08-11-10 CM Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Council/Manager Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
VVednesday,August11,2010
6:30 pm
1. Solid VVaste Study - Presentation from Environmental Commission
2. Highway 55/Rhode Island Avenue North Access
3. Residential Fence Permit Update
4. Continuing Participation in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local
Housing Incentives Account Program
5. Budget - 2011-2012 General Fund Budget Review
6. Bottineau Transitway
7. Planning Commission Vacancy
Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed
for the Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and
provide general directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The
public is invited to attend Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public
participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council.
alley
M mora d m
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
August 11,2010
Agenda Item
1. Solid Waste Study - Presentation from Environmental Commission
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
Since January, the Environmental Commission has studied solid waste collection practices
and examined possible ways to improve the collection process in City of Golden Valley. The
Commission has compiled a report that highlights the study process as well as various
aspects related to solid waste collection issues.
The Commission is requesting additional time with which to study solid waste collection.
Environmental Commission Chair Rich Baker will be present to discuss the report, the study
process, and the Environmental Commission's recommendation for future activities.
Attachment
City of Golden Valley Solid Waste Collection Practices Study Summary Report (14 pages)
City of Golden Valley
Solid Waste Collection Practices Study
Summary Report
Environmental Commission
Rich Baker, Chairperson
Tracy Anderson, Commissioner
Lynn Gitelis, Commissioner
Dawn Hill, Commissioner
Jon Pawluk, Commissioner
Jim Stremel, Commissioner
Karen Utt, Commissioner
City Staff Support
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Lisa Nesbitt, Administrative Assistant
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
1
Table of Contents
Section I: Background... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ........ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .Page 3
Section II: Summary of Study Meetings... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....Page 4
Section III: Values and Goals...... .... .. .. .... .... .. .. .... ...... .... .. .... .. .. .... ... .. .. .. ... ..... Page 7
Section IV: Recycling................................................................................. Page 9
Section V: Study Findings... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .., ... ... ... ...Page 10
Section VI: Further Actions... ... ... ... ... ... ... .., ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...Page 13
Section VII: Supporting Documents........................................................... ...Page 14
2
Section I: Background
In January 2010, the City of Golden Valley City Council directed the Environmental Commission to
conduct a study of solid waste collection practices. The study is intended to evaluate open solid waste
collection systems (where no municipal contract exists) as well as organized solid waste collection
systems (where a municipality plays a role, beyond licensing, in waste collection.) The City of Golden
Valley currently and historically engages in an open solid waste collection system.
Hennepin County, in an effort to increase county-wide recycling rates, mandates local municipalities to
offer recycling services to property owners. Due to county requirements, the City of Golden Valley has
contracted with Waste Management Inc. for the regular collection of recyclable materials. The contract
for these services expires on December 31,2011. This study is intended to evaluate the feasibility of
incorporating the collection of solid waste materials into the bidding process for the organized recycling
contract.
The study was intended to conclude with a written report to the City Council that provided a
recommendation for or against pursuing an organized solid waste collection system. The City Council
had requested to receive this report in the summer of 201 o.
This document will highlight significant findings of the Environmental Commission's study, describe the
process of the study, and discuss possible future actions.
3
Section II: Summary of Study Meetings
To date, the Environmental Commission has held five monthly meetings where solid waste management
practices and related issues have been discussed. The meetings are summarized as follows:
. January 25, 2010
This meeting spearheaded the solid waste collection practices study process. The
Environmental Commission was introduced to the general issues surrounding organized
and unorganized solid waste collection. Staff had explained that Golden Valley currently
has an open (or "unorganized") solid waste collection system, which implies that there are
currently no restrictions placed on the number of haulers who may operate within the City,
nor are there restrictions on when and where the haulers may operate.
. February 22, 2010
Pedar Sandhei of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) presented the "Analysis
of Waste Collection Service Arrangements" to the Environmental Commission. The
Analysis, produced by the MPCA in 2009, identifies trends in waste collection practices in
the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
Sandhei discussed The City of Robbinsdale's current waste collection system and
suggested that the system should be used as a model for other cities wishing to provide
organized collection services.
. March 22, 2010
The Environmental Commission reviewed the City of St. Louis Park and the City of
Robbinsdale's waste collection practices in further detail. Both cities have established
4
organized waste collection systems. The following information was noted for the two
communities:
Robbinsdale
o 64 gallon waste bin and recycling container - $13.62/month
o Cost includes garbage, recycling, unlimited yard waste, one bulky item per month, and
Christmas tree removal.
o Approximately one staff FTE is used to manage this program.
St. Louis Park
o 64 gallon waste bin and recycling container - $17.63/month
o Cost includes garbage, recycling, limited yard waste, and Christmas tree removal.
o Approximately two staff FTEs are used to manage this program.
. April 26, 2010
A panel discussion was held to discuss waste collection practices among various cities in
the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Cities that participated in this event included the City of
Edina, the City of Maplewood, the City of Robbinsdale and the City of St. Louis Park. The
City of Roseville and the City of Elk River were invited to participate, but were unable to
attend.
The Environmental Commission selected the City of Edina to attend because it had gone
through a similar study process last year and decided not to implement an organized waste
collection system. The Cities of Roseville and Maplewood were selected to attend because
they, too, are currently studying collection methods. The Cities of Robbinsdale, St. Louis
Park, and Elk River were selected to attend because they have well-established organized
waste collection systems.
The MPCA also participated in this event. Representatives from cities that currently have
organized collection systems stated that they believe the programs in place work well. The
5
City of Edina opted not to pursue organized collection because of the political controversy
that was perceived to surround the issue.
. May 24, 2010
Assistant City Attorney Kim Donat presented the framework of the legislative process that
must occur if a city is to organize solid waste collection. Donat explained that state statute
requires a very well-defined process that must occur if waste collection services are to be
governed by the City. Organic recycling would be included in this process; however,
traditional recycling would not.
Following the presentation, the Environmental Commission concluded that it would need
more time to formulate a well-informed recommendation to the City Council. The
Commission suggested that an open house and an online survey would be good tools in
gauging public opinion surrounding this issue. Ultimately, the Commission resolved to
extend the study timeline and provide a recommendation to the City Council in the fall or
early winter.
6
Section III: Values and Goals
As a component to the study process, the Environmental Commission was asked to examine their own
values and goals associated with solid waste collection services. Environmental Commissioners were
asked to rank various components of solid waste collection, such as personal service, impacts to City
staff, etc. in order of importance.
The following chart lists components of solid waste collection in order of importance to the Environmental
Commission:
Values RANK
Environment/Efficiency: Less fuel use, etc. 1
Incentive to Throw Away Garbage/Recycle 2
Properly
Cost Reduction - Residents 3
Infrastructure: Fewer trucks damaging roads 4
Revenue Sharing (for Recycling) 5
Ability to Negotiate Contract 6
Cost Reduction - City 7
Impact to City Staff 8
Aesthetics/Noise 9
Safety 10
Competition/Innovation 11
Choice 12
View/Opinion of the City 13
Level of Personal Service 14
No work to Change (Status Quo) 15
Additionally, Environmental Commissioners were also asked to rank various waste collection services.
The services, and their rankings, are as follows:
7
Services RANK
Composting 1
Furniture Removal 2
Electronics Removal 3
Appliance Removal 4
Textile Removal 5
Organics Removal 6
Brush Removal 7
Leaves Removal 8
Section IV: Recycling
8
In addition to studying the impacts of solid waste collection, the Environmental Commission has also
examined the City's recycling contract. State statute separates the recyclable materials (glass, plastic,
cardboard, etc.) from the definition of "solid waste." Commissioners were polled to see if there was an
overwhelming preference for single sort recycling (recycling in which all recycled materials are placed by
the resident in one container.) Ultimately, the Commissioners did not show a strong preference toward
single sort recycling.
Additionally, the Environmental Commission indicated that it would recommend that the City Council
extend the current City recycling contract by one year to leave open the option of incorporating recycling
into a larger solid waste management program.
9
Section V: Study Findings
MPCA Study
In June 2009, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) released a report entitled,
"Analysis of Waste Collection Service Arrangements." This report can be found in its entirety at
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/i ndex. ph p/waste/waste-and-c1eanup/waste-manaqementlsol id-
waste/integ rated-sol id-waste-managementlwaste-collection-service-
arranqements.html?menuid=&missina=0&redirect=1. The report summarizes the solid waste
collection practices based upon the following criteria:
. Cost
. Impacts on the environment
. Efficiency and effectiveness of solid waste management systems
. Outcomes as they relate to objectives of the MPCA's strategic plan, such as
renewable energy and reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
The data collected in the MPCA report was used in the City's study process. The study
conducted by the City focused specifically on the following:
Cost
The MPCA study implies that cost of waste collection services in municipalities that
have organized services are generally less than those in which cities have open
collection systems. The following data illustrates this notion:
City
Falcon Heights (avemge of 6 companies)
Rooeville (avemge of 7 companies)
MaplewiJOO (average of 9 hailleTs)
North St. PauL 2003
SlWtopee, 2004-2005
Liffie Canada, 2002(mDst recent rares listed:)
iV'l1ite Bear Lake
Stillv.'Uter. 3 years endiu 12/31/05
T)llf of
Collection
Open
Open
Open
Organized
Organized
Organized
Organized
Organized
30
Gallon
sn.59
$12.85
$12.19
$!tcH
$8.60
$8.29
$7.50
S8J6
60
Gallon
$15.56
$14.90
$14.11
$U6
$111.65
$!n7
$11.00
$11106
90
Gallon
$n.rt
$16.84
$16.08
$111.39
$12.24
$11.29
$15.00
$l1.03
10
In addition to costs to residents, the study also evaluated staff time devoted to managing solid
waste collection services. The City of S1. Louis Park estimates that its management of its solid
waste program requires the equivalent of two full-time employees, while the City of Robbinsdale
estimates that the management of its program requires the equivalent of one full-time employee.
The City of Robbinsdale generates income through its waste collection program, thereby offsetting
some of the staff costs associated with the management of the program.
Sue Virnig, City of Golden Valley Finance Director, explained the structure of the City's recycling
program, as well as other collection programs offered by the City. Revenues and expenses of
existing City programs are as follows:
City of Golden Valley Conservation Recycling Fund
2004 2005 2006 2007 20GB 2009
Revenues:
Recycling Fees 219,082.00 220,258.00 220,730.00 221,449.00 221,261.00 201,434.00
Henn County Grant 52,564.00 52,052.00 51,424.00 50,590.00 57,259.00 56,807.00
FEMA Grant 000 0.00 0.00 73,111.00 000 0.00
I nteres1 4,683.00 10,739.00 24,120.00 39,053.00 36,174.00
Total Revenues 276,329.00 283,049.00 296,274.00 384,203.00 314,694.00 258.241.00
Expenses
Mighty Tidy Day 165.00 275.00 37.28 000 0.00 0.00
Spring Brush Pickup 58,041.25 49,737.00 55,292.00 50,384.00 60,38700 61,457.50
Fait LeafDrop-off 2.50880 2,058..00 2,347.10 1.,764.00 2,05800 7,007.00
Recycling 70,401.08 44,794.45 44,695.12 22,874.77 8,792.34 221,289.94
Storm Damage 31,422.96 438.00
Parking Lot 92,000.00
Public Information 4,267.56 13,043.10 3,366.57 13.827. 59 7,467. 59 7,84515
Overhead 57,000.00 57,000.00 57,000.00 57,000.00 58,500.00 58,500.00
Recycling Bins 3.81500 11,385.00
TOTAL Expenses 192,383.69 166,90755 1.62,738.07 181,088.32 149,027.93 448,099.59
NetAssets - Retained 431,131 547,272 680,807 885,686 1,053,410 unaudited
Earnings
estimated 866,554
Addition cost/benefit analysis can be found in the "Analysis of Waste Collection Service
Arrangements" report.
