUD and/or Multiple Dwelling district regulations to better promote the goals of quality, variety, and affordability. Invest in an address -linked computerized housing data base capable of providing data on the size, age, value, and condition of the City's homes, for more thorough analysis of issues such as the need for a housing maintenance code. Establish a list of qualifying criteria to serve as a selection standard on occasions when targeting Community Develop-ment Block Grant or other housing assistance funds to one or more particular neighborhoods is desirable or necessary. Establish a process for early citizen involvement in the siting of new subsidized housing developments. Research techniques used in alternative dispute resolution processes such as mediation for assistance in formulating citizen involvement guidelines that channel discussion of housing development proposals along a productive course. 11 n u July 7, 1998 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Meet with owners of market rate rental properties to discuss participation in the federal Section 8 voucher program and to ask what might make vouchers more ... acceptable. Meet with owners of subsidized properties eligible to leave the subsidy program, to learn about their plans and to discuss any obstacles that may keep them from renewing their program contract. X" Investigate the full extent of federal and state regulations protecting the freedom of location of residential facilities. To the extent possible, document the characteristics and neighborhood experiences of legally protected residential facilities in the City, so that better relations may be forged between such facilities and surrounding neighborhoods .... X .......X: Identify potentially suitable locations for new modest -cost townhouse developments that provide an ownership option. Identify underused nonresidential sites where the vacant area may be suitable for higher density residential use. Amend the land use plan map to include housing development sites located in the City's official redevelop- ment areas, now shown on the map only as "study areas". Reconsider the nonresidential land use plan map designa- tions currently applied to the Brookview Condominiums and Circle Down apartments to determine whether either might be suitable for retention of higher density residential use. 12 0 > 0 CW C%) r .2 2 HOUSING OBJECTIVES < < EE 0 0 0 >%ai il: C 72 t4 a > t < 0 Z > n Meet with owners of market rate rental properties to discuss participation in the federal Section 8 voucher program and to ask what might make vouchers more ... acceptable. Meet with owners of subsidized properties eligible to leave the subsidy program, to learn about their plans and to discuss any obstacles that may keep them from renewing their program contract. X" Investigate the full extent of federal and state regulations protecting the freedom of location of residential facilities. To the extent possible, document the characteristics and neighborhood experiences of legally protected residential facilities in the City, so that better relations may be forged between such facilities and surrounding neighborhoods .... X .......X: Identify potentially suitable locations for new modest -cost townhouse developments that provide an ownership option. Identify underused nonresidential sites where the vacant area may be suitable for higher density residential use. Amend the land use plan map to include housing development sites located in the City's official redevelop- ment areas, now shown on the map only as "study areas". Reconsider the nonresidential land use plan map designa- tions currently applied to the Brookview Condominiums and Circle Down apartments to determine whether either might be suitable for retention of higher density residential use. 12 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND FOR THE GOLDEN VALLEY HOUSING PLAN May 1996; final review amendments June 1998 Resolution 98-60 - Continued HISTORY OF APPROVALS Background research for this report was initiated by staff and Planning Commission on October 10, 1994. July 7, 1998 Issues and options identified in the report were reviewed and discussed by the Planning Commission, beginning on April 8, 1996. Recommended for endorsement by City Council on June 10, 1996. First public hearing by Council on June 18, 1996. Council resolution, clearing report for forwarding to Metro Council and other outside review agencies, adopted on April 1, 1997. Final public hearing and approval by Council Resolution 98-60 on July 7, 1998. Resolution 98-60 - Continued CONTENTS July 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION v I. REVIEW OF GOLDEN VALLEY'S EXISTING HOUSING PLAN AND OVERVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 1 Legal requirements 1 Definitions 2 Goals, Objectives, and Policies 2 Programs and Standards 3 II. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC HOUSING GOAL AREAS 4 Affordability 6 Nondiscrimination 8 Variety 10 III. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF GOLDEN VALLEY'S HOUSING STOCK 13 Types of Housing and Occupancy 14 Other Housing Statistics 16 IV. ANALYSIS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING EFFORTS IN GOLDEN VALLEY 17 City Code Provisions 18 Projects and Programs 21 V. LAND AVAILABLE FOR HOUSING IN GOLDEN VALLEY 30 Infill Sites 31 Miscellaneous Plan Amendment Options 37 Potential Loss of Existing Multi -Unit Housing 38 VI. SUMMARY STATEMENTS 42 Additional Comments on Specific Housing Goal Areas 42 Statistical Analysis of Golden Valley's Housing Stock 44 Analysis of Affordable Housing Efforts 44 Land Available for Housing 48 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 APPENDICES A: SUMMARY LISTING OF GOAL, OBJECTIVE, ACTION AND POLICY STATEMENTS IN EXISTING (1982) HOUSING PLAN A-1 Part 1: As Currently Stated A-1 Part 2: With Suggested Changes A-4 B: ANALYSIS OF AFFORDABLE -SIZED LOTS IN GOLDEN VALLEY B-1 C: BACKGROUND ON GOLDEN VALLEY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS C-1 Dover Hill PUD Project C-8 Single Family Home Rehabilitation Program C-11 Scattered Site Housing Project C-13 Calvary Square Senior High Rise PUD Project C-17 Medley Park Townhouse PUD Project C-21 Ewald Site - Early Efforts C-24 Mallard Creek Apartment PUD Project C-27 Duluth and Douglas Senior Housing Project C-29 Laurel Ponds Apartment Project C-31 Minimal Frontage Subdivision Program C-33 Ewald Site-Schatzlein Project C-35 First -Time Home Buyers Program C-38 Ewald Site - Habitat for Humanity Project C-40 D: METRO COUNCIL REVIEW APPLICATION, INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTARY HOUSING DATA, AND METRO COUNCIL RESPONSE D-1 Part 1: Background Explanation D-1 Part 2: Metro Council Review Comments Letter D-2 Part 3: Metro Council Review Submittal Form D-3 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Housing Goals Agreement, Metropolitan Livable IV Communities Act 5 Exhibit 2: Federally Subsidized Housing in Fully -Developed Metro Area Communities, 1994 7 Exhibit 3: Multi -Unit Developments in Golden Valley 11 Exhibit 4: Type and Occupancy of Golden Valley's Housing Stock 14 Exhibit 5: Selected Single Family Infill Areas 33 Exhibit 6: Designated Multi -Unit Development Areas 35 Exhibit 7: Existing Multi -Unit Developments Not Shown on Comprehensive Plan Map 39 Exhibit B-1: Areas of Affordable Sized Lots in Golden Valley B-2 Exhibit B-2: Subdivisions Containing Lots of 8,500 S.F. or Less B-4 Exhibit C-1: Locations of Golden Valley's Affordable Housing Projects and Programs C-2 IV Resolution 98-60 - Continued INTRODUCTION July 7, 1998 This Technical Background report serves as the basis for updating Golden Valley's 1982 housing plan. The plan itself will remain a separate document, shorter and more to the point than earlier versions. It will contain the legally required elements for local housing plans, along with a brief synopsis of key information. Those readers looking for additional background information and analysis will be directed to this report. In contrast to the plan document, this Technical Background contains a broader review of existing conditions, legal requirements, past housing efforts, and opportunities for future efforts. It is broken down into a number of sections concentrating on various types of issues. At the end of the report is a summary of the major findings for each section and accompanying lists of suggested policy and objective responses. A certain number of identical or substantially similar suggestions appear from section to section, because different avenues of study tended to lead back in the same direction. It is not intended that the City should necessarily adopt all of the suggested items, or that any suggestion must be adopted exactly as presented, but they are all options worth considering now or at the time of some future update. No new goal areas are discussed; it is assumed that the updated housing plan will still be organized around the four established goal areas of variety, affordability, nondiscrimination, and quality. The two -document system is expected to provide several benefits over a combined -document format. First and foremost, it will result in a more accessible plan. With only the most important information being covered, readers will find it easier to grasp the City's housing vision. There will be room to add photos or other graphics to make the plan more reader -friendly without expanding it to a daunting bulk. Since many readers are not interested in exhaustive background discussions, the shorter plan document alone will satisfy their purposes, allowing the City to minimize copying costs and wasted paper. Many cities are using this pared down approach for their plans. On an administrative level there are benefits as well. The increasing age of the statistical data in the 1982 plan causes some readers to needlessly question whether the plan itself is still valid; removing or minimizing such background information will return the focus to the plan's goals, objectives, and policies, where it belongs. Updating the statistical background itself will be a more streamlined process if it avoids having to undergo the mandated statutory process for plan updates; when all the City wants to do is substitute a more current value in a table, and the new number doesn't generate any concern over existing housing goals, there is no reason for it not to be an administrative action. v Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 This technical report will still be a public document. It is important to be able to explain the basis for the City's housing goals, objectives, and policies on demand. Also, the Metropolitan Council, granted certain local planning oversight powers under state law, requires evidence that cities have studied particular issues or characteristics while developing their plans; this report will provide such evidence. Official endorsement of this document and any future updates, in the form of a City Council resolution, is therefore recommended. Such action could easily be combined with the recently -mandated periodic review of all comprehensive plan sections, which is required to result either in plan amendments as necessary or in some form of certification that no amendment is necessary. Im Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 I. REVIEW OF GOLDEN VALLEY'S EXISTING HOUSING PLAN AND OVERVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS Under state law, a housing plan is a required comprehensive plan element for all communities in the Twin Cities Metro Area. Golden Valley has maintained a housing plan since 1973. The existing plan was adopted in 1982 and has remained unchanged for over a dozen years. What most people notice first about the plan today is that its background data are no longer current; however, such data are not a required part of the plan under state law. A matter of much greater concern should be the clarity and applicability of those plan statements that are legally required. As long as they remain current and understandable, the plan itself can be considered valid. The former point must be settled by the Planning Commission and the City Council after due deliberation. With regard to the latter point, experience has demonstrated over the past dozen years that the plan suffers somewhat from poor organization, incorrect classification of statements, and unclear language. Legal Requirements Golden Valley is subject to planning requirements established for all Minnesota cities and to additional requirements applicable only within the Twin Cities Metro Area. Generally speaking, state law identifies a comprehensive plan and its elements as consisting of "statements of policies, goals, and standards" (MS 462.352, Subd. 5). It further specifies that Metro Area communities must have housing plans "containing standards, plans, and programs for providing adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and regional housing needs, including but not limited to the use of official controls and land use planning to promote the availability of land for the development of low and moderate income housing" (MS 473.859, Subd. 2). State law does not offer any legal definitions of the terms "goal", "policy", "program", or "standard". "Objective", another term beloved by planners everywhere - and used in Golden Valley's housing plan - does not appear in state law at all. On the other hand, statutes do refer to plan implementation; a plan's objectives generally provide the basic blueprint for its implementation, so their inclusion in this discussion is appropriate. Resolution 98-60 - Continued Definitions July 7, 1998 Before proceeding with a review of Golden Valley's existing housing plan, it will be useful to establish definitions of the five key terms identified above. The City's comprehensive plan does includes an appendix defining terms used in various plan sections, but it offers no guidance on these five. The following definitions were distilled from standard dictionaries and planning references specifically for use in this report. It is recommended that they also be used in drafting any new material added to the plan through this updating process. Goal - An idealized end state that serves as a focus for planning efforts; goals reflect situations toward which to strive without necessarily expecting full attainment. Objective - An intermediate milestone on the way toward a goal; objectives are specific, measurable, and achievable, and are generally intended to be met within a short (three to five year) time frame. Policy - An ongoing guide or set of criteria for undertaking legislative or administrative actions in conformance with plan goals; policies are specific, like objectives, but are intended to be used whenever applicable throughout the life of the plan. Program - Usually an established source of assistance - whether financial, legal, physical, or informational - offered through a public or private agency; a program could also be any coordinated set of actions designed to yield a specified product. Standard - A specified index of measurement or threshold of acceptability. Goals, Objectives, and Policies Golden Valley's housing plan has just one specified goal (Appendix A). It offers a composite ideal based on variety, affordability, nondiscrimination, and quality in housing. There are also four objectives, which appear to be expanded re- statements of the four criteria embodied in the goal. They fail to meet the definition of "objective", because they do not reflect measurable and contained actions. The plan's clarity would be improved by eliminating the composite goal statement and renaming the four objective statements as the City's housing goals. Additional clarification would be gained by refining the statements regarding variety and affordability, to better distinguish between the two. Affordability is the only one of the four goal areas that is mandated within state planning legislation. Nondiscrimination fits in neatly with other state and federal regulations for fair housing practices. Variety is an important component of the state's recently -passed Livable Communities legislation. Quality is generally the area of greatest local concern. Thus, it makes sense to keep each of the 2 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 four goal areas in the plan. Separating them into individual statements will help ensure that adequate emphasis is given to each area. If the existing objectives are reclassified as goals, where does that leave the City with regard to objectives? The plan identifies eight "action" statements, some of which meet the definition of "objective". Others are closer to policies. Action statements that still current should be retained and reclassified as appropriate, with any rewording necessary to improve clarity or specificity. There are fifteen policy statements in the existing housing plan. Several of them fail to meet the requirements of the term "policy", in that they are not specific enough to offer any guidance in the decision-making process. Some statements do nothing more than repeat a goal statement in somewhat different words. Other statements are adequate for use as policies, but may actually go too far in their specificity. All existing policy statements should be reviewed for clarity and specificity, and subsequently reworded or deleted as appropriate. Programs and Standards Neither programs nor standards are grouped into a separate statement category in the existing housing plan. This does not necessarily mean that they are not represented as required by law. There are several statements, both policies and objectives, that convey Golden Valley's intent to rely primarily on housing programs already available through other agencies. To the extent that such statements are clear and realistic, and refer to programs that still exist, they fulfill the requirement that housing plans must identify programs to help meet planning goals. All applicable goal and policy statements should be reviewed with this thought in mind. The plan is weak in its inclusion of standards. There is a policy adopting HUD housing quality standards, but they are not listed in or appended to the plan, nor can a copy be found anywhere in City Hall. There are no standards established for variety, affordability, or nondiscrimination. Where such standards are found necessary or desirable to help measure specific policy or objective criteria, or general goal progress, they should be spelled out. Summary There is no tabular listing of findings, potential policy implications, and suggested action plan components for this section, since it deals only with already -existing goals, policies and objectives. A summary of suggested changes to the various plan statements is provided in Appendix A. 3 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 II. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC HOUSING GOAL AREAS It was noted in the preceding section that the goal areas of affordability, nondiscrimination, and variety are all impacted to some extent by state or federal legislation, and that one benefit of splitting the 1982 composite housing goal into its four component areas is easier assessment of whether appropriate attention is being given to each area. It may be useful then, to look at changes that have occurred with regard to affordability, nondiscrimination, and variety in housing since the 1982 plan was adopted. Altered circumstances may call for new policies or objectives. One piece of legislation passed in 1995 is expected to have an impact on both affordability and variety: the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act ("Livable Communities"). This act establishes a program through which Metro Area communities become eligible to apply for certain types of project funding by formally agreeing to make serious effort toward providing a fair share of affordable and life -cycle housing for the region. The Metro Council is charged with overseeing the program; it will report annually to the state legislature on the participation and progress of each community. The Golden Valley City Council passed a resolution stating its intent to participate in the program's first year, which began on January 1, 1996. Six housing indicators have been selected as appropriate measures of affordable and life -cycle housing (Exhibit 1). Using a sector and ring approach, the Metro Council has grouped all communities into clusters; Golden Valley shares a cluster with Hopkins and St. Louis Park. The Metro Council has also identified "benchmark" ranges in each cluster of communities for each of the six selected housing indicators. Finally, the Metro Council has calculated where each community ranks today with regard to each indicator. Participating communities were required to negotiate goals with the Metro Council, aimed at attaining or remaining within all established benchmark ranges. The next required step is to draw up an action plan for moving toward the negotiated goals; when finished, it will be considered part of the community's housing plan. Key Livable Communities terms do not match the terms and definitions established for this report. For a fully developed community like Golden Valley, Livable Communities benchmarks come closest to being goals as defined here: idealized end states that in most cases the City is not realistically going to meet any time soon. Then there are Livable Communities goals, which appear to fall between goals and objectives as defined for this report; they are specific and measurable, like objectives, but are intended to run for a longer period of time and may be impossible to fully achieve if market forces do not cooperate. 4 Resolution 98-60 - Continued Exhibit 1: July 7, 1998 HOUSING GOALS AGREEMENT METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT PRINCIPLES The city of Golden Valley supports: 1. A balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. 2. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the community. 3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life -cycle. 4. A community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. S. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. 6. The availabilityof a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment. GOALS To carry out the above housing principles, the City of Golden Valley agrees to use benchmark indicators for communities of similar location and stage of development as affordable and life -cycle housing goals for the period 1996 to 2010, and to make its best efforts, given market conditions and resource availability, to remain within or make progress toward these benchmarks. (I 1/acre - City Estimate) To achieve the above goals, the City of Golden Valley elects to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Program, and will prepare and submit a plan to the Metropolitan Council by June 30, 1996, indicating the actions it will take to carry out the above goals. CERTIFICATION Mayor Date CITY INDEX BENCHMARK L GOAL Affordability Ownership 60% 60-77% � 62% Rental 45% 37-41% 45% Life-Cvcle Type (Non -single family detached) 28% 3741% 31% Owner/renter Mix 79121% (64-67) / (33-36) % 79/21% tensity Single -Family Detached 2.2/acre 1.8-2.9/acre 2.2/acre Multifamilv 10/acre 14-15/acre 12/acre (I 1/acre - City Estimate) To achieve the above goals, the City of Golden Valley elects to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Program, and will prepare and submit a plan to the Metropolitan Council by June 30, 1996, indicating the actions it will take to carry out the above goals. CERTIFICATION Mayor Date Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Finally, there are references in the Livable Communities guidelines and other literature to goals in a yearly sense. Metro Council staff say those are not the same as the goals to which Golden Valley has committed by participating in the Livable Communities program, but no definitions are provided in the literature and the distinction in context is often vague. This report will attempt to specify the Livable Communities program when referring to "goals" affiliated with it. Affordability Golden Valley must consider two separate aspects of affordability. For Livable Communities, "affordable" means modest, but still market -rate, housing. Participating in the Livable Communities program, however, does not exempt cities from older state legislation requiring local provision of housing for low - and moderate -income individuals and families. The bulk of that housing requires ongoing public subsidy to remain affordable to its target population. Livable Communities - Two of the indicators selected for use in this program are rental housing affordability and ownership housing affordability. The Metro Council's rental housing benchmark for Golden Valley is that 37 to 41 percent of all rental units should be affordable to households with incomes at one-half the regional median. The Metro Council has determined that 45 percent of the City's rental housing is affordable under this definition. Golden Valley is therefore comfortably above the entire benchmark range, meaning there is no immediate need for the City to be seeking affordable rental development projects for the purpose of participating in Livable Communities. In the area of ownership housing, the Metro Council considers 60 percent of Golden Valley's homes to be affordable to households with incomes at 80 percent of the regional median. The benchmark range is 60 to 77 percent. With the City barely meeting this ownership affordability benchmark, there will be a need for stronger efforts to promote affordable new construction. Golden Valley is experiencing slow but steady infill home-building, with most of it priced toward the higher end of the market; even this trickle could be enough to push the City out the bottom end of the benchmark range in a few years unless it is balanced by more affordable units. Smaller lot size or multi -unit structural types are common ways for local governments to promote ownership affordability. Subsidized Housing - As explained above, participation in the Livable Communities program does not exempt cities from the pre-existing state mandate regarding local provision of low- and moderate -income housing. The current law has not changed since Golden Valley adopted its 1982 housing plan; however, its administration - again under the charge of the Metro Council - has undergone some changes in response to changing economic conditions. As with Livable Communities, goals for the older legislation have been based on a "fair share" concept. A Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Originally, the Metro Council established specific allocations of affordable housing units for each community to provide over a certain period of time. In 1985, the sharply reduced availability of federal housing subsidies and the increase in housing construction costs caused the Metro Council to move away from the quota system. In place of quotas today is a "best'effort" system, with a variety of recommended policies and actions identified by the Metro Council to help communities keep housing at an affordable level. Nevertheless, federally subsidized housing projects remain the major source of housing affordable to low- and moderate -income households in most Metro Area suburbs. According to the Metro Council, 3.9 percent of Golden Valley's 1994 housing stock was federally subsidized (Exhibit 2). This translates to 332 housing units, of which 213 are reserved for senior citizens. Region -wide, the average is 5.8 percent of all units. If Golden Valley compares itself to its fully developed suburban neighbors, it holds a three-way tie with Robbinsdale and St. Louis Park. Neighboring New Hope comes closer to the regional average, but Crystal has not done as well. VA Exhibit 2: Federally Subsidized Housing in Fully -Developed Metro Area Communities, 1994 Rank Community Percent Rank Community Percent 1 St. Paul 10.0 14 Roseville 3.2 2 Minneapolis 8.7 15 New Brighton 3.1 3 South St. Paul 7.6 16 Fridley 3.0 4 West St. Paul 6.8 17 Bloomington 2.8 5 Hopkins 5.5 18 Edina 2.6 6 Brooklyn Center 5.1 19 Mendota 2.6 7 Columbia Heights 4.7 20 Crystal 1.3 8 New Hope 4.7 21 St. Anthony (Henn Co) 1.0 9 Spring Lake Park 4.7 22 Falcon Heights 0.6 10 Golden Valley 3.9 23 Hilltop 0.5 11 Robbinsdale 3.9 24 Fort Snelling 0.0 12 St. Louis Park 3.9 25 Lauderdale 13 Richfield 3.3 26 Lilydale 27 St. Anthony (Ramsey Co) Source: "Opening Doors to Affordable/Life Cycle Housing" Metropolitan Council, March 1995 VA Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 The biggest concern for Golden Valley at this time is that its subsidized units were all constructed by private developers under agreements that only required them to remain in a subsidy program for a specified number of years. Those developments are now at or approaching the end of the required subsidy period. If they are converted to market rate units, Golden Valley will be left with a serious deficiency in housing that is affordable to the poorest segment of the population. As documented elsewhere (Appendix C), the City's subsidized developments were not easy to site even at a time when Golden Valley still had vacant land available and federal dollars were abundant. As a fully -developed community looking at limited federal assistance, the City could find those subsidized units impossible to replace. One alternative might be to return to the scattered -site concept, where smaller developments - usually with townhouse or duplex style construction rather than apartments - are located on widely dispersed parcels of land as they become available. It may also be possible to convert some existing apartments or currently nonresidential buildings to a subsidy program. Some experts have recommended that the entire federal subsidy system be reoriented to more of a voucher basis in place of the current project -based programs, but managers of many market -rate developments find participation in a voucher program undesirable; if the use of vouchers is likely to increase, the City might want to open discussions with local property managers and attempt to learn what it would take to raise their comfort level. The best possible alternative, of course, would be for existing subsidized units to remain in a subsidy program; there again, it might be helpful for the City to sit down with the affected property owners and talk about their plans and any options that may be available for keeping the units affordable. Nondiscrimination Golden Valley was one of the first Metro Area communities to establish a Human Rights Commission (HRC). Now more than thirty years old, this body is charged with implementing the City's policy of encouraging "the establishment and development, both publicly and privately, of equal opportunity and fair treatment and practices in employment, housing, public transportation, public accommodations and education for all individuals without regard to race, color, creed, sex, religion, affiliations, national origin, or ancestry" (City Code Sec 2.53). During the 1970's and early 1980's, when Golden Valley was building its subsidized housing stock, the HRC was very involved in housing activities. In more recent years, the HRC's involvement has decreased along with the overall decline in housing activity. Today, given increasing concerns about such issues as group homes and the possible loss of subsidized housing units, the City may want to again expand the NRC's housing role. LV Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Group Homes - Increasing state and federal protection of a variety of group living situations is of growing concern as a discrimination problem. Broadly speaking, a group home, referred to in state law as a "residential facility", is a standard dwelling owned by a public or private business venture and used to provide common shelter for varying numbers of unrelated adults or minors affected by some physical or mental disability or other characteristic making it unlikely or impossible for them to enjoy the benefits of normal household living. Residents may stay at a group home for anywhere from a few days to many years, depending on the purpose of the facility. They may be locked in during their stay, or have varying degrees of mobility. Full-time staff support is provided in the form of live-in or regular or rotating shift employees. Golden Valley City Code defines the term "family" to include five or fewer unrelated individuals if they live together as a common household. The legal interpretation of this definition is that it also covers group homes as long as no more than five people live in the residence, including staff as well as clients. There are some Golden Valley residents who feel that such arrangements are inappropriate, and they would like to see City Code made more restrictive. For several years, state law has required cities to accept certain residential facilities as normal, single-family neighborhood uses. The size limit under state law is six or fewer residents, counting clients only. Earlier versions of the law specified facilities having program licenses issued through the Department of Human Services. Since 1990, that language has been generalized to the point where it is difficult to determine exactly what types of facilities the law covers today. Compounding the problem, state law also provides that cities do not have to be notified when such facilities are established within their boundaries. This means that cities often have no information at hand when the neighbors of a new facility begin to call with their questions and concerns. There have been changes on the federal fair housing front as well. Federal law prohibits discrimination against persons in a variety of categories with regard to housing occupancy. Discrimination under the law has been determined to extend to cities if they refuse to make "reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices or services." Determining the precise meaning of terms such as "person" and "reasonable accommodation", and establishing the extent of any legitimate exclusions to the legislation, has taken several years and a number of court challenges. Some points remain unresolved today. In a 1995 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court determined that cities cannot use zoning restrictions (such as Golden Valley's limitation on the number of unrelated individuals who may constitute a family) to keep group homes out of neighborhoods unless reasonable alternative accommodation has been made. While state and federal regulations are aiming toward greater mainstreaming of group homes in residential neighborhoods, Golden Valley's housing plan makes no mention of this issue. There is ample evidence from the City's own M Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 experience that the opening of a new group home is a disturbing event for the surrounding neighborhood. The knowledge that the facility in question is state or federally mandated, or in some instances is fully permitted in accordance with City Code, does nothing to allay the natural fear of the unknown or unfamiliar. If such facilities are going to continue to proliferate, it may be time for Golden Valley to consider options for providing some sort of bridge between long-time residents and their new neighbors. First steps could include getting a better grip on the number and types of facilities already in Golden Valley, their initial impact on the neighbors as opposed to their long-term effect, and the full extent of state and federal regulations as they stand today. An ongoing education process might also be useful as a means of reducing the fear factor. Subsidized Housing - As noted earlier, Golden Valley is required under state law to contribute its fair share of low-income housing for the Metro Area. This is another issue that tends to generate a high level of concern when long-time residents learn that their neighborhood is being considered as a potential site for a new development. As with group homes, hearing about fair share requirements does nothing to.allay fears of possible negative impacts from such a development. If the City is going to look at expanding its supply of subsidized housing units, or at replacing units that have been converted to market -rate rentals, it would be beneficial to first investigate methods of bringing the public into the project siting and development process at an early stage; that way, they can become accustomed to the idea on their own terms and can make suggestions about improvements to increase their comfort level. Ongoing education might also be helpful here. Variety Promoting a diverse housing stock is at the core of the Livable Communities program. In addition to the previously -discussed affordability indicators, there are four others that measure progress toward this end: proportion of non - detached housing, proportion of rental housing, single-family housing density, and multi -unit housing density. Of the four, the Metro Council has determined that Golden Valley meets its benchmark only in single-family density. Based on the benchmarks, the City needs to add more multi -unit housing and more rental housing, as well as increasing the overall multi -unit density. Because Golden Valley is basically a fully developed community, the City will need to identify areas suitable for redevelopment in order to meet Livable Communities goals for its deficient indicators. By focusing on high-density projects, Golden Valley could maximize its ability to improve its rating in all three deficient areas with minimal land assembly needs. On the other hand, higher density also translates to greater environmental concerns, greater strain on existing infrastructure, and greater neighborhood resistance. 