Statutory Requirements
11
Minnesota Statute, section 115A.94, subd. 4 establishes a legislative process for municipalities
intending to organize solid waste collection methods. The process is summarized as follows:
1. Public Hearino
The City must hold a public hearing where the City Council must issue a "resolution of intent to
organize collection." Legal notices as well as notices all licensed haulers within the City must
be delivered two weeks in advance of the hearing.
2. gO-Day Plannino Period
A minimum gO-day planning period must follow the adoption of the resolution of intent to
organize collection. This time must be used to develop plans and proposals for organized
collection. The City is required to allow licensed waste collectors to participate in this process.
3. gO-Day Neootiation Period
A minimum gO-day negotiation period must follow the planning period. This time must be spent
negotiating plans and contracts with waste collection providers. During this time, the City must
produce findings based on its planning and negotiation with providers.
4. Implementation
Upon satisfactory completion of all requirements, the City may implement an organized solid
waste collection system. Assistant City Attorney Kim Donat estimates that this entire process
will take 26 months to complete.
The statutory language, in full, has been attached to this report.
12
Section VI: Further Actions
The Environmental Commission has not reached consensus on whether or not to recommend
establishing an organized solid waste collection system. Rather, the Commission collectively agreed to
consider expanding the study to include some level of public participation. The Commission would like to
gauge public opinion through an open house, a survey, or an alternate mechanism that solicits input.
Statutory requirements state that a public hearing process is necessary prior to beginning the official
organized collection process. However, prior to a formal public hearing, the Environmental Commission
would like to begin a public involvement process. Additionally, the Environmental Commission would like
to discuss the possibility of transitioning to a form of organized waste collection with the hauling
companies currently licensed in the City. One example of how this could be accomplished would be by
dividing the City into zones that could be bid on by, or otherwise assigned to the currently licensed waste
haulers in the City. To date, this discussion has not taken place.
Additionally, the Environmental Commission has discussed engaging haulers to learn of new
technologies, new and innovative ways of collecting waste, and other options that may be of value to the
City. The City has received correspondence from Minnesota Chapter of the National Solid Wastes
Management Association (MN-NSWA.) MN-NSWA opposes organized solid waste collection practices,
and has offered to meet with City officials to discuss its position further, should the City Council choose
to pursue organization.
In summary, the Environmental Commission would like to expand the scope of its study to garner public
interest, and provide a more definitive recommendation to the City Council later this year.
13
Section VII: Supporting Documents
(Documents Attached)
1. MPCA Analysis of Waste Collection Service Arrangements
2. Solid Waste Collection Practices Study Flowchart
3. Solid Waste Collection Practices Study Original Timeline
4. City Recycling Programs Data Sheet
5. Waste Hauling and Recycling Commission Survey Results
6. Survey of City Practices (Conducted Spring 2010 by the Planning Department)
7. Organized Collection State Statute
8. Memo from Assistant City Attorney Kim Donat, Dated May 18 2010
14
alley
Memorandum'
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
August 11, 2010
Agenda Item
2. Discussion regarding TH 55/Rhode Island Avenue
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Summary
The summary from the February 6, 2010 City Council Workshop reflects the following:
Study issues related to up-zoning SE quadrant of Harold and Highway 55.
. Check with MnDOT about changes in highway access related to complete
streets - RE Rhode Island access
. Review zoning issues related to recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment
As directed, Public Works staff contacted the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) regarding the application of Complete Streets practices to the intersection of TH 55
and Rhode Island Avenue. Staff received written response from MnDOT, which is attached
for Council's information.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Memo received from April Crockett, PE, Minnesota Department of Transportation, dated
July 1, 2010 (1 page)
')': '"
..... -~~~~ ~
~j ~ 7~
~" ;.. "::;"''''';,kv,\ ~;""/ '" ~~, ;,-,;..; j~ " C~~.\i;<>;
, " ' ~'~'~ ""~l "~':"~~,'''ftf;'1;,,~ ,
~
"'~ =--
-= ' ~" ."~~,
~. ' . """'" , '.. ,":';' .;" '.;;1 - ,
~ , ."""., . "~ 'it...' :0 1 " ,
~-=-~--~- -. -"~,
-"\
~
~
~~ - -"'"- --.-
- ----"'j
;JJ~:U~"f;
,
~
'.~..".f... .~...
"If. .
J_ y 1',.-:
!;-!
.....
-
...
::
J
""'. 'n
~'r
.fl.' ~'t
'-
.. (<.
~
.
'I
.1,
n-~-
~
' '.
'j
-
I"'J
.....,..-.;,;;:'--._-- -
...
'.
~~.".,... .
".~;... . ....,:. ".' , 't ;\~. _,
j ,r,. .,
, '. -.-"
....~:...::~.~~.~
'""':'~.., -, ..~; '.- -..~,"',.
-"# .~, .~".- -.,., ........."" 1. . - .
o:::l .
TH55 &
hode Island Ave N
R rt"'cate of survey.
t galce 111
This is not a e
Disclaimer:
. t Date' 7/27/10
Prm .
Sources:. C unty Surveyors OffiC?al Photography (2009).
epm 0 0" and Aen Q
-Henn Lines (201 I (2008).
for Property 2-Foot Contours
-Aero-Metnc for 100
50 Feet
25
o
~(\"\~NE_SO);g~O
l.' ,-~
i' ....;0:
~ ...l
OF Tflf>"
Minnesota Department: of Transportation
Metro District
1500 W County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Menl'O
TO: Ms. Jeannine Clancy
Director of Public Works
City of Golden Valley, Minnesota
FROM: Ms. April Crockett, PE
West Area Engineer
DATE: Thursday, July 1, 2010
SUBJECT: Highway 55/ Rhode Island Avenue North
In response to our phone conversation on May 11,2010, I am providing the following comments.
The Complete Streets Program has been developed to both balance the transportation system that
integrates all modes including transit, freight, automobile, bicycle and pedestrian and to include
transportation users of all types, ages and abilities. Some of the principals behind the draft
Minnesota Complete Streets Policy include reducing crash rates and severity of crashes, improving
mobility and accessibility, maximizing the efficient use of existing facilities and promoting safe and
convenient access and travel for all users.
This Policy does apply to all roadways, but should be considered within the context and purpose of
the roadway. Highway 55 is a limited access expressway for most of the segment through Golden
Valley. As you know, we have been working hard with the City to improve the existing signalized
intersections while reducing the access at lower volume non-signalized intersections. Rhode Island
Avenue North currently falls into the latter category.
If we were to consider providing right in/right out access to Highway 55 from this location from the
south, it would have negative effects on the performance of the highway. First, it would be creating
an unsafe condition due to the proximity of Winnetka Avenue and the free right it allows onto
Highway 55. Second, it would be allowing access to a mainly residential area which already has
reasonable access provided by Harold Avenue to the south. We certainly understand the desire
from constituents and council members who represent them to have convenient access from their
homes and businesses, but in this situation we do not feel it is appropriate, and would not support
adding access to an already congested area of Highway 55.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
C\ .~ ~
OV,~,
00
.
e
o
Memorandum~
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
August 11, 2010
Agenda Item
3. Residential Fence Permit Update
Prepared By
Carrie Noble" Planning Intern
Summary
The Planning Department has been researching ways to edit the City Zoning Code as it
relates to fencing due to the number of instances of after-the-fact enforcement that have
taken place when a fence installation inadvertently violates zoning code requirements.
The research done by the department highlights the City of St. Louis Park and the City of
Plymouth for their use of permits to counteract this problem.
The City of St. Louis Park has a mandatory $15 permit for building a new fence requiring
minimal staff time and work. The resident brings a site plan or property survey, a plan that
shows the design and exact location of the fence, and the $15 permit fee in order to apply for
the permit. If the fence is judged to be in compliance with the City ordinance, it is approved.
Permits are usually applied for and approved in one short meeting.
The City of Plymouth has a mandatory free permit for building a new fence also requiring
minimal staff time. Similar to the system in St. Louis Park, the resident brings in
documentation to prove that the fence is in compliance with the City ordinance. The only
significant difference is the cost and that the City of Plymouth requires a meeting where as
the City of St. Louis Park works on a walk-in basis.
Both cities outline on their websites that the permit procedure is to be thought of as a "plan
review" to ensure that the resident does not have to deal with expensive fixes when a fence
inadvertently violates zoning requirements.
Attachment
Research on St. Louis Park Fence Permitting (3 pages)
Research on Plymouth Fence Permitting (3 pages)
The City of Plymouth
WEB EXPLANATION
The city helps ensure the construction of safe building and protects community character through
zoning and building code regulations. The Building Inspection Division administers these
regulations through permits and inspections.
Permits
Building and related permits ensure that projects will be constructed according to nationally
recognized standards. The standards are designed to protect buildings from collapse and fire, and
to ensure the safety of all building occupants. Review of permit applications also ensures that
projects meet zoning requirements, such as yard coverage, setbacks and building height.
Some permits, such as residential electrical, plumbing, mechanical, building re-siding, re-roofing
and window replacements can be issued at the time of application. Other residential permit
applications take up to five working days to process. Applications for permits should be
submitted well in advance of the scheduled starting date. This will allow time for city staff to
offer assistance through the process and issue permit at the start of the project. This is especially
true during the summer construction season.
Types of Permits
. Building . Fire Protection
. Electrical . Grading
. Fire Alarm System . Mechanical
. Fireworks Display . Moving
. Hood & Duct Cleaning . Plumbing
. Storage Tank . Sewer & Water
. Fence . Sign
Information required for permits can vary by project. Handouts and checklists describing the
required information are available at City Hall.
Building Permits for New Construction & Additions
A plot plan based on a current survey of the property and detailed project construction plans,
which are drawn to scale, are required for permits for new construction and additions. In many
cases, homeowners may prepare their own plans. However, the building and inspection staff may
decide that it is necessary to require an architect or engineer to prepare plans to ensure accuracy
and legibility. It is important to allow sufficient time for plan preparation.
When filing an application, include two identical sets of plans. Building and inspection staff will
confirm that the materials are prepared correctly. They will also let you know if more
information is needed.
Inspections
Various inspections are required for all permits. An inspection record card will be issued to
identify the required inspections for each project. Inspection record cards must remain available
on the site until final inspection approval. These cards contain important information about the
job and are used to record the inspections performed.
City inspectors will inspect a project several times during the course of construction for things
such as footings, framing, insulation, rough-in and final electrical, plumbing, mechanical work
and final inspection.
Click here to obtain permit and inspection history by property.
To schedule an inspection, please contact the city between the hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday, and until 6 p.m. on Tuesdays.
Contact
Building Inspection Division
Plymouth City Hall I 3400 Plymouth Blvd. I Plymouth, MN 55447-1482
P 763-509-5430 I F 763-509-5407 I Inspection Scheduling: 763-509-5449 I
inspections@plvmouthmn.gOV
CITY ZONING CODE
21130.03. REQUIRED FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING:
Subd. 1. Fencing and Screening.
(a) Multiple Family Uses.
(1) Where any townhouse, manor home, manufactured home park or apartment dwelling structure
abuts property zoned for less dense residential use, the higher density residential use shall provide
screening along all off-street parking or formal outdoor recreational activity areas to mitigate
possible adverse impacts. Housing of similar types and densities shall not be subject to special
screening requirements for formal outdoor recreational activity areas. (Amended by Ord. No. 2002-
02, 01122/02)
(2) Along boundaries where parking or formal outdoor recreational activity areas exist, all the
fencing and screening specifically required by this Chapter shall be subject to Section 21105.05 and
shall consist of either a fence or a green belt planting strip as provided for below.
a. A green belt planting strip shall consist of evergreen trees and/or deciduous trees and plants and
shall be of sufficient width and density to provide an effective visual buffer. This planting strip shall
be designed to provide complete visual screening to a minimum height of six (6) feet. Alternatively,
earth mounding or berms may be used to achieve all or a portion of the required buffer. The
screening plan including type ofplantings and berming shall require the approval of the City, as part
ofthe site plan review pursuant to Section 21045 of this Chapter.
b. A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, brick, wood or metal. Such fence
shall provide a solid screening effect of six (6) feet in height. The design and materials used in
constructing a required
screening fence shall be subject to the approval of the City as part of the site plan review pursuant to
Section 21045 of this Chapter. Fences in excess of height limitations established in Section 21130.01
shall be subject to approval pursuant to required procedures. The City Council may also require
plantings of shrubs or trees in association with required fencing.