10 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Using aerial photos and generalized land use maps, the Metro Council has placed Golden Valley's present multi -unit density at 10 units per acre, while the benchmark range is set at 14 to 15 units per acre. The Metro Council's estimate of density does not quite match an in-house analysis based on a complete list of appropriate developments and their exact -acreage (Exhibit 3). By either calculation, the City's Livable Communities participation will entail new developments that provide more units per acre than most existing multi -unit properties. This almost certainly means apartment -style construction. Exhibit 3: Multi -Unit Developments in Golden Valley Name/Location Units Acres U/A Description Briarwood PUD 129 18.3 7.0 Mixed townhouses/apartments; 2327-2561 Unity Av. N. 16.6 6 0.8 ownership basis Brookview 71 7.5 3.4 Apartments; ownership basis 9141-9147 Olson Mem. Hwy. 65 4.5 14.4 108 Calvary Center PUD 200 3.7 54.1 Apartments; mixed market -rate 7600-7650 Golden Valley Rd. owner and subsidized rental; seniors only Colonial Court 36 2.4 15.0 Apartments; rental 5743-5747 Glenwood Av. Colonial Trentwood 9100-9240 Golden Valley Rd. Copacabana Tropic 1725 Lilac Drive N. Covenant Manor PUD 5800 St. Croix Av. Crossroads 5601 Glenwood Av. Dover Hills PUD 2400 Rhode Island Av. N. Douglas 1400-1600 Douglas Dr. Galant PUD 2400-2410 Hillsboro Av. N. Golden Valley Arms 6150 St. Croix Av. Hidden Village PUD 6000 Golden Valley Rd. Laurel Estates PUD 5610 Laurel Av. Laurel Hills PUD 5901-6051 Laurel Av. Mallard Creek PUD 8300-8450 Golden Valley Rd. 54 31 6.4 8.4 Apartments; rental 2.9 10.7 124 3.0 41.3 34 3.3 10.3 234 13.3 17.6 58 3.5 16.6 6 0.8 7.5 51 4.5 11.3 62 6.1 10.2 65 4.5 14.4 108 10.9 9.9 122 7.7 15.8 11 Apartments; rental Apartments; ownership basis; seniors only Apartments; rental Mixed apartments/townhouses; mixed market rate/subsidized; subsidized; some seniors Apartments; rental Townhouses; ownership basis Apartments; rental Townhouses; ownership basis Apartments; rental Apartments; ownership basis Apartments; rental Continued on next page Resolution 98-60 - Continued Exhibit 3: Continued Name/Location Units Acres U/A Description July 7, 1998 Mayfair Manor 24 2.8 8.6 Apartments; rental 5307-5311 Circle Down Medley Park PUD 28 3.2 8.8 Townhouses; subsidized rental 2345-2385 Mendelssohn Ln. Pheasant Glen PUD 26 2.9 9.0 Townhouses; ownership basis 2412-2454 Mendelssohn Ln. Skyline Plaza 14 1.9 7.4 Townhouses; ownership basis 7340-7450 Olson Mem. Hwy, South Wirth 60 5.8 10.3 Apartments; built as condos but 501 Wirth Parkway N. mostly forced to rental due to market Vallee D'or PUD 46 13.9 3.3 Townhouses; ownership basis 7501-7655 Harold Av. Valley Creek 36 1.8 20.0 Apartments; rental 1370 Douglas Dr. Valley View 72 5.7 12.6 Apartments; rental 6533-6543 Golden Valley Rd. Valley Village 111 16.1 6.9 Apartments; rental 600 N. Lilac Dr. Village Terrace 79 7.4 10.7 Apartments; rental 241-273 Yosemite Circle Westbrook Manor 21 2.6 8.1 Apartments; rental 6200 Golden Valley Rd. (No Name) 6 1.5 4.0 Townhouses; subsidized rental 2100-2122 Douglas Drive (No Name) 8 0.8 10.0 Currently used as a Residential 6739 Golden Valley Rd. Facility Overall 1908 164.4 11.6 King's Valley PUD 154 27.3 5.6 Large-scale duplex development; Mendelssohn Av. N. ownership basis Revised Overall 2062 191.7 10.8 Note: Metro Council research notes indicate that no duplex units were included in the calculation of multi -unit density; King's Valley has been added by the City because it is a fairly substantial duplex development, and it helps to bring the City's density calculations closer to what the Metro Council estimated. Two small-scale duplex PUD's have been left out. The Metro Council's calculation of Golden Valley's current proportion of rental units at 21 percent, and proportion of non -detached units at 28 percent, are assumed to be correct since those indicators are not measured as subjectively as density. The respective benchmark ranges are 33 to 36 percent and 37 to 41 percent. Any type of multi -unit development will help to improve the City's rating with regard to. non -detached housing, but the most efficient way to increase the proportion of rental units is to build apartments. Townhomes and duplexes are gaining popularity as suburban rental properties, but they 12 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 generally require more land assembly and raise more management concerns than rental apartments. Summary The tabular summary of findings, potential policy implications, and suggested action plan components applicable to this section begins on page 42. III. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF GOLDEN VALLEY'S HOUSING STOCK Neither the State Planning Act (MS 462.351 - 462.364) nor the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act (MS 473.851 - 473.871) specifies statistical analyses as required components of a city's housing plan. However, state law does require each Metro Area community to prepare its plan elements according to Metro Council guidelines and to submit all portions of its comprehensive plan to the Metro Council for review and comment. The Metro Council generally recommends that local housing plans contain a variety of statistical information, though updated guidelines for specific plan content have been in an incomplete "draft" state since November 1994 or earlier. Golden Valley is committed to cooperating with the Metro Council in its efforts to strengthen and coordinate local government planning in the Metro Area. On the other hand, the City finds after due consideration that most of the recommended analyses in the draft guidelines would be of minimal usefulness in view of Golden Valley's particular circumstances at this time. As a mature community, Golden Valley has only limited opportunity to significantly alter its housing profile in a cost-effective way, rendering some of the more detailed types of analysis superfluous. As a smaller community, Golden Valley's housing characteristics are impacted as much by the employment/shopping/services characteristics of nearby communities as by its own, and vice versa, making it unrealistic to consider the City as an independent unit when analyzing the linkages between those characteristics and housing. The detailed housing data base required in order to properly conduct some of the recommended analyses is out of Golden Valley's reach until the City's computer capabilities can be brought up to speed. In terms of recommended comparisons between Golden Valley and other communities, its regional sector, and the region as a whole, much of that analysis is already available through a variety of other sources. 13 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Some of Golden Valley's basic housing statistics are included in this section. Others, such as subsidized housing totals, housing densities, and land available for additional housing, have been incorporated into one or more other sections of this report, though not always in a statistical format. Metro Council requested data not covered in the report itself can be found in Appendix D. Types of Housing and Occupancy By far the largest proportion of Golden Valley's housing stock is in the form of traditional, detached homes. All other housing types combined account for only 27.6 percent of the total stock (Exhibit 4). The City has no manufactured home parks, though there are instances of manufactured or modular construction homes on scattered lots around the community. Townhouse developments are also relatively rare, representing only 6.1 percent of the total stock even when counted together with duplex units (most of which are in the form of double bungalows). One type of housing for which Golden Valley has no reliable count is the accessory apartment. Such mini -units are not strictly legal under the zoning code, so property owners are not likely to broadcast their existence, though they are known to have a presence in the community. 14 Exhibit 4: Type and Occupancy of Golden Valley's Housing Stock Occupied Total Units (%) Owned Rented Vacant Single Family Detached 6,177 (72.4) 5,929 163 85 Townhouse or side-by- side Duplex 524 ( 6.1) 346 161 17 Multi -Unit, 2-4 per bldg. 116 ( 1.4) 39 70 7 Multi -Unit, 5 or more per bldg. 1,673 (19.6) 343 1,181 149 Misc. Other 42 ( 0.5) 22 19 1 8,532 6,679 1,594 259 Percent of Total -- 78.3 18.7 3.0 Source: 1990 U.S. Census of Housing 14 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 The proportion of rental stock in Golden Valley is also quite low. Ownership accounts for over three-quarters of all occupied housing. It also represents one-third or more of each type of housing except for large apartment buildings. Two of Golden Valley's senior citizen high-rises are the source of most owned apartments, with the Laurel Hills Condominium making up the rest. Less than 5 percent of the City's traditional single-family homes are rented out. Golden Valley's overall housing vacancy rate is so low as to be considered a problem by some housing professionals. Various sources indicate that a rate between 5 and 10 percent is necessary to ensure adequate choice in housing selection. Once buyers or renters decide they want to live in a particular area, they need a wide enough range of available options to allow them to select a home that best fits their lifestyle. When too few homes are on the market at a given time, people may face the choice of settling for something that doesn't really suit them or having to expand their housing search outside of their preferred area. Rental or purchase costs also tend to be higher than for similar housing elsewhere due to the high demand for the few available units, which may contribute to an affordability problem for some prospective residents. Looking more closely at different types of housing within the City, only the apartment developments have a vacancy rate within the recommended range. None of the identified housing types has a rate that would be considered so high as to be unhealthy. This shows that all types of homes in Golden Valley remain very desirable despite the increasing age of the City's housing stock. Many communities would envy Golden Valley for having a low vacancy rate as a housing "problem". Enterprising developers and value -conscious homeowners sometimes capitalize on the situation by finding ways to fit new home sites into older areas having a predominance of oversized land parcels. This has been known to cause problems if nearby residents feel that the new development is a detriment to the fabric of the established neighborhood. Golden Valley is basically fully developed. Infill on oversized parcels or redevelopment of other types of uses are the only ways for the City to address the problem of high demand versus low supply. However, careful consideration is necessary in order to avoid the possibility of destroying the very characteristics that have made Golden Valley addresses so desirable. The City may want to consider conducting neighborhood "focus group" sessions with interested residents to determine exactly what neighborhood qualities are most important to them and/or what concerns they have about the future of their neighborhood. The results would help to formulate housing policies and objectives that support Golden Valley's goal of preserving and maintaining established neighborhoods. To decide where such focus groups might most productively be held, interest levels around the City could be 15 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 gauged by a simple survey tucked into utility billing envelopes or by working through Neighborhood Watch groups. Alternatively, the City could start by identifying neighborhoods likely to be the subject of infill development or redevelopment proposals, and send targeted mailings to those areas. Other Housing Statistics Housing cost, household composition/needs, and housing age/condition have also been considered for inclusion here, as have a variety of housing statistics for other governmental units. Readily available statistics raise more concern about data appropriateness and data collection methods than about the conditions they are supposed to measure. Before the City launches its own local data collection effort as an alternative to relying on available statistics, the time and cost involved will have to be carefully weighed against the benefits expected to be gained. Metro Council staff were given a draft of the Technical Background in January 1996 and asked to note any types of statistics that would likely be required in order to meet Metro Council guidelines for housing plan updates. While several suggestions were made, no specific requirements were indicated. Suggested materials had already been locally reviewed, and it was determined that none of them contributed any new insights into Golden Valley's housing options. Through its Livable Communities commitment, the City has already agreed to certain housing goals, based on identified benchmarks which in turn were established after various factors were analyzed within and between communities. With the Livable Communities goals as a given, Golden Valley now needs to concentrate on how to move ahead toward goal attainment rather than revisiting statistical work that has already been done. Depending on the housing policies and objectives ultimately adopted by the City Council, it is likely that additional analyses will be performed in the future for targeted areas and/or housing types. The age and condition of Golden Valley's housing can be expected to be a priority item for local data collection efforts. As a mature, inner ring suburb, the City's housing stock is aging. According to the 1990 U. S. Census, 40% of Golden Valley's housing units were over thirty years old. Residents are becoming concerned that lack of proper maintenance on some older homes will have a blighting influence on entire neighborhoods. A special City task force looked at this and other housing issues in 1990. The task force found no pending crisis in housing quality, but did express concern over the City's inability to properly analyze housing characteristics. Two of the eight the task force recommendations were to establish an address -based electronic data base for tracking and evaluating housing characteristics, and to 16 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 periodically revisit the question of whether the City should adopt a housing maintenance code. The electronic data base was seen by the task force as a crucial tool for analyzing maintenance trends and needs. Today, Golden Valley's in-house computer capability is far advanced over what it was in 1990, but the housing data base has yet to become a reality. Summary The tabular summary of findings, potential policy implications, and suggested action plan components applicable to this section begins on page 44. IV. ANALYSIS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING EFFORTS IN GOLDEN VALLEY Golden Valley has been involved in efforts to provide and maintain affordable housing since the early 1970's. These have included a variety of changes to City Code as well as assisting in the siting and financing of specific projects and programs. Some of the City's activities have been more successful than others. All have been impacted to varying extent by factors such as: • the degree to which the City was already developed before the issue of affordability came up; • the apparent desirability of otherwise modest housing because of Golden Valley's desirable location; • the scarcity of available land; • the high cost of removing older development or remediating difficult -to - develop site conditions; • the high cost of any new construction; and • the varying availability of outside financing necessary to counteract the other factors. When asking what Golden Valley can do today, it is important to first examine the scope of effort that has occurred to date. In the following pages, the City Code discussion will take a somewhat different direction than the projects and programs discussion. For code provisions, fairly specific regional recommendations have been established to help cities maintain codes that promote the state's affordable housing agenda. It is a relatively straightforward process, then, to evaluate what Golden Valley has already accomplished and to see what steps remain to be taken. 17 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 How to implement projects and programs has never been clearly defined. Even in the days when Metro Area communities had specific fair share housing quotas to meet, they were basically on their own in terms of how the quotas were filled. The projects and programs discussion will therefore concentrate on identifying what seems to have worked best for Golden Valley in the past, and how it might be used to facilitate consideration of new proposals in the future. City Code Provisions Golden Valley adopted its first zoning code in 1938, but had no exclusively residential category until almost two decades later. Initially, the code segregated only those uses felt to be most disruptive (i.e. retail and industrial operations), with everything else grouped together in a common category encompassing most of the community. Over the years, more types of use were segregated out, and in 1955 a residential zoning district was established. It allowed both single family and two-family homes, with varying restrictions on the latter, until a separate two-family district was established in 1982. All types of homes, including apartments, were also allowed in the common use district until 1958, when apartments were segregated into their own district. The history of land division in Golden Valley is less clear. The first complete subdivision code apparently was not adopted until some time in the 1940's. As early as 1924, however, there was a minimum required lot width for residential uses (sixty feet) and a minimum street right-of-way width (also sixty feet). Older plats created lots and/or streets as narrow as forty feet wide. Minimum residential lot width went up to 100 feet in the 1950's and stayed there until it was reduced to eighty feet (100 feet for two-family) in 1981. As part of the 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act, state legislators directed the Metro Council to establish a committee that would investigate and make if recommendations for ensuring an adequate supply of modest cost private housing." Recommendations were to cover lot size/development density, floor area, and garage/parking requirements for both single family and multifamily zoning districts. The first, and still among the most specific, recommendations were released to local governments in 1977 in two joint publications by the Metro Council and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. Other reports have followed over the years, with expanded recommendations to encourage consideration of the affordability impact of any code provisions relating to aesthetic and environmental concerns or to the development approval process itself. Some of the most recent recommendations can be found in the Metro Council's 1995 publication, "Opening the Doors to Affordable/Life Cycle Housing: Baseline Data." They are less specific and more broad ranging than the earliest recommendations, but not greatly different from what has already been said over the years. W. Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 In general, it appears that Golden Valley's development codes today meet or exceed most Metro Council recommendations for promoting affordable housing. Some types of code provisions for which the Metro Council recommends modifications, such as tree preservation and other construction regulations, are not even used in Golden Valley except as required by state or federal laws. Golden Valley also does not have as many costly and time consuming development review boards as other suburban communities. Some of the Metro Council's affordability options, such as cluster housing, are available under the general umbrella of planned unit development zoning and thus are not specifically addressed elsewhere in City code. The City's basic code -related affordability efforts are detailed in the following paragraphs. Housing Density, Single Family and Two -Family - Changes in applicable City regulations over the years have resulted in equal variation of existing residential densities. Golden Valley's main residential construction boom extended from the mid -1940's to the mid -1970's, when residential lot size requirements were at their maximum. For most of that time, owners of two or more adjacent, older lots that did not individually meet code requirements were alternatively required to consider those lots "merged in title" to whatever extent necessary to bring them up to acceptable size. Still, many older lots were not owned in series, and owners of many of the merged lots made sure that their homes were built far enough to one side to allow a second house in the future if regulations should ever relax. Part of the reason for downsizing residential lots in 1981 was a response to Metro Council guidelines for promoting affordable single family housing. The Metro Council advocates minimum lot sizes of 6,000 to 8,000 square feet in area. Golden Valley's 1981 changes did not fully meet that range, reducing single family lots from a previous minimum of 12,500 square feet to the current 10,000 square feet, and reducing two-family lots from 18,750 to 12,500 square feet. Still, the code changes represented a twenty percent reduction for single family lots and a thirty-three percent reduction for doubles. At the same time, the old "merger of title" provision was taken out of the code, making the City's stock of older, smaller lots potentially available for more intensive infill development. Many of those lots do meet the Metro Council guidelines (Appendix B), and City Code specifies that they are all legally buildable, even though they could not legally be created today. In addition, Golden Valley's minimum lot size for two-family use is well within the range advocated by the Metro Council if considered on a per-unit basis. Each half of a duplex structure would be allocated 6,250 square feet of lot area on a minimum -sized lot. The City created a process known as "minor subdivision for double bungalow" in 1987 for the express purpose of providing an individual home ownership option for residents of duplex units. 19 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Housing Density, Multiple Family - Under standard zoning in Golden Valley, the highest density attainable for multi -unit developments would be 24 units per acre, which would require a structure of six to eight stories in height. In actuality, no multi -unit development of such a height has ever been approved in the City through standard zoning. To date, no area has ever been rezoned for a density greater than 20 units per acre and four stories in height. On the other hand, since 1970 Golden Valley has offered an alternative zoning process known as "planned unit development" (PUD). The need for affordable housing was an important consideration in establishing this process. The City's 1973 housing plan noted that "the PUD's higher densities reduce land and development costs per unit, which may in turn lower prices and rents," and "the PUD can provide housing for families of a wide range of incomes and thus help create a less stratified population." Most of Golden Valley's subsidized housing units today are in PUD's, with densities of up to 54 units per acre. The Metro Council advocates a multi -family density of twenty units per acre for a three story building "in areas suitable for such housing", with higher densities "where the level of service is adequate." Garages - Prior to 1965, Golden Valley's zoning code was silent on the matter of garages. Many of the City's older homes, both single family and duplex, were built without garages; it is known that there are homes without garages even today, but no exact inventory has been taken. In 1965, the City's zoning code was amended to specify that for single family uses no garage need be built as long as a site survey identifies adequate space for eventual garage construction in accordance with setback requirements. For two-family uses, one garage stall was required to be built per unit. Those requirements remain in City Code today, more or less in conformance with Metro Council guidelines. Contrary to Metro Council recommendation, garage stalls are required for multi -unit properties under standard zoning. The requirement is one stall per unit plus one-half stall for each bedroom in a unit after the first one. This results in a maximum of two garage stalls for a three bedroom apartment, which is in line with the Metro Council's surface parking recommendation; however, Golden Valley also requires an outside parking space for each unit along with the garage stalls, again putting the City over the advocated limit. As with the issue of density, the PUD process offers a mechanism for reducing or eliminating the garage requirement in multi -unit developments. Floor Areas - In keeping with Metro Council guidelines, Golden Valley eliminated all minimum floor area requirements from City Code in 1981. This includes requirements for multi -unit developments. The requirements had been in place for about 25 years before they were eliminated, but many of Golden Valley's older homes are quite tiny. As with the garage issue, no exact inventory of smaller homes has been made, but examples can be found in several parts of the City. 20 Resolution 98-60 - Continued Projects and Programs July 7, 1998 Eliminating code provisions that generate unnecessary costs, and adding code provisions that allow higher density or design flexibility, help make a community more housing -friendly to a broader range of people. Ensuring construction of affordable housing, however, usually requires a greater commitment in terms of public financing and political support by local government. Even when affordability is not an issue, higher density and nontraditional home designs may run into opposition within a community. Reasonable code provisions can set the stage for variety and affordability in housing, but it invariably takes public approvals in the form of comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, and/or PUD designations to actually accomplish anything. Golden Valley has participated in a variety of affordable housing projects and programs over the years, with varying degrees of success. Summaries of past affordable housing efforts are provided in Appendix C. As used in this discussion, a "project" is a specific physical development at a targeted location, while a "program" is a funding source or cost -reduction process that is available for use anywhere in the City as long as the application criteria are met. The division becomes somewhat blurred in that all of Golden Valley's projects have also involved state or federal funding programs, but the location -specific use of the money puts a greater emphasis on the project aspect than on general program considerations. For the most part, Golden Valley has very little control over the long term viability of currently available housing programs. The City can try to apply for state or federal funding whenever feasible, but cannot guarantee such money from year to year. The City potentially has better control over housing projects as long as the funding has been locked in. It has also been the housing projects rather than programs that have caught the public eye and caused the greatest controversy over time. Projects will thus form the primary focus for this discussion. While the analysis has included only affordable housing projects, most of the observations and recommendations that follow would be equally pertinent to any housing development that involves increased density and nontraditional home designs. There are some common threads that run through Golden Valley's past experiences. For example, every single townhouse or apartment project that was studied ran into some level of neighborhood concern if there were any single family homes located within the City's five -hundred -foot public notification area. The types of problems feared by the neighbors have been similar in each case: property devaluation, environmental degradation, overloaded infrastructure, increased crime, and unattractive appearance. No formal follow- up study of the City's existing affordable housing projects has ever been 21 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 undertaken, but anecdotal evidence suggests that such concerns have been largely unfounded. The City may want to consider commissioning an impact study of existing projects in order to better evaluate potential neighborhood concerns on future proposals. The study should be conducted by an experienced housing consultant rather than by staff, for purposes of credibility as well as expertise. Other common threads are that projects always seem to require more time and/or more money for completion than anyone expected at the outset. Problems with timing arise because of conflicts over appropriate site location or development design, the red tape involved in any application for federal funding, and the difficulty of coordinating between multiple funding sources with different requirements and procedures. The chicken versus egg dilemma also comes in: the developer needs to know that financing is available before committing too much time and money to site selection and design, and cities don't like to commit to projects that may not be funded, but funding agencies need some project specifics in order to commit to the financing. Delayed development approvals risk loss of financing, and delays in either financing or development approvals risk increased costs or loss of a site that may be under limited purchase option. Other money problems come up because of the high cost of land in Golden Valley, poor soils or other difficult site conditions, high construction costs, and the call for improved site design details in order to make a project more compatible with its surroundings. In other words, the development of such housing projects is not a game for the inexperienced. To increase the likelihood of ending up with a successful project, Golden Valley over the years has tried to screen unknown developers for experience and personal financial backing. There are also other strategies that the City has tried at various times in the past, and might now want to consider for inclusion in a coordinated effort to promote affordable housing and to meet Livable Communities goals. These strategies may be loosely grouped into the categories of establishing an organized approach, soliciting broad- based agency support, and providing for augmented community involvement. Organized Approach - The first step in getting organized is to agree on what outcome is desired, and why. Under the old fair share housing quota system, Golden Valley always knew exactly what was expected and what would happen if the City failed to perform to those expectations. Having a concrete objective in mind facilitated creative thinking on how to maximize the potential of a given proposal while still protecting the interests of the many different stakeholders involved. Once that goal orientation collapsed in the mid -1980's due to inadequate public funding for proper implementation, there was less motivation for the City to continue negotiating over any proposal that met early opposition. 22 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Currently there is no quota system for providing low and moderate income housing, but state law still places certain obligations on local governments. The Livable Communities program is not mandatory, but once Golden Valley signed on, a goal -oriented commitment was made. Consequences of failing to perform are as yet unclear. Nevertheless, the City has taken on the responsibility of making its best effort to move toward established goals in each of the Livable Communities benchmark areas. It makes sense to focus future housing efforts on attaining those goals, which are somewhat more specific than the overall goals of the housing plan. At minimum, the City should adopt a policy of including a Livable Communities impact analysis in any development -related approval process involving housing; a positive impact should weigh in the developer's favor when negotiating approval of the development. Identifying suitable sites is another important component of an organized approach. The City's 1973 comprehensive plan established policies, such as using PUD's to achieve higher residential densities, and requiring all residential PUD's to include some units at modest cost or subsidized rates for low and moderate income households. To back those policies, the plan map identified several areas considered suitable for PUD's. The plan also specified that senior citizen housing should be built somewhere in Valley Square; a list of the qualities causing the City to single out that area was included, setting a pattern for the acceptability of other senior housing proposals as well. For the scattered site housing project, the City again used a master list of qualifying criteria to evaluate all potential locations. Each of these is a good example of how to establish a firm basis for appropriate site selection. Today there is considerably more legal and political importance attached to the comprehensive plan as the guiding force for land use decisions than there was in the 1970's. Unfortunately, the current plan map designates very few suitable locations for additional higher density residential development, nor does the housing element provide any policies or other guidelines for determining the suitability of non -designated sites as proposals come up. If Golden Valley is going to seriously pursue its Livable Communities commitments to higher density housing, more rental housing, more variety in housing types, and maintaining housing affordability, the City will have to identify appropriate locations for expanding the stock of nontraditional home designs. Amending the plan map itself to show more areas of higher density residential use would provide the clearest direction to prospective developers and the greatest sense of security to residents. That process would also allow for more thorough comparison of the qualities of potential sites since there would be no particular proposal generating pressure for an immediate decision. After the plan amendment is in place, it would reduce the number of separate approvals needed at the time of application as long as developers stick to the designated sites. 23 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Alternatively, putting the emphasis on established siting guidelines would allow greater flexibility to consider proposals on a case by case basis without requiring the up -front time and effort of a major plan map revision. The City could go with either method, or may wish to consider a combination of the two: first establishing a list of criteria, then targeting some of the most obvious areas for a plan map amendment, and adopting a policy that the list of criteria would continue to serve as the basis for considering additional sites which may be proposed later. In the same vein, a third component of an organized approach would be to have a set of guidelines for acceptable site design, especially if the City wants to specifically seek or avoid certain development situations. This is an area where Golden Valley has not performed very well over time. The comprehensive plan generally provided that senior housing would be acceptable in a taller than standard building and with lower than standard parking ratios, but the Calvary proposal ran into opposition for being too tall and having too little parking. There was a policy requiring that some portion of all PUD's be affordable, but the Council decided that the original Medley Park proposal went too far when it was submitted with all subsidized units. More recently, the Schatzlein proposal for the Ewald site was turned down partly because the density was too high, although the same number of units had been approved several years earlier. Guidelines that are too rigid or narrow in scope would hinder future residential development rather than promote it. On the other hand, a list of reasonable preferences would help to direct the expectations of prospective developers into appropriate channels. The City may want to contemplate its various Livable Communities goals and consider whether it wants to prioritize types of development or put any limitations on certain types. For example, high rise apartment -style development is the most practical way to advance simultaneously toward all Livable Communities goals and the only way to make a significant impact on density, but buildings over three stories in height have always been a sensitive issue in Golden Valley. The City may want to adopt guidelines covering such points as how tall is too tall, should there be a minimum appropriate site size or maximum number of units for such developments, are there segments of the population for which high rise developments are particularly appropriate or inappropriate, and are there particular buffering or structural treatments that would be preferred in order to lessen the impact of such developments on their surroundings. Broad -Based Support - When it comes to approving new development projects, the buck always stops at the City Council. However, maintaining a broad base of support has been shown to make the approval process less divisive. There are a number of organized groups, inside and outside of City Hall, in a position to impact that process. 24 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Inside of City Hall, the list over the years has included the Planning Commission, the Human Rights Commission, and the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Two other groups, the Housing and Community Development Commission and the Environmental Commission, no longer exist. In recent times, there has been a quasi -inside group in the form of local Neighborhood Watch associations. While they do not constitute a standing board or commission established by authority of the City Council, Neighborhood Watch groups do receive ongoing information, guidance, and assistance from the City's Public Safety Department. The Planning Commission, because of its duties as advisor to the Council with regard to the comprehensive plan, land use regulations, and a variety of development proposals, continues to play the largest supporting role in Golden Valley's housing efforts. For the most part, the Council and the Commission appear to have worked well together over time. There have been instances, however, where the two bodies experienced some friction. The most notable disagreement occurred during consideration of the Calvary senior housing proposal. The Commission, with some justification, felt that its role had been inappropriately bypassed by the Council during the Valley Square planning that set the stage for the Calvary project. Despite earlier comprehensive plan endorsement of a taller building and reduced parking, the Commission in its turn opposed the project on precisely those points, also citing several other poorly documented concerns. The Human Rights Commission was very involved in Golden Valley's early housing efforts. Duties included collecting and disseminating affordable housing information, educating the public as well as elected and appointed officials, making policy suggestions, and evaluating various tools available for adding to the City's stock of affordable housing. Later on, the Commission served in more of a follow-up capacity, concentrating on already approved projects. Duties in that regard have included ensuring that management plans reflect nondiscriminatory policies and practices, undertaking annual surveys of tenant satisfaction to guard against intentional or unintentional victimization by management, and responding to individual discrimination complaints. Most of the City's affordable housing developments have been in the form of PUD's, which would ordinarily remove the BZA from the approval process. When the BZA has been involved, its role has been a difficult one. With the Calvary PUD proposal, the BZA found itself caught between the Council and the Planning Commission after being called upon to settle the parking issue. The scattered site project was proposed under Multiple Dwelling zoning regulations, putting it within the BZA's normal realm of operation. Variances were required for a reduction in the number of enclosed parking spaces and to allow more than one structure on one of the selected sites. While considering these relatively simple requests, the BZA caught the brunt of the neighbors' displeasure at the entirely legal but last minute addition of two more dwelling 25 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 units to the site. The BZA routinely sees matters which do not figure into the type of projects studied for this discussion but may have an impact in the area of modest cost housing; most of those situations are resolved without review by the Planning Commission or the Council. All three bodies need to be aware of current housing goals, policies, and objectives, as well as any other guidelines that may be established. The City Council may want to re-evaluate the particular role of each and ensure that all roles are adequately outlined in the City Code charge for each group and/or in other formally adopted policy statements. Each body may also need to review its assigned housing role and make recommendations on the adequacy of the tools available for meeting its charge. Such tools may include City Code provisions or provisions of state law, formally adopted housing policies, and outside resources that may provide educational materials or other assistance. Finally, the Council may want to establish a policy of meeting regularly or as needed with each separate body or in a joint summit to discuss overall progress toward housing plan goals and to evaluate recent successes or failures. Golden Valley did not really get into the Neighborhood Watch program until the early 1980's. By that time, a combination of factors was bringing an end to the City's big-time affordable housing efforts. The Ewald/Schatzlein proposal was the first to come under consideration with a local Neighborhood Watch group in place. One of the reasons for the failure of the Schatzlein proposal was that members of the Neighborhood Watch group pointed out that it ran counter to sound crime prevention strategies promoted by the Public Safety Department for stabilizing neighborhoods. A single case does not establish a pattern, nor should it be taken as a comment against either the City's affordable housing or crime prevention efforts. It does raise an important issue, though: without careful planning and effective coordination, affordable/life-cycle housing goals may appear to be at odds with neighborhood crime prevention goals. There is ample documentation that crime rates correlate to varying degrees with factors such as higher density housing, lower income housing, and rental housing. As communities across the country come to grips with this perceived goal conflict, there is a growing body of strategies for dealing with it successfully. The Golden Valley Public Safety Department has already established a program for working with managers and tenants of the City's apartment developments. Other communities are sure to have additional programs that could be adapted for Golden Valley's needs. There are also design factors that can be used to promote a safer environment. Now may be the perfect time to engage the City's crime prevention experts and Neighborhood Watch groups in the process of establishing guidelines for affordable and life -cycle housing proposals, before Golden Valley finds itself facing more situations where its housing efforts might be seen as putting existing neighborhoods at risk. 26 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 The Public Safety Department should be made aware of the City's Livable Communities commitment as well as its less specific obligation to promote housing affordable to low and moderate income households. Crime prevention staff should then be given a reasonable period of time and financial resources to study local housing needs and propose appropriate strategies for protecting neighborhood stability while accommodating more nontraditional housing alternatives. This might be done in connection with a citizen committee composed of volunteers from Neighborhood Watch groups around the City. Neighborhood Watch members are uniquely qualified to participate in such a study. They already have a higher than normal awareness of public safety issues, their Neighborhood Watch involvement shows a commitment to their neighborhood and to actively promoting neighborhood safety, they have easy access to a much larger pool of potential idea contributors in their individual Watch groups, and they are familiar with the types and levels of community response that are likely to be most acceptable. There are other organized groups outside of City Hall that may also have an impact on housing proposals. Golden Valley, like the rest of the country, is subject to increasing globalization. Churches, schools, civic groups, and fraternal organizations now span many communities under a common umbrella rather than having a purely local orientation. Still, the City has had success in the past with support from such organizations. Way back in 1972, the Golden Valley League of Women Voters came out strongly in favor of inclusionary housing in general and the Dover Hill proposal in particular. The church - sponsored Calvary senior housing project was supported by the entire multi- community congregation, but special effort was made to mobilize church members who could claim Golden Valley residency. More recently, Calvary Church sponsored one of the Habitat for Humanity homes. The corporate organization of General Mills sponsored another Habitat home. The City may want to spend some time meeting with a variety of organizations like those noted above. Educating members and encouraging them to maintain an awareness of Golden Valley's housing goals, objectives, and policies would be one aim. Exploring the potential for group support of specific housing efforts would be another, though each group should have the freedom to determine the nature and extent of support most suitable for its membership. The Human Rights Commission may be an appropriate body to coordinate this effort. Community Involvement - Reaching citizens through their membership in organized groups is one way to promote community involvement, but it is not always enough. Golden Valley has experienced several instances where a housing proposal became the catalyst for ad hoc neighborhood organizing efforts - often in opposition to the proposed project. Evidence shows that community opposition can be reduced if the City actively enlists the public's involvement in ways that go beyond required public hearings. 27 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 The City has used a variety of community involvement strategies over the years. For the scattered site project, residents of all potentially affected neighborhoods were given full information and an opportunity to air comments and concerns prior to final site selection; later on, neighbors of the selected sites were able to review and comment on actual site design. After the first Medley Park proposal was rejected by the City, the developer met with neighborhood residents to hear their concerns and suggestions before bringing the amended proposal back for formal consideration. When the HRA first acquired the Ewald property, neighbors provided input on appropriate site development and on the selection of a developer following issuance of a Request for Proposals. In the failed Duluth and Douglas proposal, the HRA settled the financial details and then instructed the developer to meet with the neighborhood before submitting a formal development application. After being bypassed when the Schatzlein proposal was submitted, the Ewald neighbors came out in force to oppose it and succeeded in convincing the Council to look for other alternatives; upon approval of the Habitat project, those same neighbors volunteered their time and labor to aid construction efforts as a symbol of the restoration of good faith between City and neighborhood. There are two points on which the City needs to exercise some caution while considering options for community involvement in housing efforts. The first relates to maintaining a proper sense of perspective about the role of public input in meeting Golden Valley's broader housing goals, objectives, and policies. Legally, there are planning and zoning obligations that must be fulfilled by the City Council, with the assistance of the Planning Commission; some decisions cannot be delegated to the public. In the scattered site case the neighbors opposed the last minute addition of two more housing units to one of the sites, but the increased density was in conformance with applicable zoning regulations so the Council supported it. The City also has a responsibility to ensure that unrealistic expectations do not make it impossible to advance toward established goals and objectives. In early Ewald efforts, the HRA selected the developer favored by the neighborhood despite staff concerns about ability to perform; the project eventually failed after a variety of attempts to salvage it. On several other occasions, the Council had to take a firm stand when neighbors lobbied for particular design changes that would have rendered a project unworkable. The issue of maintaining perspective can be addressed in part by making sure that Golden Valley's citizens have an ongoing awareness of the City's housing needs as well as its goals, objectives, and policies. Establishing some general ground rules to channel community involvement in constructive directions may also be helpful; a process known as alternative dispute resolution could offer some useful suggestions in this area. Finally, it may be beneficial to provide a more specific structure for community involvement on particular efforts; with the 99 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 scattered site project, for example, the City had already assembled a pool of potential sites based on an objective list of evaluation criteria, and had determined how many dwelling units were to be accommodated, before bringing the public into the decision-making process. The second point of concern is the state mandated sixty-day limit for many development -related approval processes. Past experience offers no help on this point, since the limit did not exist until last year. Although state law provides for extension of the time limit under certain conditions, state planning and legal experts advise against routinely relying on that provision. The sixty- day limit applies to all rezonings and PUD's, but in the latter case staff and the City Attorney have determined that Golden Valley's process comprises two applications with sixty days apiece rather than in total. The limit does not apply to applications for land subdivision or to comprehensive plan amendments. While the time limit sharply restricts opportunities for increased community involvement in the affected approval processes, it is meant to protect developers against financial difficulties caused by intentionally delayed approvals. As noted earlier, timely approval is particularly important when a project is dependent on government funding. The Metro Council, among its recommendations for ensuring an adequate supply of affordable housing, also cautions against putting too many costly or time consuming hurdles in the path of development -related approvals. The key to addressing this point is careful consideration of when and how community involvement could best be accommodated. One solution might be to concentrate on the general planning groundwork rather than on individual development proposals. As noted earlier, the City could choose to initiate an up -front, major plan map revision to expand the number of areas designated for higher density residential use. As long as there is no concurrent application for a specific project, the time allowed for the map amendment process is limited only by the immediacy of the City's need to have more options available for prospective developers. Neighborhood committees or city wide visioning groups could easily be brought into the process. If the City decides to establish various types of development guidelines as also discussed earlier in this section, those efforts might provide another avenue for community involvement. Alternatives that are more project -oriented may be explored as well. Where the City or HRA controls the land to be developed, the affected neighborhood could be involved in drafting the terms of a Request for Proposals. Projects that require City or HRA approval of some public financing mechanism may provide an opportunity to tie citizen input to the financing approval process. The City could also look at amending the PUD process to include evidence of neighborhood input as part of the required application materials for either the preliminary or the general plan stage; the sixty-day clock does not start until all application materials have been duly submitted. Basic rezonings that are not 29 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 accompanied by concurrent plan amendments or PUD applications are intended by law to be fairly straightforward, so it may not be possible to build an additional community involvement component into the rezoning process. The community involvement options suggested here are a sampling of what might be possible. Some would fall under greater time constraints than others. Some would result in city wide standards rather than site-specific recommendations. Others might be site-specific but not project -specific, or vice versa. There are a variety of pros and cons to evaluate with regard to any of them. The City would have to be careful not to delegate away its legal responsibilities or to allow overly extensive public scrutiny to obstruct timely decision-making. It appears clear, however, that augmented community involvement in Golden Valley's housing efforts can be successfully implemented if the City has an interest in doing so. Summary The tabular summary of findings, potential policy implications, and suggested action plan components applicable to this section begins on page 44. V. LAND AVAILABLE FOR HOUSING IN GOLDEN VALLEY Golden Valley is a substantially developed community, with little or no readily available opportunity to significantly expand its housing stock. Such land as remains vacant today usually possesses one or more characteristics that typically impede private sector residential development: • steep slopes or excessive wetness; • inadequate access to streets and/or utilities; • poor development soils or soil contamination; • existing structures that are deteriorating, nonconforming, and/or undersized for the property; • adjacency to highways, railroad lines, and/or undesirable neighboring uses; or • unreasonable return -on -investment expectations of owners. Despite undesirable characteristics such as these, the City's remaining undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels of residentially designated land are gradually being filled in. Because of the difficulties presented by the various characteristics, the City often becomes involved in development proposals. 30 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 City action is most likely to be in the form of considering applications for rezoning, variances, planned unit development (PUD) designation, replatting, and/or financial assistance. At this time, there are few policies in place to guide City decisions in a way that ensures fair and consistent treatment of proposals. Thus it makes sense to take a comprehensive look at the types of opportunities available for expanding Golden Valley's housing stock, and the related issues. The renewed emphasis being placed on affordable and life -cycle housing by both the Metro Council and the state legislature makes it particularly important to establish supportable criteria for siting such housing. An analysis undertaken by the Metro Council in conjunction with this year's Livable Communities legislation shows Golden Valley to be deficient in rental housing, nontraditional housing types, and high density housing, when compared with other fully developed suburbs in its geographic sector. Recent failed attempts to approve townhouses and duplexes show that residents of existing neighborhoods are very resistant to the idea of building anything other than the typical detached single family house. Unfortunately, there are few - if any - suitable locations for alternative housing that are not in or immediately adjacent to existing neighborhoods. Therefore, if Golden Valley is to make a commitment to increasing its supply of affordable or life -cycle housing, thoughtfully considered siting policies are essential; ad hoc decisions made solely on the basis of neighborhood opposition will not suffice. The first step to establishing a location policy is to review the location options. Infill Sites Vacant Lots, Single Family - People regularly call City Hall to inquire about the availability of vacant single family lots. Staff know there are vacant lots located around the City, but cannot at this time quantify how many, or where, or how developable they are. Getting such lots marketed and sold has always been considered a function best suited to the private sector. Not only is it time- consuming to create and maintain a comprehensive inventory of available lots, but there is also a potential for trouble if the City somehow overlooks lots owned by a particular developer or gives out information on lots that are not really available. Most available residential lots in Golden Valley are being marketed in some way by their owners. The most frequent response staff get when trying to informally direct callers to known prospects is "those lots are too expensive." A second, and often related, response is "the developer won't sell just one lot." In such cases, the developer often wants to retain control over actual house construction as well as lot disposition, or may be hoping to get a cluster of lots replatted and rezoned for a more intensive use. 31 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 The Metro Council's Livable Communities analysis declares the City already deficient in rental, nontraditional, and higher density housing, so City assistance in marketing single family lots would not be advantageous for meeting Livable Community goals. Marketing targeted affordable lots might be one exception, since the Metro Council analysis puts Golden Valley barely within its ownership affordability benchmark range. Given the demand for vacant lots in Golden Valley versus their relative scarcity, it is unlikely that any but the smallest or most poorly situated lots would ever be candidates for affordable single family housing without a stiff government subsidy. It has already been noted that the City does not have a complete inventory of vacant single family lots, but there are some groups of lots (Exhibit 5) that have become well known for a variety of reasons illustrating the range of issues relating to Golden Valley's remaining housing opportunities. In the past year, the City approved two new subdivisions where vacant land is now on the market for a higher price than many households can afford to spend on house and land together: four lots at Glenwood Avenue/King Hill Road, and eight lots on Western Avenue next to Lions Park. There are scattered parcels on both sides of Winnetka Avenue north of Wesley Avenue, several of which have wet or peaty soils and some of which have been the subject of rezoning proposals for duplex or church use in recent years. There is a cluster of five affordably sized lots, plus remnants of three more, above 1-394 between Rhode Island and Sumter Avenues; those lots were the subject of a recent proposal to rezone for office use because of their highway frontage. Finally, there is the old pistol range owned by the County Sheriffs department. The land is residentially zoned despite its use, and the affordably sized lots remain on the books though all streets and alleys serving them have been vacated. The pistol range was supposed to be relocated a few years ago, and staff were looking forward to having the land once again available for housing, but the relocation fell through and the County appears to have no interest in vacating the site any time soon. Vacant Lots, Two Family - There are no vacant lots currently zoned for duplex use in Golden Valley. The majority of the City's existing duplexes also are not appropriately zoned, due to the fact that the R-2 zoning district is only thirteen years old and most of the homes were built before that time. Many single family lots possess the necessary width and area for duplex use, and are similarly situated to existing duplex properties. The comprehensive plan makes no distinction between single family homes and scattered two-family homes. Unfortunately, in the absence of any current policy for the siting of new two- family lots, it is impossible to evaluate the suitability of duplex rezoning applications with any consistency. Since each half of a duplex lot meets Metro Council standards for affordable sizing, developing a siting policy for such lots could become particularly important. 32 n + m m n m a ro m m n Resolutions -60 - Continued Jul 7, 1998 SI'10dtl3NNIN !0 AlI3 a N d ✓f 3Itlasruee06 C .O A1I3 a CDP p a V O 0 0 o s Q wry 4 1- w z H U v LD ,U o H O � W Li W w W a V W o � o U) U m H FF--"�M--YY 0 X WT 71 RLrM3NAId ja AM < 33 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Vacant Lots. Multi -Unit - There is exactly one vacant lot in Golden Valley that is zoned for apartment use. It lies on the east side of Douglas Drive just north of Bassett Creek. When rezoned in 1987, it required creek setback variances to make it economically developable. For unknown reasons the project did not go forward at that time, and now the various floodplain and wetland regulations that apply to it have become more stringent. Given the poor soils and low elevation of the property, its present suitability for apartment development is uncertain. The comprehensive plan does identify additional medium or high density housing development sites (Exhibit 6): • at Duluth Street and Douglas Drive (2.1 acres); • around the existing Laurel Estates Apartments (7.1 acres); • just north of the Jehovah's Witness Church on Douglas Drive (3.7 acres); • at Glenwood Avenue and the railroad tracks (1.5 acres); • at Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive (2.4 acres); and • at Golden Valley Road and the railroad tracks (0.9 acres). None of the identified properties is vacant at this time; three involve business uses, which are usually more costly to buy out than homes. Several have size or configuration limitations that will make it difficult to redevelop them efficiently. All would require rezoning prior to any redevelopment. Linked Lots - Due in part to Golden Valley's former "merger of title" requirement, many single family homes in the City's older platted areas are accompanied by extra lots. While they are below today's minimum size requirements for new lots and generally are not being marketed as vacant lots, the extras are legally buildable if the existing house sits entirely within the setback limits of one lot or if the existing house is removed. Staff have done a preliminary study of such lots, as discussed elsewhere (Appendix B). No complete inventory is available at this time. Because of their small size, these lots are a potential source of new affordable single family housing sites. The linked lot phenomenon does not exist for duplex or apartment properties. Oversized/Underused Parcels - Abutting Golden Valley's early road system are several areas with a proliferation of large, unplatted residential parcels. As with other categories of land potentially available for housing within the City, these parcels have not been completely inventoried. The main concentrations can be found along Douglas Drive, Glenwood Avenue, Golden Valley Road, Harold Avenue, Medicine Lake Road, and Highway 100. Generally between 100 and 150 feet wide and over 200 feet deep, the parcels cannot be individually subdivided into two lots of legal width even though they contain more than adequate square footage. Each parcel currently holds one home, with most over thirty years old and set well back from the street. The City has begun to see some pressure for redeveloping these parcels, usually for office or commercial use in order to take advantage of traffic levels on the abutting streets and to help recover the cost of removing the old houses. 