(b) Non-Residential Uses.
(1) Where any non-residential use (Le., structure, parking or storage) abuts property zoned for
residential use, the non-residential use shall provide screening along its boundary with the
residential property. Screening shall also be provided where a non-residential use is across the
street from a residential zone, but not on that side of a non-residential use considered to be the
front (as determined by the Zoning Administrator). All the fencing and screening specifically
required by this Chapter shall be subject to Section 21105.05 and shall consist of either a fence or a
green belt strip as provided for in Section 21130.03, Subd. 1.a.2.a and Subd. 1.a.2.b.
(Plymouth zoning ordinance p 168-169)
The City of St. Louis Park
WEB EXPLANATION 1
FENCES
updated: Monday, May 24, 2010
Before you put up your fence, you must obtain a permit from the City ofSt. Louis Park. Fence
permits can usually be issued on the same day you apply. To apply, come to the second floor
customer service counter in City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard. Here's what you will need
. A surveyor site plan showing the location of your proposed fence
. Plans that show the design of your fence
. $15 for the permit.
Fences must be built in compliance with City ordinance. Here's an overview of the ordinance
. Fences must be located entirely inside your property line. A fence cannot be located on
the property line, a neighbor's land, or public property (boulevards, sidewalk area, etc.).
You can find your property line by locating your lot's comer irons or hiring a registered
land surveyor.
. On interior lots, front yard or street side fences cannot be more than 42 inches high. Side
or rear yard fences on interior lots cannot be more than six feet high.
. Comer lots have a lower allowable fence height because a high fence obstructs traffic
visibility. Fences in the traffic "visibility triangle" cannot be higher than 30 inches.
Owners of comer lots should contact the Assistant Zoning Administrator for help in
determining where their lot's "visibility triangle" is located. (To see a map of the
"visibility triangle," click here.)
Through lots - a lot that abuts two opposite, parallel streets - also have lower allowable fence
height. Because a through lot abuts two streets, both yards are considered "front" yards so fence
height must be lower to avoid obstructing traffic visibility. A fence in one of the "front" yards
may be six feet high as long as it complies with the visibility triangle requirements, is used as a
"back "yard, and doesn't abut a neighbor's yard that they use as a "front" yard. Owners ofthrough
lots should contact the Assistant Zoning Administrator for help in determining allowable fence
height.
In some special locations, a fence can be higher than six feet as long as the owner obtains a
building permit. These are lots next to state highways, railroads, industrial property, schools,
churches or synagogues.
Fences surrounding a swimming pool must keep children from entering the pool enclosure. Pool
fences and gates must be at least four feet high, have no openings greater than four inches either
through or under the fence or gate. Pool fences cannot have handholds or footholds, and the gates
must be self. closing and self-catching.
The structural side ofthe fence must face your property. The finished side of the fence must face
your neighbors' property. Fences must be constructed of durable materials such as wood or chain
link (points turned down). Woven wire, chicken wire, plastic and electric fences are not allowed
as property line fences.
Fence owners are responsible for
. Maintaining both sides of the fence
. Trimming the grass
. Painting or staining wood
. Replacing broken boards or tom chain link
. Making sure there are no safety hazards such as protruding nails or sharp objects.
If you have any questions, call the Assistant Zoning Administrator at (952) 924-2592 or visit the
customer service counter on the second floor of City Hall between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
WEB EXPLANATION 2
FENCE PERMITS
updated: Friday, May 14,2010
If you're planning on building a fence, visit the Inspections Department in City Hall to complete
a permit application. Please bring a site plan or property survey with you. A fence permit is $15
and includes a plan review to help reduce the likelihood of expensive, after-the-fact enforcement
that occurs when fence installation inadvertently violates zoning requirements. For more
information, contact Assistant Zoning Administrator Gary Morrison at (952) 924-2592 or
gmorrison@stlouispark.org.
ZONING CODE
http://www.stlouispark.org/pdf/ Article _ IIl.pdf
Sec. 36-74. Fences.
(a) General provisions.
(1) Permit required. A permit shall be required prior to the installation of any fence.
(2) Submission requirements. The following information shall be submitted prior to a fence permit
being issued:
a. Application form and fee.
b. Site plan indicating location of fence.
c. Fence design indicating height and style offence.
(b) Fence location.
(1) All fences shall be located entirely upon the private property of the party requiring or requesting
the construction of the fence. It shall be the responsibility of the party installing the fence to
ensure that it is constructed on private property.
(2) No fence shall be constructed or permitted on any public property, right-of-way or easement
without the express authorization from the public agency having jurisdiction over the property or
right-of-way.
(c) Prohibited fences.
(1) Electrical fences.
(2) Barbed wire fences, unless permitted by an exception.
(3) Any fence, wall, hedge, or other visual obstruction of any kind which is not in compliance with
section 36-76.
(1) A fence or wall shall not exceed six feet in height if it is located in any side or rear yard.
(2) A fence, wall or hedge shall not exceed 3 1/2 feet in height if located in a front yard.
(d) Height. The height shall be measured from the ground level to the top of the fence or wall
section. In the case where a fence has variable heights or where the ground slopes, the
height of the fence shall be the average height, but in no case shall the height of anyone
point exceed six inches above the maximum allowed by this section. Fence posts may
exceed eight inches above the maximum allowed by this section. Supp No. 13 (01-07)
(e) Exceptions.
(1) A fence or wall may be up to eight feet in height if placed in any side or rear yard which abuts
Interstate 394, State Highway 100, State Highway 7, State Highway 169, or their adjacent
frontage road.
(2) A fence or wall may be up to eight feet in height if placed in any side or rear yard in an R district
which abuts property in the C, 0 or I districts, or abuts a railroad right-of-way, school, church,
or other public building.
(3) A fence or wall may be up to eight feet in height if placed in any side or rear yard when it is
required for screening.
(4) A fence or wall in one front yard of any through lot may be at the height permitted in a rear yard
if it complies with all of the provisions of section 36-76, is used as a rear yard, and the fenced
yard used as the rear yard does not adjoin a yard used as a front yard.
(5) Barbed wire may be used by certain industrial and public service users for health and safety
purposes. However, the barbed wire cannot be used at a height lower than six feet six inches,
and the overall height of the fence including the barbed wire cannot exceed eight feet.
(Ord. No. 2325-07, 5-7-07)
(t) Construction and maintenance.
(I) Every fence shall be constructed so the finished side of the fence is facing towards the
neighboring properties, exposing the structural side to the party requiring or requesting the
fence. Alternating board fences which are finished on both sides shall be considered as
complying with this section.
(2) Both sides ofthe fence shall be maintained in a condition of good repair.
(3) Any fence that is potentially dangerous to the public safety or health by reason of construction or
sharp projections or protrusions shall be removed or repaired.
(4) Any fence over six feet in height shall be constructed of a nonmetallic material and shall be 90
percent opaque, unless the fence is used for security purposes in the I districts.
(5) Any fence or wall constructed over six feet in height shall be considered a structure, require a
building permit, and meet all uniform building code requirements for a structure.
(Code 1976, ~ 14:4-4; Ord. No. 2167-00, 5-15-2000; Ord. No. 2325-07, 5-7-2007)
alley
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
August 11, 2010
Agenda Item
4. Continuing Participation in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing
Incentives Account Program
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account Program (LCA
LHIA) was established in 1996 to help create and maintain quality workforce/affordable
housing in suburban Twin Cities communities. The City of Golden Valley has participated in
this program since its inception.
The LCA LHIA program requires cities to establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals.
Since 1996, the City has added 391 affordable housing units. Eighty-four percent of those
units are owner-occupied.
Participation in the LCA LHIA program allows the City to qualify for certain grants and other
funding opportunities. Since 1996, the City has obtained $1,241,750 in grants made possible
through LCA LHIA participation. The grants were used for Valley Square rehabilitation
projects, Dover Hill Apartments rehabilitation projects, and for the construction of the Breck
School Ice Arena.
The City's participation in this program will end in December, 2010. The Metropolitan Council
has requested that the City elect to continue its participation in the program through 2020. To
do so, the City Council must adopt a resolution of support by September 1, 2010. A draft
resolution is attached. As part of the continued participation, the Metropolitan Council has
asked the City to establish the goal of adding 68-104 new affordable housing units and 100-
200 life-cycle housing units by 2020. (Life-cycle housing typically serves those who are
elderly and/or disabled. Life-cycle housing can also qualify, under these criteria, as affordable
housing.)
Staff seeks direction from the City Council in the continuation of participation in the LCA LHIA
program.
Attachments
The Livable Communities Act Description (3 pages)
Draft Resolution of Support (2 pages)
The livable Communities Act (lCA)
The Minnesota Legislature created the Livable Communities Act (LCA) in 1995. The LCA is a
voluntary, incentive-based approach to address the Metropolitan Area's affordable and lifecycle
housing needs while providing funds to communities to assist them in carrying out their development
plans. LCA funds have leveraged millions of additional dollars in private and public investment that
has provided new jobs, housing choices, and business growth. The Legislature established the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, including three on-going accounts from which eligible
communities could apply for funding:
. The Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) helps cities clean up contaminated urban land
and buildings for subsequent redevelopment that could include commercial, industrial, or
housing opportunities. Supporting redevelopment opportunities that restore the tax base,
create or retain jobs, or add affordable housing to the region are the primary objectives of this
account. Projects funded through the TBRA foster increased reinvestment and infill near
existing housing and services and help clean up the environment and protect water quality in
the region's urban communities.
o From 1996 through 2009, $69.3 million in Tax Base Revitalization Account grants (238
grants in 38 communities) have assisted projects which are expected to:
. Leverage $3.68 billion in private investment
. Increase annual net tax capacity by $62.5 million
· Create or retain over 31,000 jobs
. Redevelop over 1,600 acres of former brownfields
. The Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) funds public infrastructure and
land assembly for development and redevelopment projects that achieve connected
development patterns that link housing, jobs and services, maximize the development
potential of existing or planned infrastructure and regional facilities, and expand affordable and
life-cycle housing options in the region. LCDA awards have been used to revitalize
communities and establish new neighborhoods as places for living, working, meeting daily
shopping needs and recreation. The LCDA program is a popular funding source to help
achieve regional and local community development objectives in the region's communities.
Funded project elements have included land acquisition, street infrastructure, pedestrian
connections, stormwater management infrastructure, and public-use structured parking to
support additional density. LCDA funding is a catalyst that enables cities and developers to
implement replicable models that expand development options in the market.
o From 1996 through 2009, $81.8 million in Demonstration Account funds (155 grants to
49 communities and three multi-city coalitions) have assisted projects which are
expected to:
. Leverage nearly $2.95 billion in private development investment
. Leverage over $1.1 billion in other public investment
. Provide over 21 ,500 new housing units
. Rehabilitate over 600 housing units - single-family houses, townhouses,
condominiums, rental apartments for families and seniors, and live-work housing
. Offer replicable examples of:
. Redevelopment and infill development including revitalized inner-city
communities with additional housing and job opportunities; redeveloped older
1
The Livable Communities Act
.
suburban downtowns and neighborhoods with additional housing opportunities
linked to neighborhood retail and commercial services and public spaces;
. Development in newer suburban communities, including town centers, that
connects jobs, a choice of housing types, retail and commercial services, and
community activities in close proximity.
Provide better jobs/housing/transportation connections through added housing and
services in locations well served by transit;
Assist projects in the predevelopment stage that show potential to evolve into
projects that could be funded with LCDA development grants; and
Engage communities in working together to solve issues of regional and subregional
concern.
.
.