34 ♦ O � _ O h Resolution -60 Continued July 7, 1998 SI-IDdV31m1 -C kM ' n r I rc 3lVQSHEEM ' c l A.U3 3� 0 r� t � 0i i _ H z �< W � w Q W Q Q jjj��JJJ /yH/� V U h'-1 H u S j X a W m HIMNAId x AM 35 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Because in most cases there are significant volumes of traffic, these are not among Golden Valley's most desirable residential locations. On the other hand, the City should seriously consider how many small office buildings it can adequately support, and how many adjacent neighborhoods will welcome strip commercial development. There are ways to buffer new residential uses against undesirable traffic impacts, which along many of the identified streets only occur at peak weekday travel times. The conversion of these parcels to nonresidential use may be in the best short term interest of a given developer but not necessarily in the best long term interest of the City as a whole. Other recent proposals have retained the residential use by carving just enough land out of an adjacent parcel to meet width requirements at the street. One relatively standard new lot is then created at the front of the parcel. The remainder, usually somewhat "U shaped, becomes a second lot of two to three times the size and twice the depth of the first. This does increase the use of the original parcel, but still does not take full advantage of the available area. There has not been any discussion about how the odd shape of the larger lot affects the calculation of required setbacks; the BZA may be resolving that issue in years to come if such subdivisions become more popular. There has also been no analysis of the long term impact on the adjacent parcel; by giving up ten feet of land or so along one side, the property owner has reduced the potential for more efficient use of that parcel in the future. Timely and creative planning could offer several options for more efficiently redeveloping such parcels at a higher density while retaining their residential use. There are good reasons for not reviving the City's short-lived "back lot split" process, which allowed the creation of new lots at the back end of oversized parcels with minimal driveway access out to the street. However, the City could draw up some alternatives for new streets to open up the back half of a row of deep parcels, making it possible to legally divide them. Shorter cul-de- sac designs running into the middle of two or three adjacent parcels would also allow subdivision. The cooperation of all affected property owners would be required. The City might have to look into some form of "temporary variance", allowing the older homes to remain in place for a time after new rights-of-way or lot lines are approved. Alternatively, it might be possible to find a developer or nonprofit agency able to act as interim "banker", holding some parcels in reserve until others needed to complete a subdivision come on the market. In exploring new street options, it would be important to consider an entire cluster of adjacent parcels, so that early subdivision of land in the middle of a group would not arbitrarily limit the potential for additional subdivisions to either side. Constructing the new street might increase the developer's front-end cost and definitely increases the complexity of the subdivision and development process, so some property owners will resist this type of venture. If the City 36 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 decides, however, that such subdivisions are in Golden Valley's best interest, it could ensure against the type of lots now being created by amending City Code to add limitations on lot depth and/or to require that all newly created lots meet certain configuration requirements. Some parcels, individually or in groups, could also be redeveloped as PUD's, allowing a certain degree of freedom from the traditional single family lot requirements. This could mean clustered single family homes on a shared private driveway, or duplex, townhouse, or apartment style units, depending on parcel size and location. Straight rezoning for apartment use is also a possibility. With any of these options, establishing a policy framework for determining which parcels might be appropriate for what type of redevelop- ment is a must. Early amendment of the comprehensive plan map to designate the most obvious candidates for higher density residential redevelopment would be even better. Establishing design criteria for preferred PUD or apartment rezoning proposals might also be desirable. There is one unplatted, residentially zoned area in Golden Valley that deserves separate mention. It is an approximately twelve acre estate lying on the west shore of Sweeney Lake. While it is not actively on the market, staff occasionally receive speculative inquiries about it. They tend toward some sort of "executive enclave" with few or no public streets and possibly higher density development than would be allowed under normal zoning provisions. There are no oversized, underused parcels zoned for two-family use. There are some apartment zoned parcels that fit this category, but for the most part the vacant portions of those sites are encumbered by conditions that make them all but unusable. The Valley Village Apartments, for example, only occupy about half of the property involved, but the remainder is very wet and low; a proposal to turn the entire site into a PUD and add townhouses in the low-lying area was approved several years ago, but turned out to be economically unfeasible. The City might want to consider undertaking a comprehensive study of currently underused apartment sites, but at present it appears unlikely that any opportunities for additional development will be found other than those involving substantial wetland alteration or teardown of existing buildings. Miscellaneous Plan Amendment Options The preceding discussion addressed areas in Golden Valley that are already zoned and/or designated on the comprehensive plan for residential development. The following paragraphs will present some ideas for other areas that are not so zoned or designated but that might be more suited for some type of residential use than for their current zoning or plan designation. 37 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Problem Uses - There are some locations around Golden Valley where isolated nonresidential uses can be found in predominantly residential areas. The properties are correctly zoned for the use involved, but do not fit into the character of the neighborhood, thus resulting in conflicts. Most or all of the properties have non -conforming setbacks and/or inadequate parking, and many are over thirty years old. The City's current comprehensive plan map generally supports a continuation of the existing use on such properties rather than conversion to some level of residential use. Because they are not zoned for residential use, these properties have higher per -square -foot land values than surrounding residential lots. Existing buildings add to the value. Buying them up, demolishing the buildings, and making the land available for residential redevelopment will never be an option that pays for itself in a strictly financial sense. On the other hand, there may be a payoff in neighborhood good will, improved community appearance, and elimination of ongoing administrative headaches. At minimum, the comprehensive plan map could be amended to indicate future redevelopment for residential use where the City deems it appropriate. The City might also want to look into options for establishing a long-term fund to buy up such properties, as well as a policy for determining when and why a particular property would become eligible. Oversized Lots/Parcels - There are a handful of non residentially zoned and used properties around Golden Valley that include significant undeveloped areas. In some cases, as with the former Golden Valley Health Center site, there have already been inquiries about converting some of the land for residential uses. It may be beneficial to undertake a comprehensive study identifying any such sites that might be acceptable for partial redevelopment, and/or establishing a set of criteria by which proposals regarding such sites can be objectively evaluated. Potential Loss of Existing Multi -Unit Housing Analysis thus far has focused on how the City might expand its housing base. Due to Livable Community obligations, multi -unit rental properties at relatively high densities are at a premium. The discussion should not be closed, then, without looking at areas where the current comprehensive plan map advocates redevelopment of existing apartment or townhouse units for other uses. Golden Valley's multi -unit developments are all correctly zoned, either through standard Multiple Dwelling provisions or through a PUD designation overlaid on the Single Family zoning district. A comparison of the zoning map with the comprehensive plan map turns up seven multi -unit developments around Golden Valley (Exhibit 7) that are not designated for medium or high density residential use on the comprehensive plan map. On closer examination, this is not as serious as it may initially appear. : HlrVHA'ld do km 39 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Four of the developments are in officially designated redevelopment areas: Calvary Center apartments/cooperative, Mallard Creek apartments, and Skyline townhomes in the Valley Square area; and Mayfair apartments in Golden Hills. Those areas are simply indicated on the comprehensive plan map as "study areas", thus deferring to separately adopted redevelopment plans. The system is workable, but an update of the comprehensive plan map should probably incorporate the recommendations of the redevelopment plans or at least more clearly specify the appropriate alternative document to consult. Calvary and Mallard Creek were themselves redevelopment projects, and are in full conformity with the Valley Square redevelopment plan. The Skyline townhomes are in a part of Valley Square where no redevelopment activity is contemplated, so it may be assumed that they too are in conformity with the plan. The Mayfair apartments are not in conformity with the redevelopment plan for Golden Hills, which targets their site for future expansion of the Golden Hills shopping center. The site lacks adequate access, is too long and narrow for efficient use on its own and is squeezed between single family homes on one side and retail land on the other; the buildings themselves are not in prime structural condition. Two other multi -unit development sites are designated on the comprehensive plan map for low density residential use. "Low density" is broadly defined in the plan as four or fewer units per acre, but that oversimplifies the situation somewhat. Golden Valley has many neighborhoods where small numbers of duplexes are intermingled with single family homes, as well as some older neighborhoods where the single family lots are at a higher density than four units per acre; therefore, the interpretation of the low density residential designation has been that it does not distinguish between single family lots of any size and scattered clusters of duplex lots. The two developments in question, Midtown PUD (ten duplex units) and Lakeview Heights PUD (eight duplex units), may be borderline in terms of being considered "small numbers of duplexes" but are generally consistent with how the low density residential use designation has been interpreted. It may be a good idea to revisit the "low density" concept and attempt to more clearly delineate what it encompasses. Strict adherence to a.four-lots-per-acre rule could jeopardize the long-term viability of all of Golden Valley's small lot neighborhoods and many of its scattered duplex units. Finally, the seventh development is Brookview condominiums on Hwy. 55. These are older buildings, originally constructed as rental units but later converted to an ownership basis. The site is designated for future office use. General Mills owns a great deal of the surrounding land, which is still vacant. When the area was evaluated for the 1982 comprehensive plan, it was felt that future office development by General Mills would overwhelm the condos and the small single family neighborhood to the east. Much of the vacant land is wet and low, however, and environmental regulations have become far more 40 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 strict in recent years. A re-evaluation of the area might result in the conclusion that the condominium development and/or the adjacent neighborhood could co- exist quite well with the level of office development that the surrounding area could realistically support. In summary, there are two existing multi -unit developments in Golden Valley that are identified for future conversion to nonresidential uses. The Mayfair apartments consist of 24 rental units. Their loss would have a slight negative impact on such Livable Community measures as non -detached housing supply, rental housing supply, and affordable rents; the loss would marginally improve average multi -unit density because the site has not been efficiently developed. The Brookview condos include 71 ownership units. Their loss would affect owner affordability as well as the supply of non -detached units; wet and low soils prevented full development of the site, so again the impact on average multi -unit density would be positive rather than negative. The City may want to reevaluate the comprehensive plan map designation of one or both sites in view of Livable Communities obligations. Summary The tabular summary of findings, potential policy implications, and suggested action plan components applicable to this section begins on page 48. 41 Resolution 98-60 - Continued N Z LL LU a Q cn N L Q O 0 a7 _ .N 7 O 2 V d C. 0 _ O E E 0 v c 0 �a M Q W H cn W co N H Z W Z a O Z J CL Z O Q ° o1 ✓ �JN"'' L J uly 7,ac ss8 (na)n C n a)caao c a) o c a) ca m 0 c f . O a)O a c a) E >-0 -0 >, o a - :3 cn o 0) -E > c > Ea:3 0 C Lo c = a) �, ° o cn o CL 0 ° cn ° m ca m U Q ° .D — � ° o° >_ 2)a) o o 0) 0 3 C o C c •� O J — N > Q C O (a a) U ,_ a) to Q) C — +� 0 CL Q) 5 a) ca O a -0 in O O C—Q TC a) �>,oO O aLaOOF, �cap �>o �o acaaa� Q ° x E - o°�° Oo no ao E c cn N m° Q,, N cn a)C cin Y N N a >. > >, O L C L >, ca O >, L 3 >, N cn a) N C E ._ ca c N � fn C Ucu N:_ L U T c cu Q V E co U � cn C a) a)� L 0 O Q� L� O 0 cn cn a co Q N E -a o "" F— Q ,2 ca I-- 3 +. > O L E n o C E O a) 0 c O(n N N ca a) a) N fa (1) C O + O rn >, _ L 0 N �+.a)° cnEca a) cn cn a).4 c -E O E>, N C O E O L x o c UCU Y a) E cn ° cn o _ = a) c > (a = U C (a >_ O C N U NCC J O �/ L a) N a) u !L �= L O "- O p N O ° CD o cUI .N 42 Continued a) Q) c) L L ' X C +� C O O a) O a) cn c m a O C m CU "a rn O N O o O cu a) �0c0CU0 N rnN a) a) -0 t CL cn -r_U m L >' o o c � cmi E N a) m CMU O C �_ c •O a) `� O O C N-(- L >, O t E s • -c O_ -c C C cnL-cmEa)m nm,�E�E� cn O O a) O C>+.� 11)° :' C C 0, a) -a O O m O) m N a) U 4- a) -o U D O a) O N> C O .. m (n / L C O -p •- a �, cn a O cn cn O N U p 0 0 O C O ., O ,C i N .0 � c a) — cn �' a a) O m p ,, O O a) (n m _C O c -r-3 cn c U m Qm o U L a) °' O) �' :. U U .c C: -r- •� rn° L O -0 -0 o ° C .. o m 3 F- 4� a) I— m C� am) H am) Q ;: H -c E L 0 m a) O O 0 Q � L a) • 0 m c O E m m V r O � C E U U N a) ai O c U O c co cu .0 O 43 E m L .c o cn m o CD -c c m Y E CU p E U L •� I O cn — O O U "a c a) OE O .= 0 .2 cn m U C U >.•E a) •" U July 7, 1998 O O .Q C O C N C O Ca) 4- E cn �' O E 2 coco O U a" -0 C a) CO N 0 E m O L J m L cm CL CD .—D- O .0 p O m r -U) > (6 Q O L a) CE O= O s a) C m a) U O OL a) a) U N Q) ' O >a) >E� a) cn c m a a "a rn O N O o O cu a) cn o cc to a) > m O a) a) -0 O -r_U m L >' U) O-0 0 E a mU -c O a) p N O O C N-(- L >, O C — i cnL-cmEa)m nm,�E�E� Q co C>+.� 11)° U 4- 0, a) -a O O Q) m m a) C C ._ (n / L C O U mom• L cn C: aY m t �E _C. 0 0 a) cOE i N July 7, 1998 O O .Q C O C N C O Ca) 4- E cn �' O E 2 coco O U a" -0 C a) CO N 0 E m O L J m L cm CL CD .—D- O .0 p O m r -U) > (6 Q O L a) CE O= O s a) C m a) U O OL a) a) U N Resoluti W H co LU CD cn J t= - W a N H W O CL O Z J a Z O Q cn Z O E- J a v J a N Z ESZ LL -60 - Contoue a C ° a c ca ° vi 0 2 O m O O p 0 m 0 OL ` :3cv CL cB U O m m .9 ` to r p a) U ON Q C N cu E. , X O O C cn O O O O ca -a C _� m E o.- m c ° cn 0-0 " O a o o O O U U .2 O N O. .0 a) 0 = 1— in -0 3 42 o O C C7 °" cu N cu -� � f6 U O) >, cu S w `�- .. (B O ON >,.-C: a) . C E 2 c� 0 rn.0 > oCU > c J > — C o s,. ° o ° N E o N rn c c g 0.-L 4- U .�. C: y a .= w ca 3 z aEE -0 -c 0 :: -0 ° 0 cu 5: W 2 Ca -C E �"' N N F > O L p LU 0 Q -O O L fn t -p (D O In J n -C" O N N v-= m Nn-�,..�o Oc oCUcn Z=. a cn-6 O -cCoo -CM y N a c m o :3 mF > E a) V C(, u) �, �. ci�: a,O � U Q �N �_ L O C _� 75 0 O> O O °o E-�o > �aa)i ��.n`U c m w - 'O^ V � O L •° C U m 1 c a) 0 OZ o �a D .- o W Q Q ,. m = Z J y o- 0 o O w -a _� F- _� a� - m a> -:, c) - c U % mm O -c- B J c U a) Off'" °mo V a >(a� o O U C fl.. ` Q r. o .= aC76 QC ( oC7o=o C ccn -oc°a) _ Q ,�� o 0- M E vi � V C Y O fn O O O In O� O a) N N (n O N 0CM N a) ca CUMI) O O '� C M 0- C7 c m c C° c 3 o a•- m i _Z ,; m U rn �" Q X C +. >,-C O U 0 O O +. C U C _Z a%' ` (7 O E M cn a)O M c LL O • CUL 4;.s. Q (D Q % (E >, U >a) 0 f0 O O U cm ��° O C >, N L "O .9 O O U L cn 44 JUIy 7, 1998 cn c N "' O :DU O - C O c cnca O .N ca v .. Q N L cu cu O UO) C a> m •c'c O N O O O cn o >, m o -C CY) > c� >o ccu � N 'O O O O N o 0 a c CD cu O > E Resc !�}ation 98-60 - Cop4inued July 7, 1998 mc >. N o a coo C L C: p a) E a)L C M 3: O a) a) .. . C w y to L a) -o O O C O O a) o L O tT •O a) 0 O N (U " v U U a) N ++ L = +r O L U cn " M c 0 to Y cn E cn --o a) caCU 0 3 o U fn "� * ' O C_ O p i, -- CU p) to c -C a) L O) O Oma;' _N c ._ -0 0, , CO i U a) .. O •p O Q) C C to ca' . LM CD 0 CU O to O U to C> cn > 4- C C_ C_ C O -` >' c U O '2 O O— C_ U U c to . cm to 'O O C 4) (a -C "O 0 O C O a U C to 'o cu E Q) U U y, p C O to O X p a C U U) C a) c s= 3 is a) o Y-0 ca o O U= Co c o 0 0�» a) �a PI >,p 3 to vo o a to ami v cin cn E a) a c E -C _ _ _ _ > '_ cU cn N .. 0 to O a) to C_ to a) a) N, C O X a) to > c ca L O t ,, a) CU U��oca ��a)o� m� U�O.�� O 'c O O uNi a) O U .cn E� p Q -0 .� U O �' w U> ca U Y 0 .9 C_ U a) a) �� N N L� ";' a)Q) O CU >% 0) (i C -C a) c of r C w.+ •(n `> � E o _ a) ca (n c ui E' X - U w. "Q 0) "' C r" C tq N p W O O to U a) p a) U ca C C >, cr.j, CL O U to O C �«_- +-• .a) 0U U a) 0 0 O) E .o O 7 C O C_ E i.✓s >, CU Q tm Q N.0 O, C C_ to �«p- U +.CD C c C C_ c a) o O a) �= a) O U E 'C m 'y a) N '+. O C_ C 'U N +- C to E .0 — c 3 C C_ a) 0 C o } N to to a) r. -O w •� O t N Q L- C L c W a +- L V O E a) p to a) N ca N O CL a) >' — C-0 M N Q U m D :_. CU C:3 CL N 0 > (a -0 N a) O E '0 p ca O O ul E •> -0 E U O cn ca 0 E c N. � r C 0 0 0 ca ca L "p � 0 E O rn i U O O m .0 U a to C O;�, y 0 +-� C C O O C Nis CU � L. >, U" LO C_ aU C_ (� m o 0 m E cn C Q a) 00 N C cn to c cn cu I— v o o ca . I-- U� '` F- J U 0) i.. o c ca N a) c 3 cn N C O p O` a cn p .. c '; c -p -p E U N O += E c "'' a) 4- O'O"pe'. .�0 N -0 co cn o o a) E Q o Y N M 0 to O i s L ca E =3 r N al U aN. CD O 0 .r 0 to to O E to C N O— a) a) 0 to C to -=Co a) -C w to E= E C ca -a EO Q) .i : a) a)-0 U m U CDmoc-C'�� otn0(� oo c oE -a O �•C N to U N cu UF;. p .U) Q o 3 0 0 °- CLQ CL m 3 a) Vis_ () 0 «. O O C E 0 p c d— ccu c s a) c a) c ca , o L• o u) O c o o> o E -a c o L m L a)oC_a? cu o�-20c V'cna`)�aoic c C_ a) co .LM cam : () 0 -0 >+ C_ a) I— o o 2 c cp)"w.. H U cu o 45 fu 'C a) U ^U W > ' (1) 5O C O O r- 0- . . QCU O 4) a) � O -o U O O O 0 In � U 'S a) 0) L � F- o on 98-60 ;Continue o L July 7, 1998 E cu ,. 7 .� a) C +. C N O o O O L O O (B O 0 cu O) U L O O O •�•. U ,� L L L +� O O .0 C C .O. a) N .. cn a) L N C) Z Q O E O O `CL 0 O-0 N m .0O O O O _CD 0 CL � �T. a) '` ^ cn >, Q ^>^`` -0 ^C^`` ^�` U_ C U N '^^En` C £ ` N O O L TTO O 3 a) >, W W a) +-� �' E W y a v a) E CD C cu : cn a) 0 C a) -O O O cn -, L Q a� C E .0 N C O O C -p .O O -0 o a) - U (u O E rn E 0 O U O U O O O T L C O O �' O i C 0 0 L a E N� O ` O N cu O cu r cn cu U a) -t U L L 7 Q p) U O U_C U N Q. C U cCp cn `C O U C fu Q — a) U C U 'O cu L U y C U N U O U dna= o O 0 O 0 U o C 0 0 : 0 ,� L cn 0 c) .� � 0 C >, O C O L a) L fQ N E O L 0 O U O Co a) O C O U a) a) O O L O— E Q Q O E U Q V a) a ;v O 0 O U= L N ,; cn N N 0 co L N n 0 V 'cn C E o U cn U U U a) a) L C- U� E a) U ai ca a�'i = -o ai s C o L> a) o a) a) Y- a U E a� m •- ca u) ,E L O m 0 LO C C cn >, (u to w O Q U C U > O a. .O ,cn Q cu L 0 .� 0 0 O 0) E U O U a) N cu N = c) "0 -p O L U �OEgcc O C cu to U U C ) C U 3 N E � L c C 4) p f - cu cu 0 U C cu _o U >+ > O 0 C i U cII C O Q •� U N U O O a) N cu U a) CDm:°0Q'CD a) O U) C U 0)a) �U— a) a)0) O L O C O 4cu 0cuEUL-0 cn 0 0 C cu N cn C +: O U CD C w E 0= rn N O w E co O cn 0 U '3 cn_a -a .o v rn 0 v cn -a�ac D cu 0 0 -0 U �–E.EC=a C 0 CU a) = O O 4) ca Ca)ico w iuSC o C r, cu 0 C> v O Q O O U N 0 5 U Q. L O cum= n a) >+ E L Q o to >+ w -O O 0 •E (D 0 U 3 U UU O t° C C U C •C C C 0 cu —2 a) �,ccm M � Ngo 3 cu � _ L a) cn C E >, 3 0 0 co cu O O 0 0- U U O �L ++ y(n O _ Q 0. �. o U L a) O O M a Q C a) O o N U U > _: O N O- Q -0 7 a) a) O '0 "L-' 0 cu N C CO) .O 'O c) -0 •C '0 cu 0 -114 O OQ cu a)` C 0 0 •.>-•. � C () cu cu cu a , , E 46 cn U a 0 '� � a) �Coa)o D O o O L L U L U 0 N O C (0 C L U >, O '� () U to +>_ N a) CL 0 0cua CL U 0 ,C > C C N rnEv;om� a 0oa -0i U cu a) fl.. - 0) fu C'� O 0 O O Q U — CO 0 0) cm C C N L 0 a) C> C N C O ECD N O L 0 o C QL a) a) N C O O _O) CMZ ax) -0a0 U s E- - -0 '.: L 0 F- L O F- cu 0 O= -a O L> C 0 .0 L �- 0 �, cu .� = L. . , v to v F a) .. ++ H U L cn cn co C C cn >, (u to w O Q U C U > O a. .O ,cn Q cu L 0 .� 0 0 O 0) E U O U a) N cu N = c) "0 -p O L U �OEgcc O C cu to U U C ) C U 3 N E � L c C 4) p f - cu cu 0 U C cu _o U >+ > O 0 C i U cII C O Q •� U N U O O a) N cu U a) CDm:°0Q'CD a) O U) C U 0)a) �U— a) a)0) O L O C O 4cu 0cuEUL-0 cn 0 0 C cu N cn C +: O U CD C w E 0= rn N O w E co O cn 0 U '3 cn_a -a .o v rn 0 v cn -a�ac D cu 0 0 -0 U �–E.EC=a C 0 CU a) = O O 4) ca Ca)ico w iuSC o C r, cu 0 C> v O Q O O U N 0 5 U Q. L O cum= n a) >+ E L Q o to >+ w -O O 0 •E (D 0 U 3 U UU O t° C C U C •C C C 0 cu —2 a) �,ccm M � Ngo 3 cu � _ L a) cn C E >, 3 0 0 co cu O O 0 0- U U O �L ++ y(n O _ Q 0. �. o U L a) O O M a Q C a) O o N U U > _: O N O- Q -0 7 a) a) O '0 "L-' 0 cu N C CO) .O 'O c) -0 •C '0 cu 0 -114 O OQ cu a)` C 0 0 •.>-•. � C () cu cu cu a , , E 46 cn U a 0 '� � a) �Coa)o D O o O L L U L U 0 N O C (0 C L U >, O '� () U to +>_ N a) CL 0 0cua CL U 0 ,C > C C N rnEv;om� a 0oa -0i U cu a) fl.. - 0) fu C'� O 0 O O Q U — CO 0 0) cm C C N L 0 a) C> C N C O ECD N O L 0 o C QL a) a) N C O O _O) CMZ ax) -0a0 U I q t 'm2 �®& 'C: ca- �c0 Mcp£ > @ ® .0 •0 k ,�j = � � 0 t 0 CL _\ -0 CL 0 :3 / 4 CQ� hued E 2 E 2 cL ƒ Jul 7, @ £ ƒ > @ 2 � E a_ E — m o �: > m 7 § R 2 c 2-0 - £ .[ § - .$ 2 L2 2c2� 2: (Uco 0 + E 22—;§2 � a2k§$ g G — @ (n 0 m k'§ ..=E 2 § C: CU f Lf> 0 g m 5 E m 2 o CL_�: - 3 0 0 k CL $ƒ@� k cu k 2 c 0§ CU 2 2-0 c § -0 t 2-£@ � c E E % 0 0 0 0 2 0 3ƒ CL k S 0. E -0 CL 2 �.g 'r © c @ 3 c E� 2 2 £ § 0 $ 2 c 0.-.g Q@£ a)•- / # > o ¥ -0_ �: � m£ a q M � o c g > Q� f-0 g E U cu 2 m 0 M in L-> § 2 :3 CL CL 2 m 0 m@ 2- M 2 cn 0 2 k 0 0 L k 0 7 k -0 - 2 k k c -0 k 2/ 0 W o C m£ :3�. o — 0 -� o o= ® q@ o a t cn o ¥ .§ C o c R 2®@ 0) Z E'er % f c �.a @ E � / = �� E _a a _� o � 7 — U@ 0 2@ C f /// @ f k o§ 2 k Z 2±\ 2 k/ 0 2 2 '0 C� j 0 2 ¥ o w m 3 E E R w E E 3 S 0 E 2 E 2 cL ƒ E a10- c @ E 0 Lr;— > @ 2 � E a_ E — '@— o �: > C @ 2 § R 2 c m C@ > o C: - £ .[ § - .m (Uco 0 + E / 2\ � E m g G — @ (n 0 co -0 k § § m o L� c- 2 C•2 0 0 k 000/co 02 2% § 7 �. @ a)¢ ¢. + £ @ - -a m o 47 1998 Resol W F- LU Cl) 1-60 - Contin w, 4- p J4 7, 1998 CL ,o a o �' o m' '0 a >, N CU m > -° m a) a �- o N L 0 c Q 0 m _ c a) .� O c � a m cn °° ° o ° m° E a+ c 0 a) C: IV m m ,, %' ] ��, p c � L �� a) > 0 W �3 U O °� N N cu cu -O a) a) `~ >, O =m a) cn 0 0 a) N C `. _A ° a cn � �- a) c c -0 -- (n m 0 a) a) ° c m a) 0 O a) a) 0) L 3 S m a ° U f ° a V) y^ co 0 y r 0 o Y Z -a 7 O L E a L O O'g a) V O m p O a c c c O c m Q cn m a) a) L m> L -p � x m m x a) Via) m °) m 3 m C a o L L o 0 ° CL E> m Q0c 0 E n -0 c � c COc Qua °-m CU �' -0 .� a p 1v. a) U o O a) a) x a O cl E >, E Q c a N O -°> r. Cl) U a) 0 ;- a CM L ZZ- a B 3 Q O O a E a) 0 75 i3- E a) m a m c cn a .c o cn a 3 0� m 0 a) c �_ >oa N'Nc a)0 70 c.. 0°ma) CO) aa)) ��°rna �. - a� >,M m U•5 co E Uo >,E 4) U o i c >, U a >% L a) > > 0 0 %2 a j O -O V O -C a) LO F- a C N C7 m a CL m t C F- 7 a L C o L m O N �. cn U) a F- a) F- E 0 0 cn w O 0 N >,m ps () a J2 I E a) cn E 0 N = c O a) N A cm c ..E a c° -E 0-a V o w c O CU > a7 cn a 3 m= L cn-0 m Co :cn � >oom, c (1) rnac =0 L 0 c>v m N U o am 0 U N 7 0-0 a - Q 3 L- >: 0 O•C� p +-� <n O .� CO) "-' N O L o a) c0 N (gyp U Q O c cn E Cli -0 CU co N CU > tm a) c a) � ° F- m CU "0 cu �aac a m cu ,-L m '> ( cc� m o N E m�`n� > " >' Q w L 00 0�O cm E W O a) M c N O (D0c0) m mm�:aa c ° p o c c C: - a) m U E a w 4- L- 0 0 0 oQ E� m 0 (D c Y CU> c m c' Y a) m � ` c p a c 0 O m U) O- cn O :3 w, L a - c oma) °''COE E �a 0 I o c c�a -c> rn � -2 O O __ U' N N C ,solution 98-60 - Continueg _ a, July_7-81998 L U L _ (n a) CO O C (n Oa) (a C a) 3 m >>,�' L a) E�s� a) cm ac`o Y ac a v c aa) CL 3 C 5 E 0L>a)E,(n �EEo� a�•-� va)Q....ac-ooE M 0 >,ocL C-�aa)n �'x D3 c me caco0 co a) a) to O cn (a .c C >, N C 0 a) j Cl) a) Em Q a) O' C O U ' O U c c c a) a) C V C a) L O C 0= C a Q— � C CL"a O "Q O E to O .,� O Q. >, 0 0> a) 2 a) - C O O U p .O—. :5 N a) O >' a) a) �o-co.-"'c �o-E�o cQc_ t(nc �c aE s m >, a) w mcn . U U m .N coi n> -a •° U o U v7 0 a U a) _rn 0 5 (n a) c c a) a) ��°aaEi s��o� a) a) a)�>5aa)�N� a) � a) -C (a s x c O a) .� L . 1- (n (n Q (o F- Q (n v I- Q Q H o a) 3 m I- > o 0 ac)cu sa�� m oc�a o a cn CU v c Q- ° - 0 a aci -a)a)CooE� ca c 1 -0 -U a) , U)• >+ m c a)E(no>cc0 -g ca a) a) co c (nU 0)L a N (a L p �O N N U Q Q 0 a) > O 7 > (D (a .� (tea C O O (n L O a) O O O- L C Ca >+ C O c (U p a) a) rn t E CL O C O O O a) a) O N i— U � ca O c a a) (a OL (D N > �- (a Uin O `p d (o C 2O O E cn (On =5mm)E C Q 0 +N' c (D "� Q- .S E o o Q O C m O` U O •;E Q a) m C , , -Oa O C (a Q" O O O C` O U` E C L O O O N 0 E O (a � O c U N ,N >, N N `= O C N a) O Q 3 N O CLCmO N a) ca Q- C E (o N O O E a U) O i O (n O a) -a'(D (1) O (L) p > (a a.) a) O (n CL O C 0 �•c :3 CL O O ) a) > CDQa6C: 49 esolution 98-60 - Q CO O U cn C rn O �>' _C U)cn c EE L ca = U C L- U'�a) Uw 7 a -a a) C O cn�O O L E CD cc CO O OU O Cci > a) a) m .0-0 r- L -C N O 0 _ L C O C C C 3 n a)•— L 3 a , cn .0 a cu C .>+ 0.2 O O a) m-0 L QN -C U) ca a7 aCO ) a) a >'-0a� U U a) O-0 c a) p•— in F- U cN I-- = N m inued W Za -C M .N C Q O (D CL ci cn o a Oa)Q� a) >'— C E O U CO cf)> L U O () U E O ca co U 'E Y _ O U O L a) U O O E p -C O U U a) 4-- a) ._ N U 0 cu a) Q a) t a) H N N L- a) a) >, N > C p C O c >%O � O — y,.,. > C ca U co ca C vii C- a) w ` O E U -0- o c: C 5 a) zz 0 X O�•�L C a)u)a)a; C N a a a)C-L� L O L- U Q O E V) O O �« +,hoc a) co �O 0 E OU m m.L wtB 70O � " a f� C Q a) O — +� O C m a) C L n ca E O U (B C O •— a) 0--a E -- E (D (6 00 0 0) O Q L O NC > O O C - LCL U�aEa) L L O 'C 0 O H +. U E Z U 50 CO O U cn `+ Up N O Q C C _O O p U L cn cu U) c N�- E (D cr 0 rn > C O .0 :3 C O 'a C to a) N C X w°U)°)n C C C 3 n a)•— L 3 a , a) c -O cn a) >,Ea o cQa-C �. a- U.—C 0 — a)E> 76 �t a)a>)�~ o-0CLOa) cu CL a) Q C C O O a) a) 2D a) m C ."'. E2C'mCo3 Q C '0 !A Q cin 0 50 July 7, 1998 ,rn c oma�i o cu o m E 21- " L r-+ 7 a) t Q a) E a) C C O E a) w ca E o .CD U U a) cp O = > C J � � L O .0 O C m H in O N Co O L L Cd p N CL C a) a) E > Fn Ui C > OQ a) ) L C- '= E C +- OO U F, O C r... Ld) E O L Q) L U > N .0 C F- a) U CO O U cn a) v, a) cn cu a) _O U a) p ,:, N CN i U 0 �_ .0_ E cu 0 0 CD cn wL C U () a) :: O >,O-0 a) -0 >., a) U O L cn CD p ._ 0.. a) C C C 3 n a)•— L 3 a , a) c -O cn a) a? oaxm 0)cn) M C-' .S C — L a) cu _0 o-0CLOa) cu >% .. a) co _ co c a) C' _� O E O - U" N cu O'O >+a) U U N a) Q C '0 O n,.. F- caw -0 'a July 7, 1998 ,rn c oma�i o cu o m E 21- " L r-+ 7 a) t Q a) E a) C C O E a) w ca E o .CD U U a) cp O = > C J � � L O .0 O C m H in O N Co O L L Cd p N CL C a) a) E > Fn Ui C > OQ a) ) L C- '= E C +- OO U F, O C r... Ld) E O L Q) L U > N .0 C F- a) U Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 APPENDIX A: SUMMARY LISTING OF GOAL, OBJECTIVE, ACTION AND POLICY STATEMENTS IN EXISTING (1982) HOUSING PLAN Part 1: As Currently Stated Housing Goal Provide housing opportunities for citizens of all ages and income level, without discrimination, while maintaining a diversity of high quality living environments through imaginative and sound planning principals. Objectives Promote the preservation and upgrading of the existing residential housing stock in the City. Encourage a sufficient variety of housing types and designs to allow all people a housing choice. The City shall promote the use of available programs, funds and planning approaches in order to provide housing opportunities at a cost individuals and families can afford without compromising essential needs. Attention shall be given to housing needs of the elderly, minorities, handicapped persons, and families with young children. The City will encourage equal opportunity in the area of home ownership and renting. Actions Define various approaches and/or incentives to promote a "City Beautification Program" in the City. Investigate the City option of offering deferred assessments for Golden Valley residents making property (home) improvements. Determine the approximate numbers of homes expected to be rehabilitated over the next 3 and 10 years. Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Also include the number of dollars (average) needed to achieve the above number. Define and delineate those areas of the City in immediate need of rehabilitation. Target these areas (neighborhoods) for use of federal and state funds. Require disclosure of any major defects in a home at the time of sale. Evaluate federal and state programs to determine their suitability for use in Golden Valley. Review the City's existing land use regulations and minimum standards. Encourage energy efficient housing such as earth sheltered or solar designs. Policies The City shall promote, when and where necessary, the rehabilitation and/or redevelopment of identified and designated substandard residential units or areas. As a standard for determining whether a house is in need of improvements or beyond repair, the City shall adopt the Section 8 Housing Quality Standards used by HUD to determine a residential unit's acceptability for habitation. The City shall promote utilization of federally allocated Community Development Block Grant funds for the purpose of revitalizing residential neighborhoods targeted for substantial rehabilitation. The City H.R.A. may use its legal authority under "eminent domain" to condemn and remove substandard housing for which rehabilitation has been determined economically unfeasible. The City shall encourage design and planning innovations in housing construction and residential land use development. The City shall encourage a diversity of newly constructed housing. The City will continue to offer, as an alternative to conventional land subdivision, the development of Planned Unit Developments (PUD's), which allow the City to be more flexible in site design and density requirements. A-2 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 The City will promote the development of multi -family dwellings. The City shall attempt to obtain, when available, all applicable state and federal housing funds designed to maximize opportunity of providing a variety of housing types, costs, and densities. The City shall encourage future low and moderate income subsidized housing construction to serve all segments of the population in need of such housing, notably those individuals operating on fixed incomes and having specialized housing needs. The City recognizes that the Metropolitan Council has established fair share and full share housing goals for provision of low and moderate income housing opportunities in Golden Valley through 1990. The City questions the reality of the numbers in relation to developable land. However, the City will continue to work toward achieving these goals as land and financial opportunities become available. The City recognizes that the Metropolitan Council has established a fair share goal for construction of new modest cost unsubsidized housing units in Golden Valley through 1990. The City questions the reality of the number in relation to developable land. However, the City will continue to work toward achieving this goal as land and financial opportunities become available. The City shall encourage a diversity of housing for all people, regardless of ethnic background, age, income level, sex, and religion. The City shall enforce City Ordinance Sec. 170.025, Subd. 1: State Statutes respecting unfair discrimination practices incorporated by reference -- Human Rights Commission. The City Human Rights Commission shall work with developers, as well as continue its role in the no fault grievance process, to assure achievement of this objective. A-3 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Part 2: With Suggested Changes Repetitive, and better worded in its four component parts below. Housing Goals Promote the preservation and upgrading of the existing residential housing stock in the City. Encourage a sufficient variety of housing types and designs to allow all people a housing choice. The Qty s 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. A#eRti9R shall be Varlous portions of the last sentence above either conflict with or overlap statements more appropriately made elsewhere. The Gity Encourage equal opportunity in the area of home ownership and renting. Ao#Gns Objectives All statements in this section should be reviewed carefully and revised as necessaryfor clarity, timeliness, or specificity. Those that more accurately reflect policies rather than objectives should be relocated. Define various approaches and/or incentives to promote a "City Beautification Program" in the City. Investigate the City option of offering deferred assessments for Golden Valley residents making property (home) improvements. A-4 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Reede d to achieve the be Rumbe Effort required to accurately compile above -identified data appears excessive in view of its limited potential usefulness. Define and delineate those areas of the City in immediate need of rehabilitation. Target these areas (neighborhoods) for use of federal and state funds. Require disclosure of any major defects in a home at the time of sale. Evaluate federal and state programs to determine their suitability for use in Golden Valley. Review the City's existing land use regulations and minimum standards. Encourage energy efficient housing such as earth sheltered or solar designs. Policies All statements in this section should be reviewed carefully and revised as necessary for clarity, timeliness, or specificity. aFeas- This statement basically repeats a goal. As a standard for determining whether a house is in need of improvements or beyond repair, the City shall adopt the Section 8 Housing Quality Standards used by HUD to determine a residential unit's acceptability for habitation. The City shall promote utilization of federally allocated Community Development Block Grant funds for the purpose of revitalizing residential neighborhoods targeted for substantial rehabilitation. The City shall use its legal authority under "eminent domain" to condemn and remove substandard housing for which rehabilitation has been determined economically unfeasible. The City shall encourage design and planning innovations in housing construction and residential land use development. A-5 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 MS statement basically repeats a goal. The City 44 shall continue to offer, as an alternative to conventional land subdivision, the development of Planned Unit Developments (PUD's), which allow the City to be more flexible in site design and density requirements. The City 44 shall promote the development of multi -family dwellings. The City shall attempt to obtain, when an appropriate development proposal is available, all applicable state and federal housing funds designed to maximize opportunity of providing a variety of housing types, costs, and densities. As currently stated, this policy would guide staff to apply for any and all money that is available, which is somewhat unrealistic. This statement basically repeats a goal. The "fair share allocation" standards have been discontinued. This statement basically repeats a goal. Rights Ge There is no such code section today. The City Human Rights Commission shall work with developers, as well as continue its role in the no fault grievance process, to assure ebfeEt+ue compliance with housing diversity and nondiscrimination goals. W. Resolution 98-60 - Continued APPENDIX B: ANALYSIS OF AFFORDABLE -SIZED LOTS IN GOLDEN VALLEY July 7, 1998 Affordable housing in and around the Twin Cities became an issue of metropolitan concern in the 1970's. The state legislature charged the Metropolitan Council with the task of studying regional housing problems, establishing standards for afford- able housing, and monitoring the housing activities of Metro Area communities. Among other things, the Metro Council reviews and comments on local housing plans, which are required by law to include: "standards, plans and programs for providing adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and regional housing needs, including but not limited to the use of official controls and land use planning to promote the availability of land for the development of low -and -moderate income housing." (MS 473.859, Subd. 2) In 1977, the Metro Council and the association of Metropolitan Municipalities jointly published a guide for local governments, called "Advisory Standards for Land Use Regulation." One of its recommendations for promoting affordable housing in accordance with state law was that: "Within a community, a portion of lot sizes for single-family detached homes should be in the range of 6,000-8,000 square feet, or a corresponding density of five to seven units per acre. This standard is generally adequate to protect general welfare and safety, and should be considered for the adoption in all or portions of sewered communities." After reviewing this report and additional information from the Metro Council, neighboring communities, and general planning references, Golden Valley examined and made several changes to its existing land use regulations. Citywide minimum required lot size was reduced, but only to 10,000 square feet (from a previous minimum of 12,500 square feet). It is important to note that this minimum lot size applies only to lots that are newly created. City Code also specifies that "all lots located within an approved plat shall be regarded as buildable lots" (City Code Sec. 11.21, Subd. 5). This is where Golden Valley's early history comes into play. The City's oldest platted areas reflect lot sizes typical of old, walking -scale towns, with widths of 40- 75 feet each. These areas can be found at several locations around the City (Exhibit B-1), almost'always along the old farm -to -market roads or easily accessible by Golden Valley's first rail line, which came through town from east to west back in the mid `teens. _ Resolutioni -60 _Continued SI-MdV3 GN JO kilo July 7, 1998 HINYOU-d -M A= Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Some of these areas have been lost by conversion to other uses. For example, parts of the Belmont and Lakeview Heights Additions were claimed as public park land after going through tax forfeiture. The Glenwood Addition was originally much more extensive than it is today, but poor early land use control resulted in blighting influences north of Hwy. 55, and City redevelopment efforts subsequently completed a conversion to productive industrial/office uses. Those areas that have remained residential have not developed on a uniform, lot - by -lot basis. There were always some purchasers who wanted to buy two or more adjacent lots for their own home site or for inheritance by their children or simply for investment purposes. By the 1950's, some of the most densely developed areas were experiencing problems with inadequate septic systems and/or contaminated wells. The City responded by dramatically increasing minimum required lot size for new subdivisions to 12,500 square feet and by declaring that adjacent small lots under common ownership were considered to be permanently linked together up to a point where they approached or met the new minimum size. Those provisions remained in City Code until the 1980's, taking Golden Valley all the way through its big growth boom. In 1995, realizing that many of the small lots in the City's older platted areas would meet Metro Council guidelines for affordably -sized lots, staff began the task of determining just how many of those lots still exist. Reliable and precise dimensions were not always available and many of the lots are somewhat irregular in shape, so staff's analysis included lots with areas calculated at up to 8,500 square feet, or 500 feet more than the upper end of the Metro Council range. Experience showed that staff calculations tended toward over -estimation of size rather than under -estimation, so this small extension of the recommended size range seemed fair. Staff also adopted two ways of looking at the number of lots meeting the identified range. "Theoretical supply" refers to the total number of affordably -sized lots that would be attained if each remaining residential lot were to be individually developed. "Current supply" is a smaller number that represents the number of lots actually in individual use today. The difference arises because of all the linked -lot groups in the affected areas. Where a home is associated with multiple lots in common ownership, the group as a whole becomes too large to qualify as affordably -sized, and thus is not a part of the current supply. Staff have not had the time or resources to determine precisely where the homes sit within such linked groups; a group cannot be broken apart if the home crosses or infringes on internal property lines. If the existing home were removed, however, or if a lot survey proved that the home was situated entirely within the setback limits of one lot in the group, then a willing property owner could sell each of the lots for individual development, so they are considered to be part of the theoretical supply. AN Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 The staff analysis found a theoretical supply of 1,315 affordably -sized lots in Golden Valley (Exhibit B-2). In terms of current supply, the number drops to 445 lots, or about a third of the larger figure. The Metro Council guidelines do not specify how many of a City's lots should be affordably -sized. It is important to remember that these small lots are no longer being created today. Additionally, the number of lots that are currently or theoretically available today is less than when the areas were originally platted, due to conversion for nonresidential uses over time. In some areas, there is pressure for further conversion as the homes get older. If Golden Valley is to remain in compliance with the Metro Council guidelines for affordably -sized lots, the City may need to make a commitment toward preserving at least some of the lots that remain. This analysis has been very limited in scope to date. Before making any big decisions on the long-term future of Golden Valley's affordable -sized lots, it would be helpful to broaden the available data base. Are the lots in fact "affordable"? Are the existing homes on those lots also within a range affordable to households of low or moderate income? What is the structural condition of the homes? Are there some areas where attempting to preserve the lots in question would conflict with good planning principles? These are some of the questions that the City might want to ask. Golden Valley has affordable housing obligations to meet under state law; it makes sense to concentrate the City's efforts and resources where they are likely to yield the greatest result. Exhibit B-2 Subdivision Containing Lots of 8,500 S.F. or Less Subdivision Date Theoretical Current Name Platted Supply Supply Lake View Heights April 1911 233 187 Glenwood View May 1915 21 14 Winnetka April 1914 80 44 Boulevard Gardens Dec. 1913 68 12 Belmont Aug. 1915 337 53 Golden Valley Gardens Aug. 1926 51 3 Delphian Heights May 1930 256 52 McNair Manor June 1923 105 38 Glenwood May 1915 164 42 It is important to remember that these small lots are no longer being created today. Additionally, the number of lots that are currently or theoretically available today is less than when the areas were originally platted, due to conversion for nonresidential uses over time. In some areas, there is pressure for further conversion as the homes get older. If Golden Valley is to remain in compliance with the Metro Council guidelines for affordably -sized lots, the City may need to make a commitment toward preserving at least some of the lots that remain. This analysis has been very limited in scope to date. Before making any big decisions on the long-term future of Golden Valley's affordable -sized lots, it would be helpful to broaden the available data base. Are the lots in fact "affordable"? Are the existing homes on those lots also within a range affordable to households of low or moderate income? What is the structural condition of the homes? Are there some areas where attempting to preserve the lots in question would conflict with good planning principles? These are some of the questions that the City might want to ask. Golden Valley has affordable housing obligations to meet under state law; it makes sense to concentrate the City's efforts and resources where they are likely to yield the greatest result. Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 APPENDIX C: BACKGROUND ON GOLDEN VALLEY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS Since the early 1970's, Golden Valley has participated in a number of projects or programs designed to promote affordable housing opportunities in the City. Most of these were targeted at the poorest segment of the population: the households that need public financial assistance on an ongoing basis. A few, however, have also benefited households that are generally self-sufficient but may need a little financial boost in order to get into their first home or keep a home that may have been bought in better times. Going back through City records, it has been possible to pull together a fairly complete picture of a dozen or so such efforts (Exhibit C-1) over the past twenty- five years. They include both successes and failures. It is hoped that a review of the highlights and pitfalls of past efforts will provide some useful tips on how to guide future activities. This historical review has also shown the great extent to which Golden Valley's efforts have been affected by the changing political and economic climate at regional, state, and national levels. To put the City's housing efforts in perspective, a condensed "history lesson" is provided here in addition to the individual project and program summaries. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been a main source of housing funds since it was created in 1965. The early emphasis was on big cities, but by the late 1960's HUD was looking at ways to disperse subsidized housing into suburban areas. This was seen as a means of improving the economic climate of inner cities while also providing more congenial surroundings for low and moderate income households. In order to better measure progress in housing efforts, congress in 1968 adopted specific 10 -year goals for completion of new or rehabilitated housing units, both modest cost market rate and subsidized. That same year saw the creation of the Section 236 subsidy program, which attempted to encourage more developers to get into construction of subsidized multi -family housing units by offering interest supplements on mortgages. A similar program, known as Section 202, had been in place since 1959 to spur the private development of rental housing for the elderly and handicapped. Congress also passed legislation tying local development or redevelopment efforts into a broader, regional picture. To implement this measure, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget in 1969 issued a document known as "Circular A-95", which required that all local government applications for federal development funds of any kind had to be reviewed for conformity with area wide goals and policies adopted by a regional development agency. In the Twin Cities Metro Area, of course, the designated A-95 review agency was the Metro Council. July 7, 1998 n n ♦ o o _ ,� o e C-2 N � v 1� l7 � WYZy!%1 ��OZ va J �clw � F�.. O0 cl iq 12 Qr-i>—W Q QW�HF- Q P4 F- J A Z M Wct� 06 ¢W..Z)U q� %Dr- co c, QQU LLJ 440 C pz 0 LD W � z < A W [[�~ SIU NJz O C3 r=¢ n. F- LJ >< -J X _ % ¢0�3¢ U UgfgWJ ..(UMsrLr) H TH 1 X W —� July 7, 1998 n n ♦ o o _ ,� o e C-2 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 In 1971, the Metro Council added the first housing element to its Metropolitan Development Guide. There had been growing concern about the increasing concentration of low income households in certain neighborhoods of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and about an increasing disparity between income and housing costs for many households throughout the area. A-95 review gave the Metro Council some leverage for encouraging suburban Metro area communities to seriously confront these issues. Specifically, the Metro Council established in Policy 13 of its 1971 Housing Development Guide that local applications for federal funding of any kind would be given lower approval recommendations if the community did not have adequate mechanisms in place for providing low and moderate income housing. At the state level, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) was established in 1971 as well. It offered a variety of financial resources, including authority for cities to issue tax exempt bonds for housing construction and availability of direct grants or low interest loans for acquisition or rehabilitation of existing housing units or construction of new units. Golden Valley had begun working on a new comprehensive plan in 1970. There is strong indication in the record that the City had every intention of doing its best to address regional housing concerns. In November 1971 and January 1972, the Planning Commission discussed how the provision of low and moderate income housing could be accommodated in local planning efforts. In February 1972, the Human Rights Commission recommended holding an educational workshop for Golden Valley residents as well as elected and appointed officials, an idea the City Council endorsed the next month. In April 1972, the Planning Commission asked staff to prepare a report on how Golden Valley's comprehensive plan could best incorporate regional issues in its goals and policies. Through late 1971 and early 1972, staff had received several inquiries from developers interested in finding suburban sites for Section 236 housing projects. In May 1972, the City Manager arranged for one such developer, Shelter Development Corporation, to make a presentation at a joint meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Human Rights Commission. Following that meeting, at the City Council's request, both commissions came back with recommendations that Golden Valley should be receptive to low and moderate income housing development proposals; the Planning Commission noted that appropriate statements were being added to the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. Unfortunately, Golden Valley collided head-on with the Metro Council's Policy 13 at about that same time. Facing a pressing need to meet demands for park and recreation facilities from a rapidly growing citizenry, the City had embarked on an $800,000 park improvement program. To supplement local resources, application C-3 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 was made in spring of 1972 for a federal grant of $140,000. The proposal was in conformity with Metro Council goals and policies for public open space. Nevertheless, on a vote of 7 to 5, the Metro Council invoked Policy 13 in its A-95 review and gave the grant application a poor recommendation because Golden Valley's low income housing goals and policies were not yet in place. A Metro Council offer to hold its final decision for two or three months so Golden Valley could either complete its housing goal adoption process or make a firm commitment to at least one specific housing development proposal was viewed more as blackmail than as a constructive compromise, and was refused. The City even went so far as to consider filing a lawsuit. The City Attorney advised letting the matter drop, since there appeared to be solid state and federal backing for the Metro Council's position, and adverse publicity might unfairly paint Golden Valley as being opposed to addressing low and moderate income housing needs. In the end, Golden Valley settled for sending a three-page letter of protest to the federal grant agency involved. It is difficult to say today whether, or in what way, the Metro Council's action affected Golden Valley's attitude toward providing low and moderate income housing. Shelter Development Corporation came in with its application for the Dover Hill PUD project in August 1972. On more than one occasion during the hearing process, the developer felt a need to publicly deny accusations of colluding with the Metro Council to force the City's approval. At least one local newspaper editorial, while applauding the PUD approval in October 1972, belittled the City's action by relating it directly back to the Metro Council's "big stick". As a footnote, the City learned in December 1972 that the park improvement grant had been denied; there is nothing in the record to indicate how strongly the Metro Council's A-95 recommendation might have influenced this outcome. In a similar vein to the 1968 federal goal -setting legislation, the Metro Council in 1973 adopted a subsidized housing allocation plan, establishing fair share quotas for all Metro Area communities based on overall regional housing needs. These quotas were subsequently tied in with Policy 13 and the A-95 review process. In 1974, the Metro Council was authorized as a metropolitan HRA, giving it greater ability to actively assist in local housing efforts. Nationwide, 1974 saw the sharp curtailment of Section 236 funds and the creation of two other HUD funding programs. Section 8 housing assistance provided direct payments to owners of qualifying rental housing units on behalf of low and moderate income tenants. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program provided money that could be used for development of low and moderate income housing units, elimination of blighted properties of all types, and various other local improvement efforts designed primarily to benefit disadvantaged households. C-4 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Golden Valley finally adopted the land use section of the updated comprehensive plan, including housing goals and policies, in 1974. Using the PUD process to achieve higher residential densities and requiring a portion,of all residential developments to be affordable to low or moderate income households were two key points of the plan. That same year, the City's Human Rights Commission prepared a report on housing finance mechanisms that might work well for Golden Valley; recommendations included forming a City HRA, a possibility also raised in the Comprehensive Plan. The City investigated and discussed the local HRA option at great length without coming to agreement on its potential usefulness. In 1975, as an alternative to an HRA, the City council instead established a Housing and Community Development Commission. The new body lacked the powers of an HRA to condemn land, issue bonds, and employ a variety of other development tools, but was charged with addressing housing issues in general and with guiding the city's use of state or federal dollars for housing or other local improvements. Minnesota's 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act required all Metro Area local governments to adopt housing plans that included specific commitments to the provision of affordable housing. Again, the Metro Council was the designated oversight agency. Communities were given until 1980 to comply. That same year, Golden Valley once more ran afoul of Policy 13 during the Metro Council's annual A-95 review of CDBG applications. Along with Edina and St. Anthony, the City was cited as not having set adequate three-year goals toward its fair share quota of affordable housing; Plymouth was also in trouble, for making unsatisfactory progress toward already established goals. In contrast to the earlier experience, Golden Valley and the Metro Council came to terms without any loss of funding for the City. In fact, when HUD made additional bonus CDBG funds available that year, the City was at the head of the line to request money for its scattered -site housing project; the contribution that the project would make toward the City's fair share quota is clearly noted in the record. Also in 1976, the City's Administrative Assistant noted in a local newspaper article that a quarter of his job was involved in seeking out, applying for, and monitoring the expenditure of government grants for a variety of local projects. In the area of housing funds, he was assisted by a newly -established intern position with a salary paid through CDBG money. There were signs, though, of harder financial times to come. Annual population estimates prepared by the Metro Council showed that Golden Valley had passed its peak and was beginning to decline; this would hurt the City because many sources of financing for local governments were tied to population size. At the same time, the cost of government was going up, due to economic inflation and to the City's general stage of development. C-5 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 In 1977, the Metro Council overhauled and expanded its 1972 housing policy plan in response to the 1976 state legislation. Policy 13 remained in the plan. Golden Valley continued to apply for, and receive, a variety of federal grants. For CDBG alone, 1977-1981 would bring in annual amounts averaging around $150,000. The Calvary Square and Medley Park PUD's provided significant contributions to the housing quotas that kept the City clear of Policy 13. By 1978, a significant amount of time was being spent on housing and other grant activities by the City Manager as well as the Administrative Assistant and the CDBG-funded intern. The Golden Valley HRA was established that year. 1979 brought the onset of a major retrenchment to Golden Valley as the City adjusted to changing community needs and demands. State aid was decreasing as costs were increasing. The energy crisis was having a serious impact on vehicle - oriented city services such as police protection and street maintenance, as well as on the operation of city buildings. Other local priorities were edging out affordable housing. The Housing and Community Development Commission was disbanded, its duties divided between the HRA, the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Human Rights Commission. The housing intern position was discontinued as use of CDBG funds became more restricted. The Administrative Assistant left at the end of the year, and was not replaced in order to cut costs. Other staff positions would be terminated as well. A visit from a HUD CDBG oversight team in 1979 resulted in warnings that the City's grant records and documentation were very inadequate, the City needed to develop a better system to ensure the prompt expenditure of funds, and the City needed to be more careful to spend its grant money only on eligible activities. Nationwide, HUD was fighting against a wide range of intentional and unintentional abuses of CDBG funds and other financing tools that were meant to benefit low and moderate income people. Requirements for obtaining and using such funding were becoming more stringent as a result. In 1980, Golden Valley initiated another comprehensive plan update, as ordered by state law in 1976. The 1980 census showed that Golden Valley's population was down by 2500 people since 1970, though the number of households had increased. The City looked around and found itself 90% developed with significant development constraints affecting its remaining vacant land. Nationwide, the inflation of the 1970's was giving way to recession. Ronald Reagan was elected president. The early 1980's brought the elimination of some federal housing assistance programs, with sharp cutbacks and/or reorganization of others. Money from the state was also being cut back, due to budget shortfalls. The A-95 review process was terminated in 1983 or 1984, reducing the Metro Council's ability to keep local C-6 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 governments focused on housing issues. Two of the three housing projects considered by Golden Valley in the mid 1980's failed. The Metro Council's 1985 housing policy plan acknowledged the changing times by eliminating quotas for local provision of affordable housing. A version of the old Policy 13 was retained and renumbered as Policy 39, but with only limited authority behind it. There was no less concern for the plight of low and moderate income households, but it had become very difficult to address the problem at the local level. Golden Valley was awarded a plaque from the Metro Council in 1985, recognizing its past contribution to rental housing for low and moderate income households, but affordable housing activities all but died out in the City between the late 1980's and the early 1990's. Today's leaner City staff no longer includes any grant experts or housing specialists. The two ongoing housing assistance programs are administered by agencies outside of City Hall. Construction costs remain high and the City has no easily developable land left for new projects. The Clinton adminis- tration has recently been providing more money for CDBG-eligible activities, but it still does not approach the buying power of that fund in the late 1970's. Long term federal funding for low and moderate income housing remains in a state of uncertainty. Minnesota's Livable Communities Act of 1995 is the most recent attempt to refocus attention on affordable housing in the Metro Area, but it is not specifically directed at the poorest segment of the population. C-7 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Dover Hill PUD Project Time Frame: 1972-1975 Concept Development and Construction 1974-1998 Minimum Affordable Occupancy Period Administering Agency: The development is owned and managed by Shelter Development Corporation (Shelter), subject to requirements established by HUD for the Section 8 housing subsidy program. Funding Source: After Section 236 funding collapsed, the MHFA issued bonds to finance the mortgage, while HUD paid a monthly interest subsidy to the mortgage holder. The end result was a 1 % interest rate applied to the mortgage. This interest savings, in conjunction with a property tax abatement, is passed down to the resident in the form of low and moderate income housing. Thumbnail Description: Dover Hill comprises 234 dwelling units on 13.6 acres. There are twelve two- and three- story buildings with a total of 112 units for families and individuals. A seven story mid -rise senior building holds 122 one bedroom units, 14 of which can accommodate handicapped residents. Overall, 196 units qualify for either controlled rent or deep subsidy assistance. Controlled rent provides a moderate subsidy for the "working" poor. Deep subsidy is reserved for the "hard core" poor. Participants in both programs must be annually recertified for eligibility. Rental assistance is available as follows: 122 - one bedroom senior apts 105 controlled, 17 deep subsidy 48 - one bedroom apts 29 controlled, 19 deep subsidy 48 - two bedroom apts 38 market, 8 controlled, 2 deep subsidy 16 - three bedroom apts 16 deep subsidy Deep subsidy units have waiting lists of two years for one bedroom, five years for two bedrooms, and one year for three bedrooms. Currently, there is no waiting list for the controlled rent apartments. Highlights/Pitfalls: Following several informal contacts with staff and with Golden Valley's elected and appointed officials, Shelter formally applied for PUD designation in July 1972. Three City Commissions -- Environmental, Planning, and Human Rights -- reviewed the preliminary plans in August. The Environmental Commission first failed to pass a motion supporting the proposal, with all but two members abstaining from the vote. It then considered and unanimously passed an alternative motion to simply accept the plans. Minutes of the meeting were available to the Planning Commission when it considered the proposal. The Human Rights Commission had declared its support for Shelter during the informal early discussions. It reiterated that stand in a letter sent directly to the City Council, bypassing the Planning Commission. ME Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Shelter held an open information meeting a week before going to the Planning Commission, specifically inviting church action groups, the Golden Valley League of Women Voters, politicians, and senior citizen groups. Neighbors circulated a petition against the proposal and got about 70 signatures by the date of the Planning Commission hearing. In his written review of the proposal, the regular consultant to the Planning Commission strongly questioned whether residential use of the chosen site was appropriate. Current zoning and land use plan designations were for industrial use. The consultant felt it was up to the developer to provide detailed evidence of site suitability. On the other hand the Metro Council, as regional review agency for Section 236 federal funding applications, came out in support of the proposal despite the lack of conformity with zoning and land use plan maps. According to a local newspaper account, the Planning Commission hearing ran three hours. Five residents of the neighborhood to the south of the site spoke against the proposal. Traffic was a big concern, followed by impact on schools and property taxes, appearance, and density. A League of Women Voters representative spoke in favor, as did members of a senior citizen group. A New Hope Planning Commissioner said New Hope had no formal position pro or con, but wanted to raise concerns about traffic and future pressure for high density development nearby in that city. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 4-2 vote, with the absent member sending in a letter of opposition. The City Council preliminary plan hearing was in October 1972. Some opponents had joined forces as the Concerned Homeowners Association, and had hired an attorney. He advocated a delay of at least ninety days for more fact finding. The Human Rights Commission and League of Women Voters again spoke in support of the project. Two neighbors also spoke in favor, but several more spoke against. The Council deferred its vote to the next scheduled meeting. Seven more letters of support came in between meetings, including one from a grassroots group of Golden Valley residents calling itself the Action Now Council. Two more negative petitions were circulated; one in flat opposition to the project got about 150 signatures and one in favor of the ninety day delay got about 300. The Concerned Homeowners distributed a flyer urging public attendance at the second hearing. The flyer hinted at "several negative aspects of this project", and referred to a Shelter development in Saint Paul that was so plagued by problems it caused HUD to cut off any additional funding until the developer cured existing deficiencies. While news of the HUD cut-off was later confirmed, it had lasted for only five days back in January of that year. HUD had initiated the sanction without an agency investigation, as an emergency response to a newspaper article that apparently was not entirely balanced in its reporting. On follow-up, HUD officials C-9 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 learned that Shelter had already begun making improvements on its own initiative. HUD ended up praising the developer for taking quick action and for the amount of cooperation that was demonstrated. Another local newspaper account claimed that "hundreds of residents jammed in" to the continued Council hearing, which lasted for two -and -a -half hours. A mix of people spoke for and against the project. The Council approved the development by a 4-1 vote, subject to the satisfactory resolution of several remaining issues prior to general plan approval. Among those issues were replatting of the property, review and approval of a management plan, provision of a play area somewhere within the site, meeting on-site engineering and structural safety requirements, and a determination by the City as to whether it should support ongoing rental subsidies for the family units in the development. In 1973, problems arose with federal financing for Section 236 projects. All HUD money was cut off, including allocations for projects already in the pipeline. In June, however, the MHFA stepped in with authorization to take over funding of a limited number of Minnesota's proposed Section 236 units. The Dover Hill project would get just over half of the money available through the MHFA. HUD would still be providing an interest subsidy on the bonds issued by the state. In a July edition of a regular Mayor's Report in the Golden Valley Sun, the Mayor noted that he had cast the dissenting vote at the previous October's Council hearing. Nevertheless, he spoke of the project's high priority as reflected in the efforts to get it financed. He also stated that "(t)he question of general approval is no longer open to us. If the conditions are met in good faith, the Council must act in good faith and permit the project to proceed." Unfortunately, by this time, Shelter was having internal financial difficulties as well. In a Minneapolis Star article, Shelter attributed its problems to high interest rates, escalating costs, construction delays, reduced housing starts, and reduced availability of government mortgage funds. To add economic strength, Shelter brought in a new partner, Canadian Construction and Development Corporation. General plan approval finally occurred in July 1974, with financing in line and all identified issues resolved. There is no public discussion recorded in the Council minutes. Construction began that fall. Family units were ready for occupancy by the summer of 1975, with the senior units following later in the year. Prospects for the Future: Dover Hill's original period of affordability ran through 1994. New agreements must now be signed every five years. Shelter expects to continue providing affordable housing as long as federal and/or state legislation provides the support to make it possible. C-10 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Single Family Home Rehabilitation Program Time Frame: 1975-1995 (and Ongoing) Administering Agency: Hennepin County, through an agreement with the City of Golden Valley, uses federal grant money allocated annually to the City; program controls must conform to requirements of the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Funding Source: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Thumbnail description: This program is designed to help low income households with basic home repair and maintenance. The money covers such items as reroofing, residing, new insulation, plumbing or wiring improvements, replacement of furnace or water heater, and handicap accessibility improvements. Many of the Golden Valley recipients are senior citizens or single -parent families. Funds are categorized as a "deferred loan"; if recipients remain in the home for the full term of the loan, then the amount is erased from the books without repayment, but if they sell the home before the loan term expires then they must repay the full amount out of the proceeds of the sale. Highlights/Pitfalls: Since CDBG money first became available in 1975, Golden Valley has committed a total of $620,000 to this program, thirty percent of all CDBG dollars received over the years. When Golden Valley first began the program, the actual loan money came from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, while the City's CDBG money was spent on staff costs of publicizing the program and pre-screening the applicants. At that time, individual loans were capped at $5000 and forgiven after six years. At times during the past two decades, this program has represented the only annual financial commitment to affordable housing in Golden Valley. On the other hand, there was also a period in the late 1980's when the funding was cut off for several years. The total CDBG allocation for Golden Valley during those years was sharply reduced from previous levels, and other CDBG-eligible activities were in strong competition for the remaining dollars. At the same time, a loophole in the program allowed one self-employed individual to obtain money for repairs on a home that was valued considerably higher than any others in the program, causing concern about the adequacy of program controls. Given the obvious need for the program, and the anomalous nature of the described incident, funding was restored by the early 1990's. In recent years the money has provided improvements for four to eight homes per year. For 1996, several administrative changes will be implemented. The most significant changes are: 1) the lien period for 0% deferred loans (maximum $15,000) will be extended from 15 years to 30 years, and 2) for families with incomes greater than C-11 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 50 percent of the area median income ($25,000 for a family of four) the loans will bear 3% simple interest for 10 years and have a 30 -year lien. An extra $5000 can be added for handicap accessibility improvements. These changes are due to current funding limitations and a need to more effectively serve the working poor. Prospects For The Future: CDBG funding increased for the past three years, and now has dropped somewhat for 1996, after several years of sharply reduced availability. The long-term future of this federal funding source remains uncertain, with various political factions arguing yearly for cutbacks or outright termination. No replacement funding for the single family home rehab program has been identified to compensate for any CDBG loss. Meanwhile, Golden Valley's aging housing stock means that increasing numbers of homes are at or approaching a point where they need basic maintenance. At the same time, increasing numbers of single -parent and senior citizen households are in a position of not being able to afford such basic maintenance. C-12 Resolution 98-60 - Continued Scattered Site Housing Project July 7, 1998 Time Frame: 1976 - Aug 1981 Concept Development and Construction Sept 1981 - Feb 2001 Minimum Affordable Occupancy Period Administering Agency: The units are owned by Shelter Development Corporation, a private housing provider. They are managed by the staff of Dover Hills, which is owned by the same corporation. They are subject to requirements established by HUD for the Section 8 housing subsidy program. Funding Source: Golden Valley used $129,500 in CDBG money to buy land, which was then transferred to the developer for $1.00. Construction was financed primarily through tax exempt Housing Development Bonds issued by a specially - created front for the HRA, known as the Golden Valley Housing Finance Corporation. Bonds were in the amount of $386,000, which included capitalized interest. There was also $35,000 of developer's equity and $42,000 listed in the record as "fees paid by other than cash". Rents are paid through HUD's Section 8 program. Thumbnail Description: The project consists of eight, three-bedroom townhouse -style rental units at two locations, Hwy. 100 near Scott Avenue (duplex) and Douglas Drive near Sandburg Lane (duplex and four-plex). Six of the units are available to any low-income families and two are specially designed to accommodate mobility -impaired individuals and their personal attendants. Highlights/Pitfalls: In 1976, HUD awarded CDBG "bonus funds" to the Twin Cities Metro Area as one of seven urban regions nationwide to have implemented an outstanding Housing Opportunity Plan. The Metro Council established guidelines for how the money would be awarded among local governments. One priority was projects that would provide housing suitable for large families, in a neighborhood setting rather than a high-density apartment environment. This was a relatively new concept at the time. The Shelter Development Corporation, developer of the City's Dover Hill project, joined with Golden Valley in submitting a proposal for twelve townhouse units to be constructed at three scattered locations yet to be determined. The units were to be in the form of a six-plex, a four-plex, and a duplex. The developer applied for a HUD Section 8 rental contract. Golden Valley applied for $90,000 of the CDBG bonus funds to reduce land acquisition costs. The City did not have its own HRA then, so arrangements had to be made for using the Metro Council's HRA as the designated authority for the land cost write-down. In April 1977, the proposal was awarded top ranking among eight bonus fund applications received by the Metro Council. With this backing, HUD approval was also expected. Staff began to consider siting options. Even with CDBG C-13 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 assistance, the financing would be tight, so only vacant land could be considered. In January 1978, a list of potential sites was turned over to the City's Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) for review. In July 1978, the newly created Golden Valley HRA was authorized by the City Council to begin land acquisition activities. With the local HRA up and running, there would no longer be a need for the Metro HRA to handle acquisition, though it would continue to be involved in other aspects of the development process. At this time, there were five locations under consideration: 1) Hwy. 100 and Scott Avenue, 2) Hwy. 100 and Lindsay Avenue, 3) Plymouth and Gettysburg Avenues, 4) Plymouth and Boone Avenues, and 5) Douglas Drive and Sandburg Lane. Because the site selection process was taking so long, the City had to request an extension of the bonus funding guarantee, which would otherwise expire that fall. Site analysis included neighborhood meetings, soil tests, comments from various City boards and commissions, and professional land appraisals. A planning consultant was called in to evaluate each site in terms of existing use, location, size/shape, relationship to adjacent uses, and conformity to the comprehensive plan. HUD siting guidelines also had to be considered. Staff and the HCDC set up four neighborhood review meetings in August 1978 (there was a joint meeting for the two Plymouth Avenue sites). Staff wanted to emphasize the fact that the housing would be privately owned and managed and therefore would not be like "public housing projects". A total of 370 households were notified of the various neighborhood meetings, and 68 local residents attended one meeting or another. Each meeting lasted about two hours, and similar concerns kept coming up: property value decline, inadequate maintenance, "undesirables" coming into the neighborhood, and future loss of control if the original developer should later sell out to a less capable owner. After all meetings had been held, only the neighborhood around Hwy. 100 and Lindsay Avenue appeared to be unalterably opposed to the concept. Based on that opposition, the site was dropped from further consideration. The site at Plymouth and Boone was also dropped due to general unsuitability, leaving only the minimum required three sites. At about the same time, similar proposals in Edina and Robbinsdale were completely derailed due to local opposition. An editorial in the Golden Valley Post applauded Golden Valley and its residents, stating "the scene was a calm, intelligent discussion of the facts which resulted in a satisfactory solution for both sides." Of the three affected neighborhoods, the editorial noted "(w)hile they may not greet subsidized housing with open arms, they are willing to accept subsidized housing in their neighborhoods provided the City maintains some control over the property." C-14 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 In March 1979 it was discovered that the site at Plymouth and Gettysburg, which was intended for the six-plex, might require prohibitively expensive pilings in order to stabilize the building. A search for a replacement site was initiated. The City also looked into the possibility of using additional CDBG money for soil correction. HUD approved the Douglas Drive and Hwy 100 sites in June, but voiced serious concerns about the Plymouth Avenue site before finally approving it in July. Throughout 1979, staff turnover in the regional HUD office resulted in paperwork delays for several aspects of the project. There are indications that federal budget cuts were making it difficult for HUD to meet all of its housing assistance commitments. There were also problems with the preferred construction financing mechanism of Housing Development Bonds (which would later evolve into Housing Revenue Bonds); the exact nature of the difficulty is no longer clear. By September 1979, it was obvious that construction would be delayed through yet another winter, and a second bonus funding extension would be needed. In classic "straw that broke the camel's back" style, an independent appraiser for the Plymouth Avenue site declared that its highest and best use was industrial, in keeping with existing adjacent uses, rather than residential as it was zoned. This pushed the valuation of the land far above the amount of funding that was available. The site would have to be dropped. Attempts to find a substitute site had failed. In February 1980, the City agreed to increase the Douglas Drive site to six units instead of the originally planned four in partial compensation for the loss of the six-plex, but the other four units from the Plymouth Avenue site could not be relocated. The Douglas Drive neighborhood was not happy about the last-minute increase in density, but under the zoning code the site was more than adequate in size for six units. Later that year, when the City granted necessary variances for multiple buildings on a lot and for a reduction in garage space, the Board of Zoning Appeals would condition its approvals on a requirement that "no further development be allowed to the rear area of the property," which abutted single- family lots. This provided some reassurance to the neighbors that there would be no additional unit increases in the future. By August 1980, the HRA had finally completed acquisition of the two development sites. Due to increases in other project -related costs, the original CDBG bonus amount had to be augmented by an additional $39,500 of CDBG money in order to fully cover acquisition costs instead of providing just a partial write-down as originally planned. Among other conditions of the land transfer, the City required that neighborhood representatives be included in the site design and management plan development processes. The Human Rights Commission would review the management plan prior to its approval, to ensure fairness in the policies and practices it established. C-15 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 The developer had until September 1981 to complete the project. Construction financing had remained a concern until the Golden Valley State Bank stepped in with an offer to buy the housing bonds at a 10.75% interest rate in mid -1980. Unfortunately, project details were not finalized until too late in the year for construction to begin. In January 1981, the bank agreed to honor its commitment at the earlier -established interest rate despite the fact that runaway inflation had pushed current rates well above that figure. The developer would not have been able to repay the bonds at a higher rate, and the project would have died. As it was, building permits were issued in February 1981 and the first families finally moved into the eight new units by the September deadline. Prospects for the Future: As with the Dover Hill project, Shelter Corporation would probably be interested in extending the HUD Section 8 contract beyond February 2001 provided that the property continues to support itself adequately and Section 8 owner requirements remain reasonable. ME. Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Calvary Square Senior High Rise PUD Project Time Frame: Jan 1977 - Oct 1981 Concept Development and Construction Oct 1981 - 2001 Minimum Affordable Occupancy Period Administering Agency: The rental apartments are owned and managed by Calvary Community Services, Inc. (CCS), a nonprofit affiliate of Calvary Lutheran Church, subject to HUD's Section 8 subsidy program requirements. Funding Source: It is difficult to pin down a precise attribution of costs for this project because it was only a part of coordinated Valley Square redevelopment activities. Overall land assembly included buying seventeen residential properties, relocating the homeowners, removing the homes and other related structures, and ripping out old Rhode Island Avenue. After establishing the new Rhode Island right-of-way, Golden Valley sold most of the remaining area to CCS at vacant land prices and contributed $125,000 of CDBG money to help tower the cost even further. CCS obtained $3,250,100 for construction financing through HUD's Section 202 program, and has an ongoing Section 8 rental subsidy contract. Thumbnail Description: This senior housing complex has one wing containing 80 subsidized rental units for low income households and another wing with 120 market rate cooperative units. Connecting the two is an area containing joint use facilities including a congregate dining room, meeting rooms, social service director's office, health office, and barber/beauty shop. All of the subsidized units have one bedroom. The entire building is barrier -free for the mobility impaired and five of the subsidized units are specially equipped for physically handicapped tenants. This is the only successful subsidized housing project in Golden Valley to involve buyout and relocation of a large number of previous property owners. It was feasible only because relocating the street already required the acquisitions, so attendant costs did not have to be fully borne by the housing project. Highlights/Pitfalls: As early as 1973, the City's comprehensive plan stated that "[a]n ideal site for elderly housing in the Village is in the vicinity of the Civic Center Complex. This area provides a vast array of urban services, including shopping, library, bus transportation, nearby open space and in general a level of activity that serves both a diversity of interest and accommodates the residents basic needs." The plan also noted that higher densities were common for such developments and that lower parking requirements were justified. In January 1977, when officials from Calvary first approached the City Council to explore the feasibility of the project, the intended site was to the south of the church, across Golden Valley Road. Calvary owned the land where the Valley Square Office Center would later be built. With assistance from the Ebenezer Home Society, the church was developing a concept that included prepared meals and on-site resident care. C-17 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 In January 1978, the report of the first Valley Square Commission was made public. Among other things, it discussed traffic increases that were expected to occur on Rhode Island Avenue if a ring road concept was implemented, linking a then dead-end Rhode Island to Winnetka Avenue near the railroad tracks. The Commission concluded that continuation of the existing single family uses lining both sides on Rhode Island would be undesirable if the street connection were built. At the same time, the residential lots were not deep enough to reasonably allow for any other type of redevelopment. The Commission recommended realigning Rhode Island to the west so it directly abutted the civic center campus, and combining the remaining lots, partial lots, and vacated original right-of-way into a single development parcel adjacent to the church. The Calvary organization was specifically cited as a highly probably developer if the land could be assembled in such a fashion. Rhode Island Avenue homeowners immediately sent a joint letter of protest to the City Council about this proposal. The Council voted to proceed with the street realignment in May 1978. An agree- ment was signed between city and church, establishing Calvary as purchaser of the excess land. Nineteen homes were involved, one of which had been owned by Calvary for several years. Seventeen of the others would be acquired by the end of the year. The owner of the eighteenth would end up donating his property to Calvary in February 1979. Meanwhile, the HRA was established in June 1978, with Valley Square redevelop- ment activities as its primary motivating force. The Valley Square Redevelopment Plan was adopted in July. It indicated a "senior citizen high rise" to be built on the bulk of the excess Rhode Island Avenue land, with general institutional use of approximately the northerly one-quarter of the area involved. The Planning Commission opposed the entire plan, on principle, feeling that the Council had usurped the role properly assigned to the Commission by excluding the group from the plan development process. Old Rhode Island Avenue was vacated in July 1979, when construction began on the new street segment. Calvary, though its newly established affiliate agency CCS, applied to both HUD and MHFA for financing of the senior housing project. The Golden Valley Post noted that the combination of a subsidized rental project sharing services with a market rate co-operative was receiving national interest as a new and innovative concept. HUD committed to construction financing and reservation of Section 8 subsidies for the 80 rental units in October 1979. CCS submitted its PUD application in February 1980. With few residential uses remaining in close proximity to the site, neighborhood opposition was limited, though intense. The Planning Commission also remained a strong opponent C-18 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 throughout the application process. At the preliminary plan stage, the Commissioners and four neighbors registered concerns about the eleven -story height of the co-op wing of the proposed structure and the legality of a government body working so closely with a religious institution. The Planning Commission on a six -to -one vote recommended denial of the application, citing too much density and too tall a structure; an alternative recommendation was unanimously approved, that the structure be no taller than seven stories as indicated on a previous design sketch and that the number of housing units be reduced to a point where all parking requirements could be fully met. In April 1980, the City Council approved the preliminary plans without the Planning Commission's recommended changes. Because two Council members also belonged to the Calvary congregation, the City Attorney was asked to rule on conflict of interest. The City already had a policy in place for such situations, and the attorney found no conflict. One of the church members abstained anyway, but the other joined in the unanimous vote of approval. In July 1980, the Golden Valley Post published a detailed statement by one of the opposing neighbors. The City Planning Director was accused of under-the-table dealing with Calvary. The City Attorney was accused of making an incorrect conflict of interest ruling. The Council/HRA was accused of conducting an inappropriate land sale. CCS was accused of bait -and -switch tactics because early designs had been for a seven story building but the actual application asked for eleven stories. A rebuttal from the Mayor was published the following month. Also in August, CCS went back to the Planning Commission with detailed development plans. A second Planning Commission hearing was unusual for a PUD, and may have been related to the earlier negative recommendation. The Commission unanimously recommended denial of the proposal based on the same concerns as cited earlier. Because of the significant departure from normal parking requirements, the proposal was sent on to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for a ruling. CCS was unable to answer several Board questions regarding future use of the rest of the Calvary site and overall parking concerns. The BZA denied the requested parking waiver. At the final City Council hearing on the matter in September, all of the earlier issues came up again. The entire Planning Commission was present at the Council's request, and argued strongly over density and parking issues. Also, the human rights angle was raised; it was suggested that having "Calvary" in the name of the development might be discriminatory because of its Christian connotation and that the provision of private patios for some but not all units was also discriminatory. Two neighbors spoke against the proposal. On the other hand, several speakers, most of whom identified themselves as both Golden Valley residents and Calvary Church members, thanked the Council for supporting the development. C-19 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Several Council members noted that higher residential densities were a sign of the changing times. Based on extensive studies of parking at similar existing developments, and on a Calvary proposal for cross -parking agreements between the church, the high rise, and the Valley Square Office Center, the Council instructed the BZA to reconsider the parking waiver. The Human Rights Commission was assigned to review the management plan for the subsidized portion of the project and ensure that it reflected fair polices and practices. Subject to BZA approval on the parking issue, the Council gave the project a unanimous vote of approval. The Minneapolis Star offered the opinion that the Planning Commission's ongoing opposition to the project stemmed at least in part from the Council's early involvement and from the impression made at the Planning Commission hearings by CCS presenters, who were not well prepared and seemed to take Council approval for granted. On reconsideration, the BZA approved the parking waiver. A building permit of the rental wing of the project was issued before the end of September. The co- operative wing was to follow at a later time. Six months before the 80 subsidized apartments opened in October 1981, CCS already had a waiting list of 338 elderly couples of singles who wanted to apply for admittance. About 30% were currently living in zip code areas 55422 and 55427, covering most of Golden Valley along with portions of Crystal, New Hope, and Robbinsdale. Prospects for the Future: As of this time, CCS is interested in signing a new contract with HUD after the current one expires in 2001. C-20 Resolution 98-60 - Continued Medley Park Townhouse PUD Project July 7, 1998 Time Frame: Mar 1980 - Dec 1982 Concept Development and Construction Dec 1982 - Dec 2002 Minimum Affordable Occupancy Period Administering Agency: The subsidized rental portion of the project is owned and managed by Bor-Son Investment Properties Corporation, subject to requirements established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing subsidy program. Funding Source: Detailed financial records were cleared from the City's files after bonds were fully paid off in 1993, signifying the end of the City's financial interest in the site. It is known that Golden Valley supplied $313,000 of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money and issued $360,000 in tax exempt general obligation bonds. The amount of developer's equity is unknown, as well as any possible contributions from other state or federal programs. Thumbnail Description: A sixty -unit townhouse development on 8.5 acres of land at Mendelssohn and Hillsboro Avenues. The easterly 5.5 acres, containing 30 market rate ownership units and an on-site drainage pond, has taken on a separate identity as "Pheasant Glen". The westerly three acres with its 30 Section 8 rental units is still known as Medley Park. One of the rental units is fully handicapped accessible, and one is a four-bedroom unit reserved for large families; the other rental units have two or three bedrooms apiece. All are deep subsidy units at this time, reserved for low income households. Highlights/Pitfalls: As far as the permanent record is concerned, this project first came to the City's attention in March 1980, when the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) sent out a notice of application for funding. A private developer proposed to put 37 Section 8 townhouse units on three acres of vacant land at Mendelssohn and Hillsboro Avenues. The City had targeted the site for market rate apartments in a 1979 planning study. In May 1980, the MHFA notified Golden Valley that the townhouse proposal had been selected for funding, at a slightly reduced density of 32 units. In August, the developer applied to the City for Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation. The City denied the application in November, on the grounds that the density was still too high and that the City's policy was to require a mix of subsidized and market rate units in PUD's. Neighbors in the King's Valley PUD to the south had also opposed the project, citing traffic congestion, too little on-site parking and storage, inadequate adjacent shopping and bus service, drainage problems, and too many children with no place to play. C21 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 After some internal reorganization, the developer returned in July 1981 with an expanded proposal. In addition to the original three acres, the proposed PUD incorporated four acres of the previously approved but never completed Galant PUD lying immediately east of the site. Drainage would be'provided on a one - and -a -half acre tax forfeit parcel at the lowest corner of the newly combined site. There would be a total of 64 townhouse units, with 30 set aside for Section 8 rental and 34 to be sold at modest cost with federally backed, low-interest mortgages. The developer met with neighbors from King's Valley and from the completed portion of Galant before any public hearings took place. Several plan modifications were made in response to neighbor concerns. Preliminary PUD approval was granted by the City Council in August 1981. In February 1982 the HRA approved a contribution of $392,000 in CDBG money for the project, and agreed to cover another $275,000 in project expenses through bonds to be paid off by establishing a 15 -year Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Housing District for the project. The money would be used for buying down land costs, buying down high construction financing costs, providing adequate drainage, and installing sidewalks, landscaping, and upgraded structural details. It was the City's first experience with a residential TIF district, and there were concerns about whether it would work, but the HRA was equally concerned that the project might fall apart without it. Paying for capitalized interest on the bonds pushed the bond issue up to $360,000. On the other hand, CDBG expenditures would ultimately top out at almost $80,000 less than the amount allocated. A special HUD waiver had to be obtained in order to use the CDBG money at all, since regulations limited it to projects primarily benefiting low income households. The City also got a HUD waiver to allow the developer to undertake construction of public improvements such as the drainage system and sidewalks, which would normally have had to be publicly bid; this allowed significant savings in the cost of those items. The City Council gave final approval to the Medley Park PUD in April 1982, subject to the signing of a development agreement. Some King's Valley neighbors continued to protest over such issues as loss of wildlife habitat, drainage, traffic, the public financing of the project, and the developer's refusal to mix the subsidized units in among the market rate ones. Council members responded by saying they felt that the various issues had been handled as well as possible, and that other legally allowable uses for the site -- such as the apartment buildings that were recommended back in 1979 -- would probably have been developed less carefully because they would require less City involvement. C-22 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Then the developer refused to sign the development agreement, due to a penalty clause requiring forfeiture of the land back to the HRA if the market -rate portion of the development was not in place within five years. Each side felt it had to retain long-term control over the land in order to protect its investment. With a construction start deadline of August 1 for the rental units in order to keep the Section 8 designation, negotiations over the disputed development agreement clause dragged on for two months. The developer finally conceded. Groundbreaking occurred at the end of July 1982. Despite heavy rains in the fall, the first 16 rental units were ready for occupancy by December, with the remainder filling up in early 1983. Construction of the ownership units did not begin until the summer of 1983, and then continued in stages over several years. Records indicate concern over steadily increasing construction costs; it is not clear whether the sale price of the units as built was low enough to qualify for the originally intended low interest mortgages. Although there were some years in which the TIF district generated less money than projected, it performed well enough for the City to twice allow a reduction in the total number of ownership units that had to be built. In fact, the developer was able to pay off the full bond debt in less than the fifteen years that the TIF district could have run. Prospects for the Future: Based on tax record valuations, the ownership units in Medley Park would still