. The Local Housing Incentives Account (LHIA) helps preserve and expand lifecycle and
affordable rental and ownership housing in the metropolitan area. LHIA grants have helped
produce new and rehabilitated affordable rental and homeownership housing in 50
communities in the region, promoting the Council's policy to expand and preserve lifecycle and
affordable housing options to meet changing demographic trends and market preferences, and
to support the region's economic competitiveness. In some cases, a single city may be
designated as the grantee for an award, while the actual housing units may be located in more
than one city.
o From 1996 through 2009, $20.4 million in Local Housing Incentives Account (LHIA)
grants (115 grants to 50 communities) have assisted with gap financing in proposals that
are expected to:
. Leverage nearly $304 million in private investment
. Stimulate over $191 million in estimated other public investment
. Develop 1,888 new affordable rental units
. Rehabilitate 717 affordable rental units
. Develop 462 new affordable ownership units
. Rehabilitate 352 affordable ownership units
. Provide home improvement loans to over 1,100 homeowners
. The Land Acquisition for Affordable New Development (LAAND loan program) In 2008,
in partnership with the Minnesota Housing and the Family Housing Fund the Council initiated
the Land Acquisition for Affordable New Development (LAAND) program using $4 million in
LCDA funds to provide no-interest loans that would assist communities in efforts to address
their affordable housing need.
o In 2008 and 2009, the Council made 5 LAAND loans to 5 separate awardees, for a total
of $4 million. The awardees were Hopkins, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, the Carver County
Community Development Agency, and the Washington County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority. These loans are expected to:
. Help obtain site control of key parcels for future affordable housing projects
. Result in projects with a minimum of 20% affordable housing units
. The Inclusionary Housing Account (IHA) In 2000 and 2004 the Council awarded grants
from a one-time appropriation of funds to support affordable housing developments in which
the reduction of local controls and regulations resulted in reduced development costs. The
account is currently unfunded.
2
The Livable Communities Act
o In 2000 & 2004 the Council awarded Inclusionary Housing Account (IHA) grants totaling
almost $4.6 million (13 grants to 8 communities) to assist with gap financing for projects
that were expected to:
· Include $125 million in total development investment
. Help develop 134 new affordable condominiums and town homes
. Help develop 578 new rental units-271 of which are affordable to lower income
households
Total LCA Awards
From 1996 through 2009, the Metropolitan Council awarded a total of $198,731,459 in 578 grants and
loans. Over 90% of these LCA awards have been used to move forward to completion projects that
have leveraged over $9 billion in private and other public investment, created over 24,000 housing
units and nearly 31,000 jobs while adding over $62 million to the metro area tax base. During this
timeframe, 52 awards have been relinquished in full or in the majority, for a net award total of
$175,682,248 in 526 grants.
Applicant Eligibility
In order to be eligible to compete for this funding, the LCA requires interested communities to:
. negotiate long-term affordable and Iifecycle housing goals with the Metropolitan Council;
. have in place an LCA Housing Action Plan to identify and give direction to the city's use of
programs, official controls and fiscal devices to help accomplish these negotiated goals; and
. contribute toward or expend locally a specified amount of local resources for affordable
housing each year they participate in the program. This contribution, or expenditure, is called
the Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Opportunities Amount (ALHOA) and is an amount equal
to the community's Livable Communities Demonstration Account levy. Communities must
expend or contribute at least 85% of their annual ALHOA obligation annually. Communities
have some flexibility in determining which local expenditures fulfill the ALHOA contribution.
Examples of ALHOA-qualifying expenditures include housing assistance, development or
rehabilitation efforts, the costs of local housing inspection and code enforcement, and local
taxes to support a local or county Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
Conclusion
The Livable Communities Act funding has been a valuable tool to help metropolitan area
communities:
. Build stronger communities through infill redevelopment of brownfields, tax base growth, and
new jobs
. Provide neighborhoods throughout the region with more housing opportunities linked to a mix
of neighborhood retail and commercial services, and public spaces
. Increase public/private investment to develop, improve, and preserve affordable and Iifecycle
housing
(This document was adapted by Livable Communities staff on 6-21-10 from a document prepared for the 2009
American Planning Association Conference entitled Twin Cities Livable Communities Projects)
3
The Livable Communities Act
Resolution 10 -
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE
LOCAL -HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE
METROPOLITAN L1VABILE COMMUNITIES ACT:
CALENDAR YEARS 2010 - 2020
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statutes
sections 473.25 to 473.255) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund
which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the
metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121, and;
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax
Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account, the
Local Housing Incentive Account and the Inclusionary Housing Account, is intended to
provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan-area municipalities, and;
WHEREAS, a metropolitan-area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or
loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain
polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing
Incentives Account Program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254, and;
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan
Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life-cycle housing
goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the
Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide, and;
WHEREAS, previously negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for
municipalities participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program expire in
2010, and;
WHEREAS, a metropolitan-area municipality can participate in the Local Housing
Incentives Account Program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 if: (a) the
municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program; (b) the
Metropolitan Council and the municipality successfully negotiate new affordable and life-
cycle housing goals for the municipality; (c) the Metropolitan Council adopts by
resolution the new negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the
municipality; and (d) the municipality establishes it has spent or will spend or distribute
to the Local Housing Incentives Account the required Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing
Opportunities Amount (ALHOA) for each year the municipality participates in the Local
Housing Incentives Account Program;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Golden Valley City Council:
1. Elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act for calendar years 2011 through 2020.
2. Agrees to the following affordable and life-cycle housing goals for calendar years
2011 through 2020:
Affordable Housin Goals Ran e
68 - 104
Life-C cle Housin Goals Ran e
100 - 200
3. Will prepare and submit to the Metropolitan Council a plan identifying the actions
it plans to take to meet its established housing goals.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and
upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: ; and the
following voted against the same: , whereupon said resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
alley
Memorandum
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
August 11, 2010
Agenda Item
5.2011-2012 Proposed General Fund Biennium Budget
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
At the August 11 Council/Manager meeting, the Council will be reviewing the following
divisions:
. Equipment CIP (2011-2012)
. Buildings CIP (2011-2012)
. Parks CIP (2011-2012)
. Park & Recreation
. Recreation Programs
. Community Centers
. Fire and Inspections
. Council
. City Managers
. Transfers Out
. Administrative Services
. Legal
. Planning
. Risk Management Insurance
. General Fund Revenues
. Tax Impact
Appropriate staff will be in attendance to discuss the proposed budgets for these divisions
and answer questions from the Council.
Please bring your 2011-2012 Proposed General Fund Biennium Budget.
alley
Memorandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8003/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
August 11,2010
Agenda Item
6. Bottineau Transitway
Prepared By
Thomas Burt, City Manager
Summary
Council Member Pentel asked that this item be placed on the agenda.
..
BOTTllfEAU
BOULEVARD
PARTNERSHIP
BottineauTransitway
AJlemotlve, AnaI',".;ls Study
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
AGENDA
July 27, 2010
10:30 a.m.
Brooklyn Park City Hall
5200 85th Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN
1. Welcome and Introductions........................................Mike Opat
5 min.
35 min.
35 min.
15 min.
H
a. Approval of Meeting Minutes
2. TransportationlLand Use
a. Transitway Study Process Update ...................... Joe Gladke/Joe Kern
DI/D21nvestigation Open Houses & Public Outreach
FTA Review Status
RFP for Draft BIS Study
b. Target - Design Assistance..........................................Heather Sexton
Hubbard Marketplace Case Study, Robbinsdale
c. Update on Bottineau Land Use Planning Framework ......Louis Smith
Update on Sustainable Communities Regional Application
~
\Lf'~
~\t~
3. Next Meeting
Hennepin County
Regional Railroad Authority
I~
~
1
...
BOTTINEAU BOULEVARD PARTNERSHIP
AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES OF
April 30, 2010
Partners present: Commissioner Mike Opat, Mayor Steve Lampi, Mayor Mark Steffenson, Ellen
Mcinnis, Mike Logan, Karen Kraft (for Ann Wynia), Council Member Barb Johnson
Also present: Representative Joe Mullery, Senator Linda Higgins, Representative Melissa
Hortman, Representative Lyndon Carlson, Paula Pentel, Kari Dziedzic, Marcia Glick, Todd
Larson, Joe Hogeboom, Karen Lee Rosar, Raymond Dehn, Charles Carlson, Michael
Mechtenberg, John Levin, Mary Karlsson, Anna Flintoft, Joan Vanhala, Owen Duckworth,
Patrick Peters, Charlie Pfeffer, Joe Gladke, Joe Kern, Brent Rusco, Heather Sexton, Louis Smith
and Faith Cable.
1. Welcome and Introductions
Commissioner Mike Opat welcomed everyone to the meeting of the Bottineau Boulevard
PartnershiplP AC and asked for a round of introductions. Commissioner Opat requested a
motion to approve the minutes. Mayor Steve Lampi made a motion to approve the meeting
minutes of January 25, 2010. This motion was seconded by Council Member Barb Johnson
and upon vote the motion carried.
Commissioner Opat said the Partnership budget needed approval. Commissioner Opat made
a motion to approve the 2010 Partnership budget. This motion was seconded by Mayor
Lampi and upon vote the motion carried
2. Transportation
a. Study Process Update
Joe Gladke said there will be comments coming in 2 to 3 weeks from the FT A on the
Alternatives Analysis study. In the annual New Starts report that was just issued, there are
currently 100 projects across the country in the Alternatives Analysis phase, which makes for
a lot of competition for federal funding.
The DI102 Investigation takes a closer look at the 01 and D2 alignments to more fully
explore the transportation system impacts. There are still many questions about the
transportation system impacts. At a town hall meeting held by Representative Champion,
over 130 people signed in and over 200 people attended. At dessert with Don meetings, a lot
of feedback and questions were generated.
2
Bottineau Boulevard Partnership
Minutes of April 30, 2010
The study also held five stakeholder meetings for the D 1/D2 stakeholders. Questions were
raised about Terrace Mall access issues, where traffic goes and were bus stops would be
located.
Joe Kern provided an overview ofthe detailed D2 investigation which created three sub-
alternatives for the D2 alignment along Penn A venue. People were interested in more details
a.bout how LRT along Penn would be configured and the level of mitigation that would be
involved.
D2a
The D2a option runs along Penn Avenue with minimal impact to the surrounding property.
This option is still a lot ofinfrastructure for a narrow right-of-way. This option proposes that
Penn carrying one-way traffic traveling southbound and Oliver Avenue is converted to a one-
way traveling northbound. The route 19 bus would be split on Penn and Oliver. On Penn,
the street configuration includes 30 feet for the LRT, 16 feet for one lane oftraffic, and
sidewalks on each side. Left turns would be limited and there would be no parking or
stopping on Penn. Many intersections would be closed to car travel although some ofthese
would have pedestrian crossings.
D2b
The D2b pptionassumes that the roadway on Penn A venue is maintained in its current
configuration and the LRT is located entirely on Oliver Avenue. This removes all vehicle
travel from Oliver for the LRT and includes fire access on a multi-use path.
D2c
The option adds the LR T to Penn and does not change the transportation function on Penn
A venue. This option assumes the full acquisition of approximately 100 properties along this
segment of Penn A venue. The remainder of the property would be about 75 feet in depth
along the corridor. Although this option shows the road expansion on the westside, it could
be done on either side and the study has not considered which side would be a better option.
Next Steps
Mr. Gladke said that there are several planning meetings, including one with Golden Valley
stakeholders on May 11th, a meeting on transit oriented development in mi~-May with an
expert from CTOD, and meetings on the D 1/D2 analysis in Robbinsdale and Minneapolis in
the last week in May.
There was a $1.5 million request for state bonding funds, however the funding for transit
projects was removed from the state bonding bill. Asa result, HCRRA will have to fund a
greater portion of the study cost.
Mr. Gladke said the next steps in the study process will be to wrap up the Alternatives
Analysis study, incorporate the D1ID2 work into the environmental phase and communicate
to the FT A that the project plans to move forward.