be considered "affordable" today for the purposes of the Livable Communities program, and might even qualify for low interest, first-time homebuyers loans; how far into the future that might continue is entirely dependent on the housing market. The Section 8 rental units are no longer subject to any affordability requirements linked to their original financing. Bor-Son currently holds a HUD contract through 2002, with a guaranteed option to extend for another ten years at that point. A representative of the corporation has indicated a strong likelihood of exercising that option. C-23 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Ewald Site - Early Efforts Time Frame: May 1981 - Jul 1988 Concept Development Administering Agency: NA Funding Source: Golden Valley spent $55,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money to acquire the property. Other terms of financing changed several times as proposals were discarded or amended. Additional City costs were incurred in the form of legal fees, site clearance, a deposit to reserve low-interest mortgage money, a court settlement, and other miscellaneous activities. Thumbnail Description: The site is approximately one acre in size, comprising somewhat less than half of the old Ewald Dairy property which spanned the Golden Valley/Minneapolis border at Golden Valley Road. In the course of these early efforts, the project progressed from subsidized units to market rate, to modest cost market rate. Density went from twenty units down to four. Type of development went from townhouse to detached single family. Highlights/Pitfalls: The Ewald Brothers Dairy Co. had been a fixture at the Golden Valley/Minneapolis border for decades. The dairy plant was on the Minneapolis side, with a parking lot and truck storage area in Golden Valley. Residential neighbors on both sides of the border had become increasingly less tolerant of the company's activities over time. In 1980, the dairy was having financial difficulties, and the City of Minneapolis saw an opportunity for a buyout with subsequent residential redevelopment of the site. In May 1981, the Golden Valley City Council was contacted by the Alderman of the Minneapolis ward in which the Ewald property was located. Minneapolis wanted to propose a joint venture wherein the two cities would acquire the site in its entirety and redevelop it with 48 townhouse units, twenty of which would be in Golden Valley. The only source of funds available to Golden Valley was CDBG money, which the City had earmarked exclusively for low and moderate income housing projects. The City had enough uncommitted CDBG money to finance the parking lot acquisition, but not enough to assist with a subsidized housing development. Minneapolis responded that, through its existing partnership with the McKnight Foundation, money could be made available to build subsidized units on the Minneapolis part of the site; the two cities could then work out some sort of credit exchange so that Golden Valley could show a linkage between its parking lot acquisition and the subsidized units. HUD agreed to the arrangement, but Golden Valley backed out of the deal in July due to concerns over how the general public might perceive a suburb that would use federal money to get subsidized housing C-24 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 built in another community rather than within its own borders. The City also felt the density was much too high for the one -acre site. Acquiring the land did appear to be a good idea, though, so Golden Valley appointed a neighborhood committee to consider other alternatives for redevelopment.,, Later in the year, the two cities made another attempt to work out a joint proposal after Minneapolis agreed to be more flexible in its approach. This effort fell apart as well. A Minneapolis senior planner was quoted in the Minneapolis Tribune as saying that Golden Valley's staff "was too lazy to work and make it happen." Golden Valley's Planning Director retorted that there was too little trust between the two communities and the partnership had never been an equal one. In October 1981, Golden Valley's HRA authorized staff to negotiate acquisition of the parking lot land. Staff and the neighborhood committee had agreed that townhouses would be acceptable on the site, but staff preferred a density of 12 units while the neighbors advocated eight. The units were to be ownership based and market rate. HUD had agreed that CDBG money could still be used for acquisition under the blight removal classification, but could not be used for any aspect of redevelopment. The City closed on the purchase in March 1982. In the spring of 1982, a prospectus was sent out, seeking proposals for "medium priced townhouses or condominiums designed to blend with the surrounding single family residential neighborhood." As a compromise between staff and neighbor recommendations, maximum density was capped at 10 units. Five proposals were submitted. On review, the neighborhood committee favored a proposal for ten units by Monson and Ueland. The committee liked it architecture, site layout, unit sizes, and the inclusion of a tot lot. Monson and Ueland ranked third out of the five proposals in the staff's review, based on concerns about the site layout and about the lack of experience on the part of the developer in September 1982. The City approved a PUD permit for the Ewald project in May 1983. With the support of the neighborhood committee, there was little dissent during the approval process. Trouble began over the summer months. The developer was unable to come up with an adequate financial commitment to back the performance guarantee required by the development agreement. In August, Monson and Ueland asked to be let out of the agreement, with the refunding of the developer's deposit. The HRA declined, offering instead an amended development agreement. Monson and Ueland still were unable to meet the terms of the performance guarantee. Negotiations continued into the fall. In 1984, Bor-Son Investment Co. was brought in under option with Monson and Ueland. Because or Bor-Son's success with Medley Park, it was hoped that the change in developers could salvage the project. Bor-Son worked with the HRA for C-25 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 several months. The proposal remained within the parameters of the approved PUD permit, but the developer kept the purchase price of the units low enough to qualify for low-interest first time homebuyers mortgages available through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for modest cost homes. Golden Valley paid a partial deposit of $3,200 to reserve the mortgage funds, with Bor-Son paying the rest. In an intensive marketing effort, the developer received 150 responses, from which 74 prospective buyers viewed the site and obtained detailed project information, six actually placed deposits, and only two signed purchase agreements. At that point, Bor-Son declared the project unmarketable as designed by Monson and Ueland. Monson and Ueland blamed the HRA for the lack of progress on the project. According to the developer, the HRA had tried to change the form and amount of the financial commitment from what had been represented by staff and what was in the development agreement, and then had refused to be reasonable about letting Monson and Ueland out of the agreement when the parties could not come to terms. In November 1984, the developer offered to settle matters for a $40,000 payment from the HRA and cancellation of the development agreement without prejudice on either side. In December 1984, the HRA declared Monson and Ueland in default of the development agreement and demanded payment for costs incurred to date. A breach of contract suit against the HRA followed in March 1985, with Monson and Ueland claiming $400,000 in damages, ten times what was requested back in November. The case finally settled out of court in November 1987, with the HRA paying the developer $30,000. In April 1988, Golden Valley was contacted by a Minneapolis citizens' group called the Northside Residents Redevelopment Council. Minneapolis had encountered its own problems in getting the Ewald site redeveloped. Early that year, a proposal by the nonprofit Project for Pride in Living (PPL) had finally been approved. The project consisted of six single family homes that would be affordable to moderate income households. The Residents Council wanted to see a similar PPL -sponsored development on the Golden Valley land. This time there would be four single family homes in a higher ($110,000-$120,000) price range; PPL wanted the land donated. The HRA was not opposed to the development proposal itself, but had determined that the land could not be donated for such a project. The HRA did offer to sell the land for $29,000 if the developer paid for installation of all utilities. PPL declined the offer. Prospects for the Future: Following one more false start, the site was finally developed in 1992-93. See the other two Ewald project summaries for details. C-26 Resolution 98-60 - Continued Mallard Creek Apartment Project July 7, 1998 Time Frame: Jan 1983 - Jun 1987 Concept Development and Construction Jun 1987 - Dec 2005 Minimum Affordable Occupancy Period Administering Agency: Mallard Creek Partnership, a general partnership "spun off' of United Properties, Inc. and Northland Company for the sole purpose of developing and managing this project. The partnership is subject to certain housing affordability and administrative requirements associated with the Housing Revenue Bond program, and is supposed to supply certification of compliance to the City on a regular basis. Funding Source: Valley Square Tax Increment Bonds supported initial property acquisition and clearance, as well as construction of certain public improvements in the general area. For the project itself, the City issued Housing Revenue Bonds in the amount of $5.9 million and the developer supplied $298,000 in owner equity. Off and on, the apartments have also participated in HUD's Section 8 certificate program for renters. Thumbnail Description: Mallard Creek Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a 122 unit, three-story apartment complex on Bassett Creek at Wisconsin Avenue and Golden Valley Road. It is one of several HRA -initiated redevelopment projects in the City's Valley Square Redevelopment Area. Twenty-four of the units are required to be kept at rents affordable to low-income households, and to be reserved for qualifying households. All other units are required to be kept at rents affordable to moderate -income households. Highlights/Pitfalls: When the City first established Valley Square in 1978, Wisconsin Avenue did not exist, Golden Valley Road ran in a corridor directly adjacent to Hwy. 55 rather than in its present alignment past the site, and the Reiss family greenhouse business covered the entire area delineated by Bassett Creek, old Golden Valley Road and Wisconsin Avenue. The street improvements were components of the redevelopment plan for Valley Square, as was acquisition of the greenhouse property, which was completed in 1985. The realignment of Golden Valley Road in 1986 divided the former greenhouse property into two parcels. A Request for Proposals issued in 1983 had contemplated this realignment and had given a preference for office developments on both sides of the new street, but also allowed latitude for residential apartments on the northerly parcel. United Properties was awarded "designated developer" status for the area by responding to the RFP with a combined office/apartment proposal. C-27 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Subsidized housing was not an early consideration in the redevelopment process. In fact, there were minimum per-unit valuations that would have to be maintained in order to generate enough tax increment to contribute back to the redevelopment district. In 1985, the developer began to seek outside funding to make the development feasible. Tax-exempt Housing Revenue Bonds were one option. Such bonds required at least twenty percent of the housing units in a development to meet specified affordability guidelines for a specified period of time. When the bonds were issued in 1985, it was noted that the guidelines defined affordable housing to be housing priced at a value affordable to households with an income of eighty percent or less of the median income for a standard family of four in the Twin Cities Metro Area. There was no adjustment factor for how many persons a qualifying household actually comprised. Thus, a single individual with the income defined for a family of four would still be a qualifying household, even though that individual in reality was much better off financially than a family of four at the same income. The housing plan that was required to spell out how the development would meet housing affordability guidelines indicated that all twenty-four of the affordable units would be one -bedroom apartments. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, which authorized the issuance of Housing Revenue Bonds, approved the plan. The City held a public hearing on the bond issue in October 1985. There was no special effort to send out mailed notices of the hearing, and no neighbors requested an opportunity to speak. The lack of interest may have been related to the fact that there were no residential neighborhoods in close proximity to the proposed development. The bond issue itself took place in December, clearing the way for planning approval and construction. The PUD hearings, which did have mailed -notice requirements, were as quiet as the earlier bond hearing. Construction began in the summer of 1986 and the first tenants moved in the following May or June. Prospects for the Future: Given Mallard Creek's very minimal initial compliance with affordability requirements, it is doubtful that the owners will be prepared to extend an affordability guarantee beyond the 2005 expiration deadline without substantial outside incentives. C-28 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Duluth and Douglas Senior Housing Project Time Frame: Apr 1984 - Dec 1986 Concept Development Administering Agency: Bradley D. Stark and Associates,'a private development corporation, subject to regulations established by the City in a Tax Increment Financing Plan and to requirements accompanying the use of Housing Revenue Bonds. Funding Source: Financing details went through a number of changes during the project's lifetime. At its end stage, they included creation of a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District and issuance of $1.5 million in TIF bonds by the City, issuance of tax-exempt Housing Revenue Bonds by the City in the amount of $4.4 million, and developer's equity of $400,000. This would have been the first housing project in Golden Valley to offer subsidized rents without using any of the subsidy programs available through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); rent reductions were to be provided by the developer from overall project cash flow. Thumbnail Description: This was proposed to be a rental townhouse development for senior citizens, with 117 units on approximately seven acres of land. It would have required the buyout and removal of ten single family homes and a church (alternative proposals for leaving the church in place were also explored.) Rental subsidies would be available for a minimum of ten years (the revenue bond repayment period) for 23 of the 117 units; the remainder would be market -rate rental. Golden Valley's previously -constructed senior housing had all been in high-rise apartments. Highlights/Pitfalls: After being identified in a 1983 Planning Commission study as a potential site for apartment redevelopment, the land around the Jehovah's Witness Church at Duluth Street and Douglas Drive received attention from a variety of developers for low -and moderate -income housing use. In 1984, it was briefly considered by a developer who went on to form the Laurel Ponds Partnership and apply for financial assistance on an alternative site at Jersey and Laurel Avenues. Also in 1984, Derrick Land Company spent several months working on a proposal for senior housing; that idea eventually collapsed without ever getting to any formal hearing stage. In 1985, another senior housing proposal surfaced briefly, and went the same way as the Derrick proposal. In 1986, Bradley D. Stark and Associates approached the City with yet another proposal for senior housing. Unlike other prospective developers, Stark already had purchase options on the properties when he approached the City in February. Unfortunately, as staff and the developer worked to iron out financing and site details over the next several months, the availability of, and regulations governing, financial assistance for such projects also underwent changes. The purchase C-29 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 options lapsed in August, but City and developer continued negotiations on the understanding that the HRA would use its condemnation authority to assist in land acquisition if the project was approved. Financing options continued to be juggled. By November, staff, the developer, and the financial consultants on both sides finally felt that a viable financing package had been assembled. Stark made an informal presentation to the HRA, and at the HRA's instruction then held a meeting for 156 neighboring property owners as identified on a list supplied by staff. Not being an official City meeting, the records contain no information on attendance or warmth of reception at that meeting. Files do contain a few communications from property owners unhappy with the proposal; there were requests for a more thorough investigation of Stark's financial means and development track record. A December hearing had been scheduled for the City to consider approval of the revenue bonds. It was cancelled a week before it was to take place. Staff had received information from the City of St. Paul indicating that the developer had difficulty meeting financial obligations for a project there, and had been forced to withdraw his proposal after a good deal of effort on the City's part. Further research led to the conclusion that the developer appeared to lack the development experience and financial wherewithall necessary to successfully complete a project on his own. The proposal was pronounced "dead" in February 1987. The Planning Commission was asked to reconsider the general suitability of the site for high-density housing of any kind. Prospects for the Future: In September 1987, the Planning Commission's study results upheld townhouse -style housing as a suitable option for the site, with a preference for senior units in particular. The Planning Commission also recommended against changing the land -use classification of the site before an acceptable development proposal was in hand. All ten homes and the church remain on the property today. Given the high cost of site acquisition and clearance, it is not likely that residential redevelopment would be a cost-effective undertaking. C-30 Resolution 98-60 Continued July 7, 1998 Laurel Ponds Apartment Project Time Frame: May 1984 - Aug 1984 Concept Development Administering Agency: Laurel Ponds Limited Partnership, an entity comprising three housing professionals, joined together specifically for this project. The Partnership would be subject to requirements established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for projects of this type, and to requirements accompanying the use of Housing Revenue Bonds. Funding Source: Housing Revenue Bonds to be issued by the City in the amount of $6 million, an additional $3 million through a Housing Development Action Grant (HoDAG) to be awarded by HUD via the City, and $1.2 million in owners' equity. Part of the money would be used to finance construction. The remainder would be deposited in an interest-bearing account, with the interest earnings used to subsidize rents on the units reserved for lower-income households. Thumbnail Description: This was proposed to be a 120 -unit apartment development in two, three-story buildings on excess church property at Jersey and Laurel Avenues. Twenty percent of the units were to be specially designed and reserved to accommodate the needs of moderate -income mobility -impaired individuals and their families; the remaining units would be of standard design and rented at market rates. Highlights/Pitfalls: The City was approached initially in May 1984 by Peter Boosalis, a developer who had worked with Golden Valley on similar projects in the past. The property, which consisted of the south half of the Good Shepherd church/school campus was zoned and designated on the comprehensive plan map as institutional, but was one of several locations identified for high-density residential use. The developer had a signed purchase agreement with the church. 1984 was HoDAG's first year of existence, so the amount and nature of competition to be expected for that portion of the financing was unclear. The Metro Council, as regional review agency, recommended in favor of the HUD financing in July 1984, though the discrepancy between proposed use and existing plan designation was noted. For various reasons, the developer had to have the financing lined up before proceeding with the planning and development aspects of the project. In early August, the City Council approved the issuance of the tax exempt bonds and the forwarding of the HoDAG application to HUD. Though not legally required to do so, the City had sent out individual mailed notices of the bond hearing to approximately eighty nearby property owners. Many of them showed up, and nine C-31 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 spoke at the hearing. One resident was quoted in a subsequent newspaper article as saying "I think I can safely predict the rezoning will be vehemently opposed by the neighborhood." Another newspaper quote was "multiples do not belong there; this is an area of $100,000 -plus homes, and it's not appropriate for low and moderate incomes." Despite reservations of their own, the Council members voted to proceed. Council members noted that any rezoning application would have to be approved on its own terms, regardless of the action taken on the financing. Members also agreed, however, that Golden Valley had an identified need for low- and moderate -income housing as well as for handicapped -accessible housing. Just nine days after the City Council hearing, the developer suddenly announced that the entire proposal was being withdrawn. Unfortunately, there is nothing in City records to indicate why. Review of the HoDAG application by HUD would take at least 45 days, so it could not have been a problem with denied funding. No application for rezoning was ever made. There are several possible reasons for the proposal's collapse, including problems within the newly -formed partnership, problems with the purchase agreement, problems with financing, concerns about neighborhood opposition, or concerns about the degree of support expected from the City Council during the rezoning process. Prospects for the Future: In February 1985, Good Shepherd Church applied for subdivision of its campus into two lots. By fall of 1986, a second church had been built on the lot containing the excess land, making it no longer available for any type of housing development. C-32 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Minimal Frontage Subdivision Program Time Frame: 1987-1990 Thumbnail Description: This was a provision whereby the back portion of oversized residential parcels could be split off from the front and turned into a separate, buildable lot. Such lots had only a twenty -foot -wide corridor of land extending out to an existing street for access. Except for the years during which this provision was in use, residential lots in Golden Valley have generally been required to have full street frontage. Though not documented anywhere in the official record, a staff member involved in establishing the provision states that it was specifically intended to promote the creation of more affordable lots. Highlights/Pitfalls: Prior to 1988, City Code did not specify any minimum required street access for residential lots. Nevertheless, by long-standing policy, the City did not allow the creation of new lots with minimal frontage. During 1987, the City undertook a major overhaul of the subdivision regulations. Among other things, a twenty -foot minimum street frontage was established for residential lots. The revised requirements were approved in December 1987. The full -frontage policy was abandoned even before the code changes were approved. In mid -1987, the City approved the Lazniarz and Gruskin Gardens 2nd Addition plats, each of which included a lot with only twenty feet of street frontage. In each case, it was an existing house at the rear of the property that was left with the minimal frontage, while staff noted that the "new" (i.e. still vacant) lots would fully meet City requirements. There were no applications for the minimal -frontage provision in 1988. In 1989, Meadow Lane Manor and the Knaeble Addition were approved. Unlike the two 1987 plats, these had the existing homes at the front of the property, with the new construction to take place at the rear. All four subdivisions met with neighborhood opposition. In the latter two cases, neighbors were particularly incensed by the thought of strangers overlooking their back yards. Overcrowding, inadequate infrastructure, and devaluation of neighboring properties were also raised as arguments. One of the Knaeble neighbors was the same Lazniarz who had benefited from a minimal -frontage subdivision of his own property in 1987. He sued to block the Knaeble subdivision, citing a number of ways in which he felt it would be detrimental to his property or to the general area. The City won the suit and the Knaebles were awarded damages for the delay of their subdivision approval. However, in view of the emerging pattern of widespread opposition to minimal - frontage subdivisions, the City decided to re-evaluate their desirability. As a result, the applicable provision was deleted from City Code in April 1990. C-33 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 On the "up" side, the City was able to create six new, buildable lots at minimal expense to the original property owners/developers, and without adding new infrastructure that the City would later have to maintain. On the "down" side, there was first of all the distress that such subdivisions were generating in formerly stable neighborhoods. Some of the issues raised by the neighbors had not been seriously considered before the City decided to allow minimal -frontage lots. Increased difficulty of police and fire protection due to limited access and visibility was one unexplored area. There also was no equitable utility maintenance/repair assessment mechanism for lots with minimal frontage, since most such assessments are levied solely on the basis of street frontage. No firm guidelines were in place for appropriate driveway snow storage, parking, or trash/recyclable collection for the back lots. Most parcels of land eligible for this type of division were located in clusters, often on county roads with relatively high peak traffic counts, yet there had been no discussion of the potential hazard of proliferating driveways along those roads. Minimal frontage lots of minimum size would have less than the normal minimum buildable area because of the land taken up by the driveway corridor; the absence of the standard thirty -five-foot front setback for such lots would partly alleviate the problem of the reduced buildable area, but would then create a situation where the front of the rear house could get obtrusively close to the remaining back yard of the house in front. A final, important drawback to the minimal -frontage subdivisions was that they were not meeting their original intent: creating affordable lots. The two Knaeble lots, which precipitated the lawsuit and subsequent code change, went on the assessors' books originally at $25,000 for the land alone and today are at $28,000 and $29,500. Two of the four Gruskin Garden lots were initially entered at $25,000 each but are now up to $45,000 despite some drainage concerns. All of the other seven lots started at more than $30,000, and today four of them - two in Gruskin Gardens and two in Meadow Lane Manor - are valued at over $70,000 for land only. It must also be remembered that assessors' residential land values for Golden Valley tend to run low with respect to actual sale prices. Prospects For The Future: At this time, there is no plan to reinstate the minimal - frontage subdivision in Golden Valley. As more of the City's oversized, unplatted residential parcels come on the market, however, increasing pressure for cheap subdivision alternatives can be expected. If this option is revisited, the City should thoroughly examine all pitfalls identified above before taking any formal action. C-34 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Ewald Site - Schatzlein Townhouse PUD Request Time Frame: Jul 1990 - Jan 1992 Concept Development Administering Agency: Schatzlein Associates, also doing business as Affordable Suburban Apartment Partnership, planned to own and operate the development, subject to MHFA requirements for projects receiving state financing. Funding Source: The HRA was to transfer land title at a nominal cost and extend all necessary utilities to the site. Other costs were to be covered by a $339,000 mortgage through the MHFA's Agency New Construction Tax Credit Mortgage Loan Program, MHFA reservation of $270,000 in federal tax credits, and $72,850 in developer's equity. Thumbnail Description: Ten rental townhouse units, affordable to households of moderate income, on a site of approximately one acre in size at Xerxes Avenue and Golden Valley Road. Each unit would have three bedrooms and would be intended for larger families; based on similar existing developments, the MHFA estimated 2-4 children per household on average. Highlights/Pitfalls: Schatzlein first appeared before the HRA in July 1990 to present a proposal for the Ewald Site and to seek HRA support in pursuing financing. The HRA passed a resolution granting preliminary conditional designated developer status to Schatzlein. This would allow Schatzlein to proceed with concept development and to make application for MHFA financing of a project based on the Ewald site. In February 1991 the HRA followed up by sending a letter to the MHFA in support of tax credit assistance for the project. By September 1991 the financing was lined up. Schatzlein had met with some difficulty in getting the tax credits syndicated, due to the small scale of the project. In October 1991, the developer was back before the HRA with an update on the project and a request for "fast track" approval; the tax credits would be forfeited if at least 10% of their value was not expended on eligible activities by year end. The HRA reaffirmed Schatzlein's conditional designated developer status. Also in October, Schatzlein submitted his PUD application. The developer held a neighborhood information meeting prior to the first PUD hearing. In a meeting summary forwarded to the City, Schatzlein indicated that about 100 residents had been invited and approximately fifteen went to the meeting. Neighborhood concerns included the density of development, the large number of children, inadequate parking, and erosion on the steep slope at the west side of the site. In response, Schatzlein had added parking and promised to look into erosion control measures, but noted that the earlier Monson/Ueland proposal for the site had been approved by the neighborhood at the same density. C-35 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 According to a local newspaper article, more than fifty people attended the Planning Commission's informal public hearing in October. Fourteen spoke, all in opposition to the proposal. they protested the lack of neighborhood input and noted that previous plans had not involved low income units and had not been rental based. Several indicated membership in the City's Neighborhood Watch program and pointed out that the proposal ran counter to the program's recommendations for promoting neighborhood stability; the rental nature of the project was specifically highlighted. Large numbers of children, traffic, drainage/erosion, and absentee landlord syndrome were raised as other issues. Habitat for Humanity was mentioned as an acceptable alternative. Individual commissioners picked up on varying concerns among those cited, but all agreed that the density was too high. The Commission unanimously voted to recommend denial of the preliminary PUD plans. This time, in response to concerns of the neighborhood and of the Planning Commission, Schatzlein brought in a new partner, Project for Pride in Living (PPL), to act as manager of the units. PPL had extensive experience working with such projects, and a good management track record. Schatzlein and PPL also proposed a reduction in site density to eight units. That would allow a relocation and increase in size of the on-site play area for the children. In November 1991 the HRA heard a report on the Planning Commission discussion and Schatzlein's response. The HRA confirmed that the proposed market for the units would be moderate income households rather than low income as cited by several opponents. Finally, the HRA approved three resolutions: finding the Schatzlein project necessary to alleviate a housing shortage, authorizing a public hearing for the sale of the land, and adopting income guidelines for the targeted market. The City Council held its hearing on the revised preliminary PUD plans in December 1991. A petition opposing the PUD was submitted with twelve signatures. The City Council Member for the adjacent Minneapolis neighborhood weighed in against the proposal. A dozen neighbors also spoke against it. Concerns were much the same as at the Planning Commission hearing. Habitat for Humanity was mentioned again. The Council continued the hearing to a later date, asking staff to collect information from PPL, to talk with the Minneapolis