2
3
Bottineau Boulevard Partnership
Minutes of April 30, 20 I 0
Commissioner Opat asked when a preferred alignment should be chosen. Mr. Gladke said
that if the federal criteria changes, that could impact the decision a lot and it is too soon to
decide. It would be beneficial to have a Locally Preferred Alignment chosen early on in the
environmental work. More detailed studies will be needed before deciding on the D segment
options in Minneapolis.
Commissioner Opat asked if the study is still technically in the Alternatives Analysis phase
until a Locally Preferred Alignment (LPA) is chosen. Mr. Gladke responded that is correct
and the options on the south end could sway the process. He anticipated it would be a year
into the draft EIS before a LP A is chosen.
Mike Logan asked if it would be possible to make an educated guess based on the six
livability principles. Mr. Gladke said they can be considered, but they don't know enough
about those specific criteria to understand how they might influence the results.
Senator Linda Higgins said that a lot of community members in North Minneapolis are
working together and looking at options with Representative Champion. They want their
input included in the process and have their voices heard.
Commissioner Opat requested a decision deadline for the LP A and noted that a year seems
like a long time. Mr. Gladke said that the initial goal was to get to the LPA faster but it does
not make sense to make the decision prematurely.
Louis Smith asked if TOO opportunities might be part of the decision making criteria. Mr.
Gladke responded that TOO is certainly part ofthe focus. He also said that additional
meetings with BNSF have raised the issue ofwetIand impacts and poor soils along the BNSF
corridor that could have real cost impacts.
Paula Pentel asked if the Penn and West Broadway planning work would be relevant here.
Mr. Gladke responded that it would. Marcia Glick said that the impacts need to be studied
further since the current 02 option has the LRT aligned so that it cuts off street access to
France and W oodale A venues.
Commissioner Opat said that he would like to set a date for the decision and make an
educated guess on the FT A criteria and keep moving forward.
a. Target Design Assistance - Penn & Plvmouth Case Study
Heather Sexton provided an overview of the Penn and Plymouth case study by Target's
design team. By preparing a series of images, they hope to get people excited about solving
land use issues through future planning. This work is intended to be a visioning exercise and
it not intended to take the place of a community planning process; rather it is intended to be a
precursor to land use planning work. This area won't change overnight, but rather will
change over a period of time.
3
4
Bottineau Boulevard Partnership
Minutes of April 30, 2010
The Penn & Plymouth station area is a good example of a historical area that has a diverse
. and vibrant character with several significant community facilities such as the Urban League
and Northpoint as well as new artist studios. The Target design team also took into account
the plan completed by the Northside Residents Redevelopment Council as well as input from
the City and County. The images show change over a 20 year timeline in four phases, each
of which could be five years apart.
The Phase One image shows a proposed grocery store as a beginning point, structured so that
housing could be added later on. Phase Two adds housing to the grocery store, and Phase
Three adds mixed use development on the other vacant lot. Phase four extends housing
along Plymouth A venue, using townhomes as a buffer between the mixed use area and the
single-family homes.
Ms. Sexton said this series of images show the potential change and will hopefully build
excitement about the transit project and some of the land use changes that could happen in a
parallel effort. She asked if anyone had any questions or recommendations for revisions of
this work
Mr. Logan said that Target allotted 300 hours, albeit with some flexibility, to get the
discussion started about land use ideas and how the corridor might look different in the
future. Council Member Barb Johnson said that the images show rather dense development
for the area and added it does take time for development to occur. Mr. Logan asked if a
timeline would help. Council Member Johnson replied that it would since the change would
not be all at once.
Senator Higgins said that four stories seemed a little tall for the rest of the neighborhood, but
developing that area could provide an anchor for the community. She added that showing the
change over time is a really good way to portray the development.
Sherrie Pugh said the NRRC did a livable communities study of the area. She added it would
be helpful if the Target work showed the existing buildings. She noted that the parking will
be an issue with additional density since the Urban League and Northpoint have high parking
demand. She said that UROC is important to the community and they should continue to be
part of any future plans. Some four story buildings might be okay, but a lot of them might
create a "cave" feeling. A healthy pedestrian environment is also important too.
Ms. Pental noted that when parking is not provided at stations, people tend to park in
neighborhood streets. Structured parking here makes a lot of sense.
Kari Dziedzic said that she has seen that people at neighborhood meetings want TOO
information and this work makes a good started point for conversations. Council Member
Johnson said that the images help the discussion. Senator Higgins agreed, adding that using
images puts structure to the discussion about land use.
4
5
Bottineau Boulevard Partnership
Minutes of April 30, 20 I 0
c. Policy Framework
Mr. Smith said that the Partnership prepared this Policy Framework to help facilitate the
planning process. The Partnership is seeking to find resource to convene meeting with each
community and build on previous work. The Policy Framework will help identify the
planning process going forward and determine ways different units of government could
work together. This Policy Framework will help inform TOD opportunities.
Council Member Johnson made a motion to approve the Resolution of Support for the Land
Use Policy Framework. This motion was seconded by Mayor Lampi and upon vote the
motion carried.
Mayor Lampi said that it would be good to move the transitway project forward faster. Ellen
McInnis said it maybe useful to go forward with both options A and B for a while.
Commissioner Opat said that more thought needs to go into this decision but it should be
possible to decide on a Locally Preferred Alternative in a year to a year and a half.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting of the Bottineau Boulevard Partnership/PAC
was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Louis Smith
Faith Cable
5
6
Bottineau Transitway Segment D 1 (BNSF Railroad),
Segment D2 (West BroadwaylPenn Avenue) Investigation
Spring 2010 Public Input Summary
Three Public Meetings were held in spring of2010:
· Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Informational Presentation, Tuesday, May
18th at UROC in Minneapolis
· Segment DI102 Investigation Open House, Wednesday, May 26th, Robbinsdale
City Hall (67 attendees, 20 comments cards and em ails received)
· Segment DI102 Investigation Open House, Thursday, June 3rd, UROC,
Minneapolis (68 attendees, 11 comment cards and emails received)
General themes raised by attendees at the DI/D2 Investigation Open Houses:
· High interest in transitway service improvements and acknowledgement/questions
regarding the challenges of integrating LRT into the built urban environment.
· Numerous concerns expressed related to a broad range of impacts likely created
by a transitway investment.
· Numerous expressions of support looking beyond immediate impacts to the future
condition with the transitway in place.
· Timeline leading to construction
· Decision making process leading to selection of route
· Job opportunities during construction
· Job creation in neighborhoods due to economic development around transitway
· Support for Alignment D2 as it would serve North Memorial Hospital and North
Minneapolis directly
· Opposition to Alignment D2 as it would create safety and access issues along
Penn A venue, could lead to property takings along Penn A venue, and could lead
to displacement of current residents
· Opposition to Alignment Dl as it would have negative impacts on Theodore
Wirth Park and would bypass North Minneapolis
· Streetcar and feeder bus services in relation to transitway stations
7
Bottineau Transitway Meeting Comments
June 3, 2010
1. Don't! Don't! It serves absolutely "NO" benefits for my community. Seems as though
this is for the benefit for getting suburbanites wants/desires met. Again, there are
concerns: safety, tearing down all the beauty we've invested. Not at our convenience
should this happen.
2. I don't want this in North Minneapolis. Go down Washington Avenue and head west on
some other route. Not North Minneapolis!
3. D2A or B are best. D2C is unacceptable. Dl does not serve North Minneapolis.
4. All I can say is best of luck.
5. Dl seems to be best option for D2 is disruptive to the North Side's existing
neighborhood.
6. W much better job must be done to inform greater north community that plans - not
just ???/community outreach is needed.
7. In no way, shape or form should light rail go through a residential neighborhood. If you
do run it through this neighborhood - North Minneapolis - it will be as controversial as
Rondo.
8. Option for LRT Route (from Dl Plan) (BNSF). GV Road North between ??? and Parkview
to Chowen to Oakdale (south side) West to 34th Avenue - West to BNSF. Station at
Chowen serves NMMC and Mall area. (He wrote some more but I can't make it out)
9. I am impressed by the amount of work that goes into these projects - the presentation
on June 3 was well done. I do not live near professed rail lines. No need to put me on a
mailing list.
10. Interchange rendering 3D visualization.
11.1 think the route that transit would take from Downtown Mpls to the Northwest suburbs
is a mistake. If the transit would run through North Minneapolis, no upstanding citizen
is going to ride that transit way as afraid for their safety. I think that if that route is
taken that there will be crime problems and enforcing payment problems on the trains.
If I wanted to go to a Twins game but I had to ride a train that made several stops in
North Minneapolis, I would definitely not ride the train and I would rather drive my car
to the game and hassle with parking problems. I do not have any problems with the
people in North Minneapolis, but it is a definite proven high crime area. I think that the
8
commission/study would be wise in considering different routes such as following 394
and hwy 100. Thanks for listening & considering my opinion.
12. As a wise man told me just a couple of days ago, when I was discussing my
discouragement at the seemingly.confrontational stance of many of the interested
parties regarding the Bottineau running down Penn;
Confrontation and the difference of opinion at this point is a sign of a healthy
conversation - it. is a good starting point and means that a good mix of the population is
paying attention...and without a little head butting, the end product suffers.
After much thought on the subject, I cannot agree more.
I do agree with many of the points that the public meetings should be standing room
only...they should be packed. I too share the frustration that when I talk to my
neighbors about this, with the .fact that I am their first contact with the issue.
In my opinion, this could be the biggest single investment in infrastructure the
Northside would see in this century. It has the potential to fundamentally ~hange the
dynamics of it in ways that would affect every single person who calls the Northside
home - there are implications and consequences for both the 01 and 02 options.
I once attended an 'Ethics in architecture" lecture which spent some. time fOCUSing on
the deliberate segregation of certain ethnic and classes through the way local
governments in conjunction with the state and federal levels built cities. The lecturer
used highways and other mass transportation systems as metaphors for moats and
rivers; the process of isolating people on one side of a river and limiting their access to
the goods and services through controlled points andl:>ridges. His example in this case
was, indeed North Minneapolis. 94 on the east side, 394 on the south, 694 on the
north, and The Parkway on the west...limited access points, limited opportunities for
development and transportation.
You have to ask yourself, "who is the Bottineau line looking to service?" There is a huge
difference between servicing 'the' population, and servicing 'a' population. In my
opinion, 01 services a population and 02 services the population - it is the more
democratic of the two options. Or, in the line of thinking of moats and rivers, the
benefits of the 01 line actually falls in the negative category - a harder line.of
separation, further isolating the North from the surrounding city - skirting around an
entire community, effectively denying many of them access while deliberately enabling
another. In other words, I think the 01 line would actually have a quantifiable negative
impact. Zero opportunity for positive change in the Northside.
9
13. Letter received June 17, 2010:
Brent Rusco
Project Manager - Bottineau Transit (LRT)
Hennepin County, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1362
(612) 543-0579
DI-NMMC - LRT Corridor
(BNSF Railroad - North Memorial Medical Center)
See attached map (6-10-10)
Proposal for Alignment from Golden Valley Road - BSNF to 34th Avenue - BSNF
· Addition LRT station at NMMC - at Oakdale with Chowen - Drew avenue
· Future Park and Ride acrosS street - north side of Oakdale (in old mall)
· Time: 28 minutes (+2 min)
· Ridership: 21,500 (+2000) - NMMC, clinics, retail + 1,000, neighborhood + 500,
+ bus transfer + 500)
· Cost + $25 million + 8.85 + $910 million (Row - 1 mile 50 - 60 propertys plus
addition 1A mile length
· Less cost than Penn Ave D2
· More ridership than Penn Av D2
· Less row to acquire than Penn Ave. 02
· Same number of stations as 02
This is the best route, ridership & cost for maximum benefits
Jim Seufert
763-560-1539
10
i,
!~
, "I
I'
.-:='-~~
~,::::::-' .. ~--<< t)
.~.. ~,,-~-~,~
"*~,..--
tv'..,"'"-""*'","" . ...-.,.,.........,....~""'...............
I
l p.,;t~,,*
,..
...",.'l-~
........~
5.~*-~-
it.<_
.......q$lro.""*'~
":~~
<n~"'*
t.--""-~'-~.:: ~ ~ ,,::.- ... :",,,,,,,.. :;t!>*_
;"",,,,
0. t...~,- S""'l':.+tOY~
-1-~T AH"(.....-~-+
___RoLL> 9,-~&"~e
D\- NIY\MC-
f-' ((':) - to --::> V\.1,.5
............. ll'..j.~. .l::.~:.,l.
:""'alrl
.1,,"1
I i
,p
,~j
{,~ "H
" '~~
~"__, ',.... . ",k',< ,
~I_._"..J .'.
.,. - ilt:r.,.~.., ~.".
"?"t~V,'~,$$W."*A:r'""'#:A>'~~...~ \,~*' ~.. ".""l.~}'
:':''''>. ~"- ''';: :~<f-':\~.'~,~' : .vL-.~.",
\.'" f~~~~..b...SC,..rerC'
.' t"M~~....,W.
I~A o~.,.............tW~...
-"Ii ~ '."0 ...,.."::# .
J
,.
!1)9
11
Bottineau Transitway Meeting Comments
May 26, 2010
1. No Rail. No How.
2. I would take this line if the time to take the rail from Robbinsdale to downtown
Minneapolis were equal to or less than driving that distance. Thirteen minutes or
less would be a great time frame. Current drive time takes 10 - 15 minutes plus
time to find parking.
3. 01 alternative: GV station and north to NMMC (station) - Xerxes/york - west side of
parkway - NMMC to 36th and France (station) to BNSF on 36th Avenue North.
4. Light rail is the only long term or the post practical way of moving people and doing
it with economy. Look at Europe, etc. How many jobs will this create?
5. I think the service that 01 gives to NMMC and North Minneapolis outweighs the
"technical" criteria advantages of 01. 02c does not have enough advantage to
warrant the land it takes.
6. I support 02 over 01. Now the question is the funding for the additional costs. I
really support this plan. I would use it on a daily basis. I do not currently use the
bus system. How can I be an advocate for this process?
7. I think any of the options will be a significant improvement over today's options. I
commute daily to downtown Minneapolis on the bus and I dream of the day when I
can take the light rail. Of the options I would prefer 01, but I would like to see the
results of the environmental impact analysis of the wetlands and watershed area.
8. Always have a map of the entire route and overall metro system - the audience will
wish to see this. Attempt to explain long term goals regarding 20 - 50 years - a
very difficult task, yet very important. Build it please.
9. I think that you're doing a great job and I appreciate what you're doing to increase
my property values.
10. As homeowners and taxpayers in Robbinsdale and Hennepin County, we believe the
02 route would be best for the economic viability for the county. We will be working
with others to promote the 02 route.
11. 02 offers many more opportunities (in my mind). The payback of potential
development in the areas that the LRT passes through should outweigh the federal
cost effectiveness ratio. It would be very difficult to increase densities along the 01
rail corridor. The potential of redevelopment of Terrace Mall is exciting. Good
12
presentations - 1 appreciate that a variety of options were considered. 1 would like
to hear more about park and ride plans for denser areas. Hiawatha neighbors report
increased street parking. Would.Robbinsdale downtown have a park and ride? Also
where the line ends ...Brooklyn Center or Maple Grove is important to all. 1 shop at
Arbor Lakes and would use this line to get there.
12. 1 own property at 4248/50 Regent, Robbinsdale. This meeting was very informative.
My concern was to do with noise and future property value.
13. I would like to see and 1 think you should see exact numbers from North Memorial
on where their employees come from and if they would consider using LRT. Have
shopping areas similar to Terrace Mall along the downtown to mall corridor
benefitted from that line? (New development or redevelopment.)
14. I am excited about the bus service. It has really gone downhill. We need an
alternative way to get downtown and 1 say go for it.
15. Get the support of the big players - NMMC, Terrace Mall, myself and the Dental
Clinic (Zemke). The 34th Avenue option is my choice but 1 would prefer no bridge to
the median on 81 rather follow 34th Avenue down the alley to Abbott and continue
under the 81 Parkway bridge.
16. Serve the most people possible - what is 5 minutes? Hurry up! Get it done! Deliver!
It's 2010!!! Put a feeder bus on Lake Drive from the flag pole to the park and ride in
Robbinsdale!
17. Post drawings, project opportunities, charts, etc. on website for more thorough
review. Can additional comments be sent to your e-mail address? Would park and
ride lots be a part of this. Please e-mail concept plans to me. *
18. The Bottineau Corridor seems conceived mainly for the benefit of people who moved
north to commute south. It has little benefit to the people who live in Robbinsdale
and have good access to bus routs, and there is little traffic heading north to work in
Maple Grove. 1 am skeptical of the value of LRT to develop the areas along County
81, which do need revitalization. Thus, it is difficult to champion any transit routes
through this area with the exception of street cars that would serve the local
population. However, I would be more in favor of 01 using existing railroad
infrastructure and blocking a small mall is preferable to the alternatives. Thank you.
19.1 am a resident, homeowner, and tax-payer. 1 live in Robbinsdale and 1 am writing to
express my adamant support for the 02 (D-two) option for the Bottineau Corridor LRT.
It is quite clear that the best long-term economic interest of Minneapolis, Hennepin
County and Minnesota is to use the LRT as an investment in improving access to and
through North Minneapolis. The Bottineau Corridor through the North community has
13
the potential to improve access to jobs downtown, jobs in the suburbs, and the serious
potential for growth of jobs in North around the LRT. In the long run, the LRT can help
transform the North community. I live in Robbinsdale and will have access either way,
but going around North would be wasting this opportunity to greatly increase our
overall Metropolitan economic capacity. I will be following this closely. A pretty view for
the suburbanites may seem cheaper up front, but we will all benefit from brave, far-
sighted leadership willing to see this as a potential to invest in real economic change.
The 02 option going THROUGH North Minneapolis helps us ClII.
20. I am a resident of Robbinsdale. Are there any maps available where you can see all
streets to confirm the routes that are up for review? Maps available online do not give
a true indication of what streets the transit way would be on. [Question received on
the Bottineau e-mail address.]
T:\TRE\3ENGINEERING & TRANSIT PLANNING\BRusco\Bottineau Transitway Meeting
Comments May 20l0.doc
14
Bottineau Transitway Alternatives Analysis Investigation
Comments and Questions
Open House, May 26, 2010, Robbinsdale, Minnesota
1. Please explain the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) process and the Cost
Effectiveness Index.
2. Would Bus Rapid Transit also use the rail corridor?
3. Do you know what ridership would be generated by employees and visitors at
North Memorial Hospital?
4. Would route options that leave the rail corridor do so in order to serve North
Memorial Hospital specifically?
5. What timeframe is used for the data that goes into your analysis?
6. What advantage does Light Rail have over Bus Rapid Transit?
7. What advantage is there to the D2 alternative with a connection at 34th Avenue?
8. Has North Memorial Hospital given input into this process?
9. Who leads this study?
10. Who would use this line?
II. What would be the noise levels in the neighborhoods?
12. How would trains be scheduled and would there be reverse commute trips?
13. What's the level of lighting along the rail route?
14. How long are the rail platforms?
15. What are cost estimates and assumptions for the DI alternative in the rail
corridor?
16. What would be the location oftrains in relation to houses?
17. Would there be park-and-ride locations?
18. What access and noise issue would arise if a light rail is built as alternative Dl
along Theodore Wirth Park?
19. What is the potential for streetcars?
15
20. What options go forward to be studied in the environmental impact statement?
21. What property taxes are used to fund construction?
22. Alternative D I does not seem to have opportunities for density - how is scored in
the federal rating process?
23. What goes into the federal formula to rate this project?
24. When will stakeholders know if property impacts are going to happen?
25. Should property owners plan beyond the next 4 years?
26. Who's clamoring for Light Rail and how is it funded?
27. What is the projected travel time between Robbinsdale and Downtown?
HCRRA vI June 10t\ 2010
16
Bottineau Transitway Alternatives Analysis Investigation
Open House at University of Minnesota UROC, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Comments and Questions
I. Two of the stated goals of the analysis are land use and cost effectiveness index
(CEI.) Side-by-side comparison of Alternatives 01 and 02 show 01 is better.
Why are you still considering Alternative 02?
2. Why not put a stop for North Memorial Hospital on Alternative 0 I ?
3. For the Alternative 02a concept, how close would the LRT trains be to the
homes?
4. Why mess with what North Minneapolis residents have worked so hard to do in
improving their neighborhoods? Oppose Alternative 02 - there are too many
negative impacts.
5. What would be the speed ofLRT trains if they run on Penn Avenue or Oliver
A venue?
6. Ridership on Hiawatha LRTis 30 thousand per weekday. Why wouldn't
businesses want to locate in North Minneapolis ifLRT is built?
7. Did not know about Alternative 02. How many jobs will be created? Need to
train people now to get construction jobs.
8. Gentrification is ok in the sense that it is going to happen. But it will be the
Rondo story again if you put this train line through the neighborhood. You are
ignoring the community input.
9. Where are the economic benefits going to occur?
10. People and businesses that are here now will be decimated. Benefits will only be
for the new businesses that move in (after the line is built.) Who benefits? We
(current residents) will be gone.
II. Who makes the final decision on the routing?
12. Support a LRT line down Penn Avenue, but not by taking properties on Penn
A venue.
13. When was the decision made to narrow down the number of alternatives studied?
14. Who are the elected officials to talk to about this project?
17
15. [Comments from State Senator Linda Higgins] There have been a half-dozen
meetings in this very room about this project. In other meetings we have heard
about opportunities associated with Alternative 02. Now you have the
opportunity to share your thoughts about these alternatives.
16. Don't express buses serve the northern communities of Maple Grove and
Brooklyn Park today?
17. Tired of the dog and pony show the county has been putting on. People in the
neighborhoods don't know about what will happen. What about a community
benefits agreement? Who's doing outreach?
18. Will there be jobs for us in this community? Will there be jobs during
construction and after the line is built?
19. If houses are tom down, what happens to the residents?
20. Concerned about the safety of children ifLRT goes down local streets. This
situation is different from Hiawatha LRT. How will you protect children and
protect the physical appearance of the neighborhood?
21. Why is a route down Broadway Street not being considered?
22. Will there be streetcars for North Minneapolis?
HCRRA vI June 10th, 2010
18
en
c
o
+-'
ro
+-'
(j)
I-
0:::
-.J
:J
o
$-
ro
en
ro
(J)
"'0
OJ
en
"'0
C
ro
-.J
o
U
:J
ro
(J)
c
~
+-'
o
OJ
1lll1lIU1
.um
'U"""4.
-
y +;'2 'hi
"* The Bottineau ()orridor ~ lee, ~
N '\ \; "y
Spring/Summer 2010
land Use Ideas around Future lRT Stations
The Bottineau Partnership is delighted to showcase the land use ideas around Bottineau Corridor LRT
stations generated by Target's design assistance. Target volunteered the assistance of its architectural
staff to help visualize the Bottineau transit stations and the potential surrounding development.
The hope for this work is that the images get the people excited about the possibilities--and to think
about planning issues such as station layout, parking, phasing of development. In the future, these
issues will need to be solved through a community-based land use planning process.
"Opportunities?" is posed as a question throughout this work since future land use planning work
will ask the communities along the Bottineau Corridor to consider the goals for future opportunities
and community improvements could happen along with the Bottineau LRT. While the opportunity
suggestions mayor may not be the right ones at each place, it is hoped that they get people thinking
about what the best opportunities are for their community.
opportunities?
maximize pedestrian
connections and the
pedestrian environment
redevelop
underutilized
buildings connected
to the station
environment
park & ride structures
with small -incubator"
retail shops
This visioning exercise is a precursor to a future planning process-not a market study or programming
exercise or proposed architectural design. The hope is that this work may help to inform the land use
issues of future planning efforts although it is not intended to take the place of a community-based
planning process. This visioning exercise is intended to generate ideas that may spark discussion
about what the community goals are and how to reach them.