Council Member and with neighbors in both communities, and to look into development options for ownership rather than rental units. More communications opposing the project were received, including a petition with 160 signatures. Signatories agreed to accept an owner occupied development. In January 1992 at the continued hearing, the Council heard about two ownership options researched by staff: PPL and Habitat for Humanity. Without taking action on the immediate PUD application, the Council referred the matter to the HRA. In C-36 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 February, the HRA unanimously voted to withdraw Schatzlein's conditional developer designation and to conditionally designate Habitat instead. Prospects for the Future: Four Habitat homes were built on the Ewald site over 1992 and 1993. Despite his failure to gain project approval for that site, developer Schatzlein has indicated a desire to work again with Golden Valley on other proposals in the future. C-37 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 First -Time Home Buyers Program Time Frame: 1991- 1995 (ongoing) Administering Agency: The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) through application by the City of Golden Valley, reserves funds for first-time home buyers. The program is known as the Minnesota City Participation Program (MCPP). Marquette Bank Golden Valley has been designated as the originating lender to take mortgage applications and process loans for this program. Funding Source: Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) Thumbnail Description: Through the MCPP, the MHFA Agency may sell mortgage revenue bonds on behalf of cities to meet locally identified housing needs. The proceeds of these bonds provide below market interest rate home mortgage loans for low and moderate income first time home buyers. The mortgages provided through the issuance of these bonds typically have interest rates of approximately 1-1/2 to 2% below market mortgage interest rates at the time of bond issuance. Highlights/Pitfalls: The advantages of this program are that low and moderate income customers who would not ordinarily qualify for traditional financing programs can obtain market interest rates. For the years 1991-1994, fourteen loans were processed totalling $1,040,000. The City controls how much money it requests from the MHFA for this program. The City also can establish a higher house price limit than the MHFA program limits. In raising the house price limits, more houses would be available to first- time home buyers in a community where houses are selling at a higher price. The disadvantages of the program are that if interest rates are at an all-time low, first-time home buyers do not take advantage of the program because of eligibility and paperwork required for this loan. Golden Valley's housing stock is at a much higher value than the limit set by the MHFA, which was $95,000 for Hennepin County in the program year of 1994. Also, the first-time home buyer must go only to the originating lender assigned by the City instead of to the applicant's personal bank. In 1993, the legislature passed a law that said if a city did not use at least 50% of its allocation during the program term and at least $200,000 in the calendar year in which the allocation is made available, the City is not eligible to apply for an allocation of mortgage revenue bond authority during the following year. This is exactly what happened to Golden Valley for year 1995. While waiting for eligibility to be restored, the City does refer first-time home buyers to another Marquette Bank which has a standard Minnesota Mortgage Program, although the home purchase price is lower. C-38 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Prospects for the Future: Assuming that this program remains in place, the City of Golden Valley will again apply for funds through the Minnesota City Participation Program so it may continue to offer those first-time home buyers a mortgage program that may meet their financial needs. Unfortunately, as shown above, the City cannot always ensure that the money reserved for Golden Valley does indeed get spent. C-39 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Ewald Site - Habitat for Humanity Project Time Frame: Jan 1992 - Nov 1993 Concept Development and Construction Nov 1992 - Nov 2012 Minimum Affordable Occupancy Period Administering Agency: Nonprofit Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity (Habitat) holds twenty-year mortgages on all four properties. Loan amounts exclude donated land, labor and materials, and carry no interest on unpaid balance. Habitat selects all homeowners and provides ownership training up front in addition to acting as an ongoing resource for referral on maintenance or ownership problems. If a homeowner moves before the mortgage is fully retired, Habitat either gets first option to buy the home back for the exact amount of money paid in by the homeowner, or -- if the homeowner wants to sell on the open market -- gets full payment of the portion of the home's fair market value that was discounted from the original mortgage. In the case of a mortgage foreclosure, which has never happened to date, the home again goes back to Habitat. Funding Source: Golden Valley acquired the property in 1982 with $55,000 in CDBG funds. The City also financed or directly undertook replatting, extension of necessary utility lines, and other miscellaneous construction assistance. Habitat financed construction through its usual mix of income from other existing mortgages, monetary and material donations, and volunteered equipment and labor. In addition to sweat equity contributed during construction, homeowners make monthly mortgage payments out of their own household budgets, but amounts are quite affordable due to Habitat's mortgage practices. Thumbnail Description: The one acre site at Xerxes and Golden Valley Road was part of an area originally platted around the turn of the century with lot sizes below current standards. Its six lots were used for many years as a parking and truck staging area for Ewald Dairy Company. The site now comprises four lots in accordance with modern-day standards. Each of the four modular -construction homes has three bedrooms and a one -car garage. The homes are mortgaged to large, low income families. Highlights/Pitfalls: In January 1992, as previously instructed by the City Council, staff submitted a report outlining two options for providing low income, ownership - based housing on the Ewald site. One program was sponsored by Project for Pride in Living, which had also been involved in earlier efforts to develop the property. The other program was under the auspices of Habitat. The Council selected the Habitat option. The matter was then -turned over to the HRA as owner of the Ewald property. Habitat gave a presentation at the February HRA meeting, proposing to construct four to six single family homes on individual lots. The six small, existing lots were similar in size to what Habitat was accustomed to using in Minneapolis and C-40 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 St. Paul, and several other homes in the Ewald area were on single lots. The lots were all legally buildable. Nevertheless, the HRA ordered the site replatted into four lots before being turned over to Habitat, in response to neighbor concerns about overcrowding of the large families which were the intended market for the project. Staff was directed to negotiate a development agreement with Habitat. The development agreement was ready for approval in may 1992. In addition to replatting, the City extended all necessary utilities to the new lots. It was intended that the utility extensions be financed with CDBG money, but the project could not be delayed for the amount of time required to get the application through the red tape of the CDBG process. The property was conveyed to Habitat for the nominal sum of $10.00. Habitat in turn agreed to build the first two homes that same year and the remaining two in 1993. Failure to successfully complete construction would have caused ownership of the lots to revert to the HRA. This was one of Habitat's first projects in the westerly Twin Cities suburbs, and was considered an important step in expanding Habitat's activities in the Metro Area, even though the site was only barely outside of the Minneapolis city limits. Groundbreaking for the northerly two homes took place in June 1992. In a show of support for the project and appreciation for the sensitivity of the Council/HRA to neighborhood concerns, neighbors volunteered 1,600 hours of labor, mostly concentrating on garage construction. Golden Valley's code does not require garages, and construction costs would have been lower without them, but the HRA and Habitat agreed that providing one -car garages would make the homes more compatible with the neighborhood. Most of the labor in a Habitat home is volunteer -based. Habitat saw to it that the first two homes were sponsored by Golden Valley organizations with an interest in Habitat activities. General Mills contributed $30,000 and 5,000 hours of labor to one home, and Calvary Lutheran Church donated $30,000 and a similar amount of labor to the other. The City ended up contributing somewhat more than originally intended, as well; site conditions defied Habitat's earth -moving and other construction efforts on more than one occasion, and City equipment was sent to the rescue. City inspections had to be scheduled outside of normal City working hours, because the project's experienced construction foremen were mostly donating their services on off -hours as well. Habitat had warned early on that the programs reliance on donated labor and equipment tends to result in a slower construction process than for a fully paid contract job. In this case, owners of the two homes were not able to move in until November and December 1992. The southerly two homes were built on schedule, and with considerably less public fanfare in 1993. Building permits were taken out in May. Construction was completed in October and November. C-41 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Prospects for the Future: If a homeowner remains in the home for twenty years and fully retires the mortgage, or if a homeowner who moves before the end of a mortgage term is willing to pay Habitat for the previously discounted portion of the home's fair market value, then the home leaves habitat's control and will be sold on the open market. Given the nature and location of the four Golden Valley properties, they would probably remain modest cost but not necessarily as affordable as when under Habitat's control. Every home that returns to Habitat through sale or foreclosure will be resold to another qualifying low income family and will then go back to zero on the 20 -year affordability clock. C-42 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 APPENDIX D: METRO COUNCIL REVIEW APPLICATION, INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTARY HOUSING DATA, AND METRO COUNCIL REVIEW RESPONSE Part 1: Background Explanation This appendix has been added to the Technical Background as a result of Metro Council review and comments. Part 1 explains the reason for its existence. Part 2 is a copy of the Metro Council's housing plan review comments for Golden Valley. Part 3 is a copy of the draft form used by the City when submitting the plan for Metro Council review, including housing data not provided elsewhere in either the plan or this technical background report. Because Golden Valley felt its Livable Communities "Action Plan" components should fit within the context of the broader housing plan, the City worked very hard to complete its state -mandated update of the comprehensive plan's housing element in time to meet the Livable Communities planning deadline. While that effort was underway in Golden Valley, Metro Council staff were still revising draft content and submittal guidelines for the Metro Council plan review process. There were also questions about how complete a plan had to be for review by adjacent cities and affected school districts, how long a period would be allowed for the Metro Council review, and how the different review periods should fit together. Ultimately, the City decided to conduct all required local review and hearings before sending the plan to any outside reviewers. It was known by then that Metro Council review was limited to sixty days rather than the six months set by state law for adjacent cities and affected school districts. Metro Council policy was to hold off its review until all other reviewers had either submitted comments or allowed the full review period to expire. Since the plan was already essentially complete, however, the City hoped to expedite the outside reviews by making the plan available to the Metro Council while it was still in the hands of the other reviewers, and by encouraging each city and school district to sign off early. Soon after the plan was packaged up and sent out, the Metro Council finished revising its content and submittal guidelines. Certain statistical information that cities had been allowed to attach separately to the draft submittal form was in the final version required to be included in the plan documents themselves. This caused a slight problem for Golden Valley, which had already completed the plan and passed it on with the draft submittal form. Rather than make the City go back and incorporate the data into the body of the plan or its related technical background report, the Metro Council agreed that this appendix could be added. Metmpofi to+ Council July 7, 1998 Working for the Region, Planning for the Future February 2, 1998 Ms. Beth Knoblauch City Planner City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: City of Golden Valley's Updated Housing Element Metropolitan Council District 6 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 15091-4 Dear Ms. Knoblauch: Metropolitan Council staff has reviewed the City of Golden Valley's Updated Housing Element received on November 3, 1997, and the information provided to Tom Caswell, Sector Representative, concerning the housing analysis work being done as part of the city's GIS project. We have determined that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Regional Blueprint and Regional Growth Strategy. It is our understanding that the housing analysis will be included in the city's 1998 revision of the comprehensive plan. Because the proposed amendment appears to be consistent with policies and plans in other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, the Council will waive further review of this amendment, and the city may place the amendment into effect immediately. The amendment, explanatory materials supplied and the information submission form will be appended to the city's plan in the Council's files. If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact Linda Milashius, principal reviewer, at 602-1541. Sincerely, Richard E. Thompson, Supervisor Comprehensive Planning cc: Martha M. Head, Metropolitan Council District 6 Thomas C. McElveen, Deputy Director, Office of Local Assistance Audrey Dougherty, Linda Milashius, Lynda Voge, staff Tom Caswell, Sector Representative Sherry Narusiewicz, MnDOT 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul. Minnesota 55101-1634 (612) 291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 229-3780 An Equal Opportunity Employer D-2 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 nformation Summary for Comprehensive Plan Revisions and Plan Amendments This form summarizes key information about your comprehensive plan revision or amendment that the Metropolitan Council needs for its review. Please complete the form as directed below and submit it to the Metropolitan Council with each comprehensive plan revision or amendment. (See Item C, page A2 for a list of the information to be included with your submittal.) ❖ NOTE: If your plan amendment is a simple "housekeeping" change, you need to complete only Part I of this form ("General Information," pages Al -A2). Please be as specific as possible in your answers. If the staff of your local governmental unit prepared a report for your Planning Commission or City Council regarding this plan revision or amendment, please attach it as well. IMPORTANT: Provide complete answers. This form is used to enable staff to determine completeness within 10 days. If the response on the form references an attached plan, the reference must include the appropriate page, paragraph(s), tables, maps or figures. If you do not clearly reference where information can be found and Council review staff cannot find it, your plan may mistakenly be considered incomplete. Please send plan revision or amendment to: Lynda Voge, Referrals Coordinator Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 E. Fifth Street; St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 I. General Information A. Sponsoring governmental unit CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Name of local contact person ELIZABETH A KNOB All H, CITY PLANNER Address 7800 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD, GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55427 Telephone number 593-8095 FAX number 593-8109 Internet address (if applicable) BKNOBLAUCH(OCI.GQI EN-VAL FY MN IIS Name of preparer (if different from contact person) Date of preparation 4 APRIL, 1997 B. Check all that apply and fill in requested information: Name of document- HOUSING GOLDEN VALLEY 1996--2016., and-5upporting TECHNICAL BACKGROUND • -••r Overall plan revision X Revision of a plan chapter or element "Housekeeping" text change (if so, complete only Part I of this form) Land use change (describe) Size of affected area in acres Urban service area expansion (applies only to amendments processed before submittal of revised comprehensive plan due in 1998. Page 4.1 outlines data on development staging and timing) Size of expansion in acres Other (please describe) W Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 If you are submitting an amendment, briefly describe the amendment: C. Please attach seven copies of the following: 1. Completed Information Summary for Plan Revisions and Plan Amendments form. 2. Your proposed plan revision or amendment. 3. A citywide map showing the location of the proposed change. 4. The current plan map, indicating areas affected by the revision or amendment. 5. The proposed plan map, indicating areas affected by the revision or amendment. ❖ NOTE: If your community has access to a geographic information system (GIS) or other automated mapping technology, the Council would appreciate it if you would submit your land use map and staging boundaries in digital form (one copy), in addition to the hard copies you send. The "Arc Export" format is preferred, but we can also use the "DXF" format. Putting this information in digital form will help minimize map discrepancies between your data and data maintained by the Council. D. What is the official local status of the proposed plan revision or amendment? (Check all that apply.) X_ Acted upon by planning commission (if applicable) on 101UNE 1996 Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council Review on (date) X_ Considered, but not approved by governing body on 18 ]UNE 1996 and 1 APRIL 1997 Other (Please describe) E. List adjacent local governmental units and other jurisdictions (school districts, watershed districts, etc.) affected by the change that have been sent copies of the plan revision or amendment, if any, and the date the copies were sent to them (required by Minn. Stat. 473.858, Subd. 2). CITIES OF—NEW HOPE, CRYSTAL,ROBBINSDALE, MINNEAPOLIS, ST LOUIS PARD, AND PLYMOUTH, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS: 97 (HOPKINS) AND 281 (ROBBINSDALE)s ALL COPIES SENT OUT ON: APRIL 7, 1997. ❖ Note: Please review the information requests in the following handbook sections for a complete description of information to accompany or to be included in your comprehensive plan revision or amendment: Wastewater, page 5.8 Transportation, page 5.1 Aviation, page 5.7 Recreation Open Space, page 5.10 Land Use, page 4.1 ❖ Housing, page 4.8 (Supplementary worksheet attached) Water Resources, page 4.20 Implementaiion Program, page 6.1 Water Supply, page 5.12 D-4 Resolution 8g8-60 - CC ntinued July 7, 1998 II. mpac{ on Regional �ystems A. Wastewater Treatment 1. Total flow for community based on existing plan: 3.92 million gallons/day (mgd) year 2000; 4.01 mgd year 2010 2. Will the proposed plan revision or amendment change projected sewer flows for the community? X No - If not, skip to question 7. Yes - Indicate the expected change: 3. Total flow for community based on plan revision or amendment: mgd year 2000; mgd year 2010 4. If your community discharges to more than one metropolitan interceptor, indicate which interceptor will be affected by the revision or amendment. 5. Will flows be diverted from one interceptor service area to another? No Yes - Describe the change and volumes involved in mgd: 6. Is any wastewater flow an intercommunity flow to an adjoining community's sanitary sewer system? —X_ No Yes - If yes, enclose a copy of the inter -community agreement. 7. Has your community adopted a comprehensive program for the management of on-site septic systems including biennial inspections? No Yes X Not applicable- Please explain: New on -cite Mtems have not been allow ri for many years; few old ones remain. B. Transportation 1. Does this plan revision or amendment potentially increase existing trip generation (use Institute of Transportation Engineers trip -generation manual)? No - If not, skip to question 3. Yes - If yes, how much average daily traffic? How much peak hour traffic? 2. Does the existing local and regional road network (including metropolitan interchanges) have the capacity to accommodate planned land use(s)? No _ Yes a. If not, will this plan revision or amendment require improvements to local or regional roads or interchanges? No _ Yes Specify: Explain who will pay for these improvements: D-5 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 Will these improvements be in place to accommodate the proposed development? No Yes Are these improvements included in a capital Improvement program? No Yes b. If not, will this plan revision or amendment require implementing traffic demand management (TDM) strategies or land use and urban design measures? No Yes - If yes, How? (For example, park & rides, flexible work hours, mixed land uses.) 3. Does this plan amendment impact transit service or facilities? X_ No Yes - How? 4. Does the proposed plan revision or amendment affect pedestrian or bike systems? _X No Yes - How? C. Aviation 1. Do your community's plan or codes/ordinances include a "notification" element to protect regional airspace? X No Yes 2. Do the proposed changes in the plan revision or amendment involve areas within an airport influence area or airport search area? _X No - If no, skip to "D," "Recreation Open Space." Yes 3. Are the proposed changes in the plan revision or amendment consistent with guidelines for land use compatibility and aircraft noise guidelines and approved airport Long-term Comprehensive Plan? No Yes _X Not applicable D. Recreation Open Space 1. Does the plan revision or amendment affect existing or future federal, state or regional parks, park reserves or trails? X No Yes - If yes, describe: 2. Does the plan revision or amendment include a trail segment or connection to a regional trail or park? X No Yes M HIP olauti oni8 nd U e°ntinued A. Plan Revision July 7, 1998 If you are submitting a plan revision and you are using your own community's land use data, please attach copies of the land use tables you completed on pages A17, Al 8, A25 -A27 in the handbook appendix. B. Plan Amendment Questions 1, 2 and 3 below apply only to plan amendments involving a land use change and urban service area expansion. Describe the following, as applicable: (Not Applicable 1. For the area in the amendment: a. Existing land uses in acres: _ b. Proposed land uses in acres: 2. For residential use amendments: a. Number of residential dwelling units and types (single, multi -family) involved under existing plan Under proposed revision/amendment b. Density under existing plan Under proposed revision/amendment 3. For commerciaUindustriaUinstitutional use amendments: a. Square footage of commercial structures under existing plan Under proposed revision/amendment b. Square footage of industrial structures under existing plan Under proposed revision/amendment c. Square footage of institutional structures under existing plan Under proposed revision/amendment d. Number of employees under existing plan Under proposed revision/amendment IV. Impact on Housing 1. Will the plan revision or amendment affect the availability of affordable or life -cycle housing in your community? No - If no, skip to "V," "Environmental Resources." X? Yes If this change favorably affects your community's ability to achieve housing goals under the Livable Communities Act or goals stated in the housing element of your comprehensive plan, please describe: This revision completely updates Golden VallYy's existing -"982) comprehensive plan housing element, incorporating Livable Communities action plan items into the plan itself, If this change negatively affects your community's ability to meet your housing goals, what provision has your community made to compensate for this impact? V. Environmental Resources 1. Will an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be prepared for the plan revision or amendment? X No Yes - If yes, what is the schedule for completion of the EAW? 2. Does the plan revision or amendment affect a state, federal or locally protected wetland? X No Yes - If yes, please include a map showing the location of the wetland. Describe the type of wetland D-7 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 affected and tell how it will be protected or how impacts will be mitigated. 3. Will the plan revision or amendment potentially affect the quality of any surface water body? _X_ No Yes - If yes, identify which ones and describe the impacts: Indicate how any negative impacts will be mitigated: 4. Has the community adopted the Council's Interim Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution to All Metropolitan Water Bodies? No XYes - If yes, has the community implemented the strategy? No X Yes 5. Does the plan revision or amendment affect the Mississippi River Critical Area planning standards and the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan? —X— Not Applicable No Yes. Describe: 6. Does your community have an adopted water supply plan that meets the requirements of Chapter 186 of 1993 Session Laws? Not Applicable X No (plan is complete; review and hearing process to be schedul d) Yes - If yes, will the proposed plan revision or plan amendment affect your water supply plan? No Yes - If yes, how? 7. Has your community adopted a local surface water management plan? X No (plan is partly done; one wa r h d ar a remaining for comp lesion) Yes - If yes, will the proposed plan revision or plan amendment affect your local surface water management plan? No Yes - If yes, how? VI. Implementation Program I. Will the plan revision or amendment require changes in zoning, subdivision, on-site sewer ordinances or other official controls? No X Possibly Time frame indeterminate Describe proposed changes: The revised plan calls for Golden Valley to evaluate a number of City Code sections, with an eye to e dency and/or affordability. 2. Has your community adopted a capital improvements program? No —X_ Yes - If yes, what changes will be needed in your community's capital improvement program to implement the plan revision or amendment? 1 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 riC Lr o uunc i i t vdu i e Uommun l Li es --mousing Goa I s Agreement" D-9 July 1996 WORKSHEET C. Housing Units and Households A. Total number and percent of dwelling units and housing types. Include single-family homes; mobile homes; townhousesiduplexes; multifamily units, including condominiums, cooperatives, apartments. 1990 census or more recent data if available. SEE TECHNICAL BACKGROUND DOCUMENT, EXHIBIT 4 (P. 15) B. Number and percent of owners and renters. 1990 census or more recent data if available. SEE TECHNICAL BACKGROUND DOCUMENT, EXHIBIT 4 (P.15) C. Value of owner -occupied units and rent ranges of rental units. 1990 census or more recent data if available. SEE ATTACHED D. Number and type of publicly -assisted housing units. 1990 census or more recent data if available. 322 UNITS, OF WHICH 213 ARE RESERVED FOR SENIOR CITIZENS (TECHNICAL BACKGROUND, PP 7-8). SEE ALSO MORE DETAILED INFO 2 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND: EXHIBIT 3 E. Households by age of householder — number and percent. 1990 census or more recent data if available. ► Age 0-19 Generally students, living with parents 4,569 ► Age 20-24 Generally renters 1,146 ► Age 25-34 Typical first-time home -buyer group 1,431 ► Age 35-49 Move -up home -buyer market 4,652 ► Age 50-64 Empty -nesters, who may move to smaller housing 3,799 ► Age 65-74 Young seniors, who use a variety of housing options 1,296 ► Age 75+ Older seniors (who often need services and a variety of housing options) 789 F. Current housing densities, number of acres developed as single-family and multifamily housing. From worksheet "Current Land Use Acreage, " page A17. Single-family 2.2 acre* (lots or parcels of five acres or less containing single-family detached housing including manufactured homes) Multifamily 10/acre* (lots or parcels containing multiple dwelling units such as duplexes, bungalows, twin homes, town houses, quad homes and apartment complexes) riC Lr o uunc i i t vdu i e Uommun l Li es --mousing Goa I s Agreement" D-9 July 1996 Resolution 98-60 - Continued July 7, 1998 WORKSHEET C. CONTINUED Housing Units and Households G. Land potentially available for residential use in various densities. From worksheet "Projecting Future Land Needs, " page A37. INVENTORY NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME. MOST, IF NOT ALL, SITES WILL REQUIRE COMP PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS, REZONING, AND PHYSICAL REDEVELOPMENT. SEE TECHNICAL _BACKGROUND DOCUMENT (PP. 31-42 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION) Optional Information (H through .IJ: H. Age of housing --number and percent. I. Number and percent of units needing rehabilitation or improvement. Data needs to be categorized by neighborhood, planning district or other geographic area to help identify areas of greatest need. Please address different levels of condition. One example used by many cities in the region is shown below. You may use another set of criteria if you prefer. Example only ► Excellent or Very Good - A well-built structure with no observable maintenance requirements. ► Average Plus - No observable defects in structure and only minor maintenance requirements. ► Average - No observable major defects or maintenance requirements but considerable minor items. ► Average Minus - Considerable deferred maintenance with permanent damage to structure beginning to show. ► Poor - Considerable damage to major structural items. ► Bad - Condemned and uninhabitable. J. Current and forecasted employment --in the community, and/or cluster that includes neighboring communities. From forecasts, page A29. D-10 July 1996 esolutico 98-60_- Continued o I J M .. > > o z U Q Z O r O ti .. J W O O CL o O U •• CY N r >w W W m f J f 0 Z N ti e o t- P O rn v co rn rn o rn cD in rn N rn co N v cD p W (1 (V L7 N (V N N CO w rn P CO ID to L7 CO C7 P N V a rn U U O r NCACD00r-tfltnCOIA^rf'7rnC7vNN m V P V C7 C.) VC7C7Lf) NC7OCDrnC')rn v v O Lr) w ^N^^ o (n ^ ^ .- .- Z N ' uw F- M " z O � W � U LL Z H N U N r r N = W Z LU LY W V) 1- S N LU rCY zN rn m 0 rn rn m 0 rn rn rn rn 0) 0) CA(x U r U W w V rn O rn V rn V rn 7 rn V rn V rn 0 Q7 (Y ^^NNC7 f70 Oln In tD IDPrn� z W FZ =z< N N N N NNN 44 N N N N F - Zn r/)=000000000000000 3 = Oma+ QrrrF- rrrrrrrrrr-r J Q J QQ a v a =NS(nSLf) WoS(n$(nS(nS1pnU r N rw+- NNf�f)vvrnrnLD(Dr`r o 0 0 = Z 3JNMNNNNNMNNMNNNN F- r' F- 0000--•-•-O--Nrnu�v co vu�ON�- U �� O r U l W .r p a J Z J ^ .� :3 • (n LL • \ v WZ •op CL - • O Q LA • r✓ O ■ CDP Orn^CAIn(DCO(D•- ■ LLJ } _ 0� rx ^ " Q LL 3 r 0 41 O X = U U N Z O � I v) (D Ui M (7 -- r I C7 CY .: U Zw to 'I U N W O N r > M wUr rn rn rn o rn rn o rn N = o(zm =ate rnornv0 rnOC .cli 1IT cr)0)(Y CA M OU O Z (7 ^ N M N M N N N N N M . Q J � Z a • .. O �+ • w F-F- U • U z ry r Z • Q Q Q • J 25_�i5i5��Z52S� JZ•a. y0000000000 p ppp (n00001" Orn00(nON(nOt(n0(On000 �" J LL . W ^N N 0 0 v v0 CD P_^ NN r•) V (n 0 o C1 r ■ o t--: LL r w O W O F •• Wc0 W N J Z U N LL Q \ Z O W O W(ZCU UCia Z �( o rn c) O rn Ln ^ O P N 5- z Z 7 U I Z� a O Z Z VI . � � aP Z N Q; W W rn r r \ QQ CD r r N N N rn O • e o t- P O rn v co rn rn o rn cD in rn N rn co N v cD p W (1 (V L7 N (V N N CO w rn P CO ID to L7 CO C7 P N V a rn U U O r NCACD00r-tfltnCOIA^rf'7rnC7vNN m V P V C7 C.) VC7C7Lf) NC7OCDrnC')rn v v O Lr) w ^N^^ o (n ^ ^ .- .- Z N ' uw F- M " z O � W � U LL Z H N U N r r N = W Z LU LY W V) 1- S N LU rCY zN rn m 0 rn rn m 0 rn rn rn rn 0) 0) CA(x U r U W w V rn O rn V rn V rn 7 rn V rn V rn 0 Q7 (Y ^^NNC7 f70 Oln In tD IDPrn� z W FZ =z< N N N N NNN 44 N N N N F - Zn r/)=000000000000000 3 = Oma+ QrrrF- rrrrrrrrrr-r J Q J QQ a v a =NS(nSLf) WoS(n$(nS(nS1pnU r N rw+- NNf�f)vvrnrnLD(Dr`r o 0 0 = Z 3JNMNNNNNMNNMNNNN F- r' D-11 July 7, 1998 F- 0000--•-•-O--Nrnu�v co vu�ON�- U �� O O W H CL00000000--CV NNOw V V -•-Oo C) N— p O a ^ v U O N^�.-V V C7 lDNPNIn (D rnl1)NrONLL9 ( ce CDP Orn^CAIn(DCO(D•- ^ LLJ V rnOrn ONN 0� ^ " 3 r O O O � Ui M (7 LLZ U N W O rn rn rn rn rn rn o rn CLOw00mmmrnrnrnrn(Arn(A(nrnmmrn rn rn rn o rn rn o rn N = Q CA CA CA CA CA CA 0) CA CA rn . . . . . . SrnrnrnO)O)rn0)rn0)O1Q0)v rn rnrnrnrn W WrnV rnornv0 rnOC .cli 1IT cr)0)(Y CA M rn NN (')C70 V int-rnNNNNMNNN>< ^ N M N M N N N N N M � N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0( O O O O O O O O O O r r r r r)- r r 0 r�+ F-F- z ry Q QQ QQ 25_�i5i5��Z52S� y0000000000 p ppp (n00001" Orn00(nON(nOt(n0(On000 �" Q W ^N N 0 0 v v0 CD P_^ NN r•) V (n r J Y►N U►NNN N N N N NN 44 to 4A N N N N D-11 July 7, 1998