It is not likely that the introduction of light rail will change these areas overnight. Development happens
over a long period of time and a sustained commitment to planning and implementation of changes
is important for success. These visuals are intended to help communicate how the station and
surrounding area might change over time.
19
en
c
o
:;:;
ro
......
(f)
I--
a:::
-.J
'U
C
::J
o
t-
ro
en
ro
(I)
'U
-
(I)
en
:::>
'U
c:
ro
-.J
I
t-
O
'U
'C
t-
o
()
::J
ro
(I)
c:
E
o
CO
Prepared
for
.
IIln'lJUI
IlIU'IIII
'nuult,,'
-
THe Bottineau Corriaor:: Segment A - Maple (3rove* f0 '02
'"
......
-.:.....,'- ~--
.. ....~.~. ~~
,~ ~-----......
Spring/Summer 2010
Hemlock Station (p+r)
Opportunities?
- reposition station to be more central
between intersections for a stronger
"master plan" to develop
Jefferson Highway Station
(p+r)
Opportunities?
- reposition station to be more central
between intersections for a stronger
"master plan" to develop
Hennepin Technical College
Station
Opportunities?
- define pedestrian zones to make for a
intui~ive - student friendly environment.
- repurpose existing parking lots with
structures to free up more land for
development
71 st Avenue Station
Opportunities?
- reposition station out of "landlocked"
area to allow for surrounding
development + improvements to occur
...-
Note: This visioning exercise is a precursor to a future planning process-not a market study or programming exercise or proposed
architectural design. The hope Is that this work may help to inform the land use Issues of future planning efforts aUhough it Is not intended
to take the place of a community-based planning process. This visioning exercise Is intended to generate ideas that may spark discussion
about what the community goals are and how to reach them.
20
en
c
o
:;::i
ro
+-'
U)
r-
e:::
-l
"0
C
~
o
t.-
ro
en
ro
<D
"0
-
<D
en
"0
C
ro
-l
!
t.-
O
~
ro
<D
c
+-'
+-'
o
OJ
JIlmIUI
mmm
'linn:;.>.
by
-
% ~
* [fie Bottineal1 Corridor: Segmen' B '- BrooKlyn ~arK , '*"
...
...
.- ..-- -~--
MIlecItMw~.'~. . ..............,....
~~ PedeIfIIDft~~.......
Spring/Summer 2010
97th Avenue Station (p+r)
Opportunities?
- reposition station to a more central
layout to work with a larger master
plan.
- propose moving the 93rd Ave. P+R
to this station for Target North Campus
team member use - bridge?
93th Avenue Station (p+r)
Opportunities?
· development potential east of main
road is most feasible
85th Avenue Station
Opportunities?
- reinforce pedestrian connection to
the varied context to promote new
development.
Brooklyn Boulevard Station
Opportunities?
- reinforce pedestrian connection to
the existing development and consider
redevelopment
...-
'"
...-
Note: This visioning exercise is a precursor to a future plaooing process-not a market study or programming exercise or proposed
architectural design. The hope is that this work may help to inform the land use issues of future planning efforts aRhough it is not intended
to take the place of a community-based planning process. This visioning exercise is intended to generate ideas that may spark discussion
about what the community goals are and how to reach them.
21
en
c
o
+-'
ro
+-'
(j)
I--
cr.:
....J
"0
C
:;:,
o
S-
ro
en
ro
(l)
"0
(l)
en
::J
"0
C
ro
....J
I
S-
O
"0
'C
S-
O
o
:;:,
ro
(l)
c
......
+-'
o
CO
...~ ..
. .
Prepare(J
by
-
The Bottineau Corridor: Segment C - Brooklyn ParRlCrystallRobbinsdale
Spring/Summer 2010
63rd Avenue Station (P+R)
Opportunities?
- pedestrian crossing to adjacent
residential important.
- park & ride structure with small
"incubator" retail shops
Bass Lake Road Station
Opportunities:
Opportunities?
- reinforce pedestrian connections
at intersection for safe earlwark
experience
Hubbard Transit Center
Station (P+R)
Opportunities?
- redevelop underutilized buildings
connected to station environment
- integrate P+R station into
development
.- -'- ~--
. Mnd"-~.~ ~~
~~ II*aIIluchn~NiIedH
Note: This visioning exercise is a precursor to a future planning process-not a market study or programming exercise or proposed
architectural design. The hope Is that this work may help to Inform the land use Issues of future planning efforts although it Is not Intended
to take the place of a community-based planning process. This visioning exercise Is intended to generate ideas that may spark discussion
about what the community goals are and how to reach them.
22
en
c:
o
....
CO
....
(fJ
.-I
~
o
~
CO
en
CO
(J)
"U
-
(J)
en
I
~
o
~
CO
(J)
c:
fo!
.
IllmIUIII
MlT4U
?ttfUUM
-
S'ine 80ttinaay CorrlCfor: Segment 01 .. rheodora Wirth ParK, Minneapolis
-
a=o._..- a:::-....
..........~.~ ~ACUpl--
~ .........~~~
Spring/Summer 2010
Golden Valley Road Station
Opportunities?
- primary role of station is to access
open space and trails.
Penn Avenue Station
Opportunities?
- develop pedestrian connection along
median
Van White Boulevard Station
Opportunities?
- maximize pedestrian connections and
the pedestrian environment.
- integrate into future development
- Downtown Minneapolis gateway
Ballpark Station
Opportunities?
- maximize ridership for events and
workllive lifestyles
,..
...-
c.-
Note: This visioning exercise is a precursor to a future planning process-not a market study or programming exercise or proposed
architectural design. The hope is that this work may help to inform the land use issues of future planning efforts although it is not intended
to take the place of a community-based planning process. This visioning exercise is intended to generate Ideas that may spark discussion
about what the community goals are and how to reach them.
23
en
c
o
:;:;
ro
.p.I
(J)
I:-
a::
-l
"'0
c
:J
o
I-
ro
en
ro
Q)
"'0
Q)
en
:::>
"'0
c
ro
-l
I
I-
o
"'0
'C
I-
o
o
:J
ro
Q)
c
.p.I
.p.I
o
OJ
Fit-epare(j
II
==
I'uan:u__
FJiBpare(j
by
-
Tne BQUineau Oorridor: Segment D2 ~ Penn Avenue, Minneapolis " M ~
...
~--:-- ~-...._.-
~~..~ .........~Acc....
~ .~~~*""
Spring/Summer 2010
North Memorial Station
Opportunities:
.develop strong pedestrian connection
to North Memorial
· study connection to adjacent
residential across road
PennlW Broadway Avenue
Station
Opportunities:
· redevelop neighborhood buildings to
be more pedestrian oriented
· explore pedestrian connections
Plymouth Avenue Station
Opportunities:
· redevelop neighborhood buildings to
be more pedestrian oriented
Van White Boulevard Station
Opportunities:
· maximize pedestrian connections
and the pedestrian environment.
· integrate into future development
· Downtown Minneapolis gateway
'"
-
...
...-
Note: This visioning exercise Is a precursor to a future planning process-not a market study or programming exercise or proposed
architectural design. The hope is that this work may help to Inform the land use issues of future planning elforts although it is not Intended
to take the place of a community'-based planning process. This visioning exercise Is intended to generate ideas that may spark discussion
about what the community goals are and how to reach them.
24
(f)
c
o
......
m
......
(j)
y ~ee~n at el~moutn Station k\reaymase>Sfutj~~ 'Minneapolis ~ t
Spring/Summer 2010
-0
C
::J This case study of the Penn & Plymouth explores ideas for land use around this station area to
e show what it might look like as it changes over time. The ideas shown in these images may not be
m exactly what is desired by the community or what is finally adopted in future land use plans by the
(f) City of Minneapolis, but these images are intended to start the discussion. These images show more
m of a development focus on Plymouth Avenue than Penn Avenue since there are more low intensity
-0 commercial that might be more likely to redevelop than single-family homes.
Q)
(f)
:J
o
o
o
::J
m
Q)
c
......
......
o
OJ
II
JIlnIM
1IIIU'fW
FIU.ttR'.
-
Note: This visioning exercise Is a precursor to a future planning process-not a market study or programming exercise or proposed
architectural design. The hope Is that this work may help to inform the land use Issues of future planning efforts although it Is not Intended
to take the place of a community-based planning process. This visioning exercise is intended to generate ideas that may spark discussion
about what the community goals are and how to reach them.
25
C/)
c
o
~
m
+-'
(/)
t-
O:::
-I
"'0
C
~
o
?.-
m
C/)
m
CD
"'0
CD
C/)
:::>
"'0
c
co
-I
J
I.-
o
"'0
'c
I.-
o
()
~
co
CD
c
:t::
o
OJ
Prepereel
for
.
~
IlllUl'W
'.intU~if
by
-
Penn & Plymoutf'l Station Area Case StuelY, Minneapmlls>>~
Spring/Summer 2010
[J
~
~
Phase One
LRT Opens
[J
f1=a
~
Phase Two
+ 5 years
t:J
Do
=..~ 0
c
o
tJ
~ North
o
go
~North
[J
~
~
Phase Three
... 10 years
Phase Four
+ 15 years
D
North
t:J
Of1J
=..~ 0
go
o
c
~ North
go
Note: This visioning exercise is a precursor to a future planning process-not a market study or programming exercise or proposed
architectural design. The hope Is that this work may help to inform the land use issues of future planning efforts although it is not intended
to take the place of a community-based planning process. This visioning exercise is intended to generate Ideas that may spark discussion
about what the community goals are and how to reach them.
26
en
c
o
:;::::;
CO
+J
(f)
r-
0::
--l
'U
C
:J
o
l...
CO
en
CO
(J.)
'U
-
(J.)
en
:::>
'U
c
CO
--l
I
l...
o
'U
'C
l...
o
o
:J
co
(J.)
C
+J
+J
o
CO
.
~
.,,01
f.UUIU<f
-
Looking south on Penn Avenue
Phase One Opportunities?
- An adjacent grocery store that
is built around the time when LRT
opens.
Phase Tw,o Opport!Jnities?
- The expansion Qf the Phase One
retail to include housing above.
Spring/Summer 2010
Phase Three Opportunities?
- Development of a building on
the southeast corner of Penn &
Plymouth
Phase Four Opportunities?
- Development of townhomes
further south on Penn Avenue
Note: This visioning exercise Is a precursor to a
future planning process-not a market study or
programming exercise or proposed architectural
design. The hope is that this work may help to
Inform the land use issues of future planning
efforts although it is not intended to take the
place of a community-based planning process.
This visioning exercise is intended to generate
ideas that may spark discussion about what the
community goals are and how to reach them.
27
C/)
c
o
+:i
('0
.....
(f)
I--
a:::
.....J
-0
C
:::J
o
l.-
('0
C/)
('0
(])
-0
-
(])
C/)
:J
-0
C
('0
.....J
I
l.-
o
-0
'C
l.-
o
U
:::J
('0
(])
c
.....
.....
o
CO
Prepared
for
Prepared
by
-
\.Spring/Summer 2010
Questions?
- Are there enough people to support a grocery store in this area?
- What other services are needed here?
- Building height - is three stories too tall. too short or just right?
- Street trees - does the addition of some green and shade matter?
What other ideas are important here?
Note: This visioning exercise is a precursor to a future planning process-not a market study or programming exercise or proposed
architectural design. The hope is that this work may help to inform the land use Issues of future planning efforts ahhough it Is not intended
to take the place of a community-based planning process. This visioning exercise is Intended to generate ideas that may spark discussion
about what the community goals are and how to reach them.
28
(/)
c.:
e
.......
('0
.......
(j)
t-
o:::
--1
"'C
c.:
;:,
e
I-
('0
(/)
('0
(J)
"'C
-
(J)
(/)
::::l
"'C
c.:
('0
--1
I
l-
e
"'C
"C
l-
e
()
;:,
('0
(J)
c.:
.......
.......
e
CD
.
~
DU'fW
jlUlnUI~
-
ltIaDb~rd M~rKetplace Station ~rea Gase Stud;{, fRobbinsCJale ": R;
8
Spring/Summer 2010
This case study of the Hubbard Marketplace Station Area considers ways the land uses around
the transit station could change with the construction of a park and ride that also serves downtown
Robbinsdale and with the reconfiguration of the block to the east of the station.
Note: This visioning exercise is a precursor to a future planning process-not a market study or programming exercise or proposed
architectural design. The hope Is that this work may help to inform the land use issues of future planning efforts although It is not intended
to take the place of a community-based planning process. This visioning exercise is intended to generate ideas that may spark discussion
about what the community goals are and how to reach them.
29
(/)
c
o
:;:::k
CO
......
(j)
t-
o::
....J
"'0
C
::J
o
"-
CO
(/)
en
Q)
"'0
-
Q)
(/)
::J
"'0
C
CO
....J
::J
en
Q)
c
......
......
o
OJ
Prepared
for
.
~
IIIIlmQ
'UUtUHi
-
Hubbard Marketplace Station Area Case Study, Robbinsaale
Images: the view from 42nd Avenue and
Railroad Avenue looking southeast.
Spring/Summer 2010
Images: the view looking east from above.
Phase One Opportunity?
- A park and ride that also serves downtown Robbinsdale. The park and ride is shown constructed
over the LRT tracks as a space saving measure in a relatively tight area.
Phase Two Opportunity?
- Development of a one-story building located where the Farm & Garden building is located.
Phase Three Opportunity?
- Development of a few additional stories of housing or retail that could create a signature gateway
to Robbinsdale from the west.
Note: This visioning exercise is a precursor to a future planning process-not a market study or programming exercise or proposed
architectural design. The hope is that this work may help to inform the land use Issues of future planning efforts although it is not intended
to take the place of a community-based planning process. This visioning exercise Is intended to generate ideas that may spark discussion
about what the community goals are and how to reach them.
30
en
c
o
.......
m
.......
CJ)
I--
a::
....J
:J
o
l-
m
en
m
Q)
"0
Q)
en
I
l-
o
:J
m
Q)
c
.......
.......
o
lD
fO!
~
IllImW
ftf"HUf;1.l4
-
* ~ t Ik'\" '" S '\ "-
*0 0 1lI1l1DBeU:d Mad<et~I,?e Station J:\r.ea" Ease Study, lioBlins8ale'
Spring/Summer 2010
The view from 42nd
Avenue and West
Broadway looking
southwest.
Phase One: A park and
ride?
Phase Two: One-story
retail + street trees?
Phase Three: Two stories
of housing or office
above?
Opportunities/Questions?
- What should the
architectural character
look like?
- How would a combine
park & ride and
downtown parking deck
work?
- Can district parking help
the redevelopment of
other sites nearby?
- What retail uses here
might be complementary
to other downtown
Robbinsdale businesses?
Note: This visioning exercise is a precursor to a future planning process-not a market study or programming exercise or proposed
architectural design. The hope is that this work may help to inform the land use issues of future planning efforts although it is not intended
to take the place of a community-based planning process. This visioning exercise is intended to generate ideas that may spark discussion
about what the community goals are and how to reach them.
31
BOTI'INEAU CORRIDOR LAND USE PLANNING FRAMEWORK
PROJECT PROPOSAL
BOTTIREAU
BOULEVARD
PlRIHrRSRIP
June 24, 2010
Overview
The Bottineau Boulevard Partnership has a longstanding commitment to the integration
of community land use planning and transit investment. Land use planning is
fundamentally a municipal responsibility, and the cities in the Bottineau Corridor have a
history of cooperation and coordination in their planning to promote long-term
investment in the Corridor. In order to promote the strongest competitive position for
the Bottineau Corridor in the federal transit funding process, the Partnership will work
with these communities along with Hennepin County to develop a transit-oriented Land
Use Planning Framework. This Planning Framework will act as a roadmap fort he
Bottineau Corridor's land use planning process, addressing the timing, scope and
integration with the transit planning process.
The goals of the Policy Framework are to provide information about opportunities for
transit oriented development along the corridor to aid in the transitway alignment
decision making process and also to position the Bottineau Corridor for a strong land use
rating in the federal New Starts funding program for transitways.
Work Plan and Approach
This Planning Framework will consist of two phases, with the first phase focusing on
critical issues around each station area and the second phase focusing on best practices
for transit oriented development (TOD) planning.
Phase One: Station Area Review
The station area review will analyze the existing context at each station area, the current
ordinances, the development or redevelopment potential and the difficulty level of
development. Building on the station area design assistance provided to the Partnership
by Target, it will evaluate the connections between transitway stations and the adjacent
land uses. It may also highlight potential opportunities where an alternative transitway
station configuration or location could better integrate with surrounding land uses.
Interviews with local government staff along the Bottineau Corridor will be conducted to
gather information about the station areas including existing land uses, plans and
ordinances. The station area information will be analyzed to reflect the level of
development opportunity and difficulty. The interviews will include a discussion of FTA
expectations for land use planning and opportunities to integrate FTA criteria into future
land use plans.
Phase Two: Best Practices Analysis
The best practices analysis will examine the roles played by the Bottineau Corridor cities,
Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council. The process and funding for land use
32
planning in other light rail corridors including Hiawatha, Central and Southwest will be
examined to understand the most successful elements and improve upon existing
processes. The FfA evaluation criteria for New Starts will be explored as well as the six
livability principles promoted by the HUD-DOT-EPA Interagency Partnership for
Sustainable Communities to examine the process and product required for a strong
score.
The policy framework will also identify ways that the Bottineau Corridor planning
process can utilize best practices from the workshop series on Transit Oriented Districts
and Walkable Communities planned by crOD, the McKnight Foundation, LISC and
other local partners in spring 2010. While land use will be emphasized, the following
four topics will be included:
· Infrastructure and Public Realm
· Making the Transportation and Land Use Connection and Overcoming
Regulatory Obstacles
· Equitable Development and Community Benefits
· Financing of Transit-Oriented Districts: Building Public/Private Partnerships
Stakeholder Review
A draft of the policy framework will be prevented for review by the Bottineau Community
Advisory Committee (CAC), the Advise, Review and Communicate Committee (ARCC)
and the Partnership/ Political Advisory Committee (PAC).
Deliverables and Timetable
The Planning Framework will propose key principles for land use planning along the
Bottineau Corridor that can be adopted by the Bottineau Boulevard Partnership.
Recommendations will also include ways to address critical issues at each station area
through future land use planning work such as a corridor development strategy, station
area plans and project implementation strategies. The Planning Framework will also
consider ways to improve the coordination and advance cross-disciplinary collaboration
between the Bottineau transitway project and the associated land use planning
processes.
The Planning Framework will recommend opportunities to integrate best practices in
transit oriented development planning and the HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership's six
livability principles into future planning work. The Planning Framework also offer
implementation strategies including a timeline and a list of next steps.
See Land Use Planning Framework Outline below.
Timeline
Months 1-2: Draft introduction, conduct interviews and research best practices.
Months 3-4: Draft station area and best practices analysis.
Months 5-6: Review with stakeholder groups and prepare final report.
Target completion date: December 31, 2010
(assumes a July 1, 2010 start date)
2
33
Bottineau Boulevard Partnership Land Use Planning Framework
Proposed Outline
Executive Summary
Introduction
o Bottineau Partnership history
o Bottineau Transitway overview
o Station area overview
o Best practices for land use planning overview
o Target design findings and lessons learned
o FfA Expectations
Station Area Analysis
o Overview of the corridor
o Station summary of the 18 potential stations
o Existing context of the site
o Current ordinances
o Development potential and difficulty
o Target design work (where applicable)
o Potential integration with the transitway station
o Critical issue identification for land use planning and regulation
Best Practices for Land Use Planning Analysis
o Overview of current practice
o Roles of government agencies and organizations
o HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership's six livability principles
o Transit Oriented Districts and Walkable Communities workshop series findings
o Lessons learned from other corridors (e.g. Hiawatha, Central and Southwest)
o Options for incorporating best practices
Recommendations and Implementation
o Land use planning principles
o Addressing critical issues at each station area in the planning process
o Integrating best practices into future planning
o Potential timeline
o Next steps
Report Estimated Length: 50 pages
3
34
FACT SHEET on HUD's Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program
The FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public law 111-117) provided $100 million to the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HIJD) for a new Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant
program, of which $2 million will be reserved for capacity support grants distributed separately, and not les.s
than $25 million will be awarded to regions with populations of less than 500,000. HUD announced the
availability of funding for this program on June 24, 2010. To view the announcement visit
www.hud.~ov/sustainabllltv
The Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program will support regional planning efforts that
Integrate housing, land use, economic and workforce development, transportation, and infrastructure
investments in a manner that empowers jurisdictions to consider the interdependent challenges of economic
competitiveness and revitalization; social equity, inclusion, and access to opportunity; energy use and climate
change; and, public health and environmental impacts. The program will place a priority on Investing In
partnerships, Including J'lQntradltlonal partnerships (e.g., arts and culture, philanthropy, etc.) and bringing new
voices to the regional planning process.
The grant program is a centerpiece of the Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities, a joint effort
between HUD, the US Department of Transportation, and the us Environmental Protection Agency to leverage
long-term development and reinvestment that advances Improved environmental and economic sustainabllity
and to engage stakeholders and citizens in meaningful decision-making roles. HUD has chosen to make the
Partnership's six livability Principles central to the program outcomes discussed In the NOFA:
1. Provide More Transportation Choices.
2. Promote Equitable, Affordable Housing.
3. Enhance Economic Competitiveness.
4. Support Existing Communities.
5. Coordinate Policies and Leverage Investment.
6. Value Communities and Neighborhoods.
The Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program will support a number of activities related to the
development and implementation of Integrated long-range regional plans such as, but not limited to,
A) Identifying affordable housing, transportation Investment, water infrastructure, economic development,
land use planning, environmental conservation, energy system, open space, and other infrastructure
priorities for the region;
B) establishing performance goals and measures;
C) providing detailed plans, policies, and Implementation strategies to be Implemented by all participating
jurisdictions over time to meet planning goals; and,
D) engaging residents and stakeholders substantively and meaningfully In the development of the shared
vision and Its implementation. For a full list of eligible activities please refer to the published NOFA.
35
Recognizing that areas are in different stages of achieving sustalnability, HUD established two funding categories
for the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant program.
· Category 1 Funds can be used to support the preparation of Regional Plans for Sustainable
Development.
· Category 2 Funds can be used to support efforts to fine-tune existing regional plans so that they address
the Partnership's livability Principles, to prepare more detailed execution plans for an adopted Regional
plan for Sustainable Development, and limited predevelopment planning activities for catalytic
project/projects.
Grants will be made to regional consortia consisting of local governments, metropolitan planning organizations,
educatlonallnstrtutions and non-profit organizations. The end product of a regional plal'lning Initiative will be a
Regional Plan for Sustainable Development or II betailed Execution Plan and Program for a Regional Plan for
Sustainable Development that will provide a blueprint for Investment decisiol'ls, both public and private, that
will support a more sustainable future for a region. The size of awarded grant amounts Is determined by the
whether the applicant represents a large metropolitan region, a medium-sized region, or a smail-sized region,
rural communities 01' small towns areas.
Grant applications are due August 23, 1010. Applicants for funding should carefully review the requirements
described In the NOFA and HUD's General Section.
Specific questions regarding the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program requirements
should be directed to: sustainablecommunlties@hud.R:ov or may be submitted through the
www.hud.R:ov/sustainabll!'!Y website.
36
alley
Memorandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8003 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
August 11,2010
Agenda Item
7. Planning Commission Vacancy
Prepared By
Thomas Burt
Summary
Vacancy on the Planning Commission due to the resignation of Don Keysser