07-12-99 PC Agenda
~
i:
.;
.
e
.
IV.
i
AGENDA
;
:
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, July12, 1999
7pm
I. Approval of Minutes - June 28, 1999
II.
Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision - Preliminary Plat for:
Mills Jersey Avenue Addition
i
Applicant: Mary Jayne Mills
Address: 6835 Glenwood Avenue, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Purpose:
To allow for the creation of two lots. Lot 1 would be vacant and
available for the construction of a single-family dwelling. Lot 2 would
contain the existing house and garage.
;
;
-SHORT RECESS-
III.
Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council and Board of Zoning Appeals
Other Business
A. Discussion - Draft Report on 1-394 Corridor Study - Preliminary Desig~
Recommendations
V. Adjournment
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use.
The Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based uppn
the Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning .~'
Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely
affect the surrounding neighborhood.
The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn,
first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments.
Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along
with the Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision.
With the completion of the informal public hearing(s) there will be a short recess before the
commission continues with the remainder of the agenda.
To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission
will utilize the following procedure:
1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommendation from staff.
Commission members may ask questions of staff.
2. The proponent will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the
Commission.
3.
The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so
indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual
questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak.
Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments.
.
4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair.
Remember, your questions/comments are for the record.
5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer
your questions.
6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the
opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information,
not rebuttal.
7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take
appropriate action.
.
.
.
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28, 1999
A regular meeting <?f the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
June 28, 1999. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:00 p.m.
Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Hoffman, McAleese
and Shaffer. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, .
Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Tammi Hall, Recording Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - June 14. 1999
Chair Pentel asked Grimes about his statement at the June 14 meeting that potential
buyers would be unable to purchase the Olympic Printing property without City
assistance. Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes responded that, most
likely, a potential buyer would be interested in redeveloping the property for office or
office/warehouse use. Since they would be unable to use the existing building, they
would be willing to pay only the going market rate for raw land. Pentelasked if we are
creating a potential problem in redevelopment districts by giving developers the
impression that the City will always provide assistance to enable them to purchase
property at raw land prices. Grimes stated that the tax increment financing district will
be ending in the very near future and there will be no funds to continue to assist
developers. He stated that it is also possible that Olympic Printing would decide to stay
and rehabilitate the building. Grimes stated that, at the current time, developers would
not be willing to pay market rates for property such as Olympic Printing because the
economics of the purchase would not make sense. Commissioner Shaffer stated that if
you wait for the market to reach the point that the property can be sold to a developer at
market rate, it is likely that the building would have deteriorated to the point that it would
degrade the value of surrounding properties. Commissioner Groger stated that the
Olympic Printing building is unattractive and could potentially increase vacancy rates in
the adjacent office building. Grimes added that there is currently a glut of office space
which creates competition for tenants and developers want their properties to be in
prime condition to ensure they are able to attract tenants.
Commissioner Hoffman asked about the discussion on page three of the minutes
regarding the Breck Ice Arena and the three buildings' in the west area. Grimes stated
that there is-a development agreement with Duke that, if they meet certain
requirements, the City will obtain this land and sell it to Duke for the purpose of
constructing office buildings on the property. Hoffman asked if these sites were
purchased before the agreement with United. City Planner Beth Knoblauch responded
that these properties have not been purchased by the City and are currently controlled
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28, 1999
Page 2
.
by private owners. She stated that if Duke meets the requirements set out in the
development agreement, the City has agreed to acquire the property and sell it to Duke.
Hoffman stated that, as a result of this existing development agreement, the
Commission cannot consider this area as part of the area that will be reviewed. Pentel
stated that the Commission cannot have input on the specific land use for this area, but
they can consider the area in terms of traffic impact and in terms of land use mix for the
entire area. Hoffman asked if there are limitations as to what Duke can construct on
these properties. Pentel stated that the parameters for what can be built on the
property are included in the development agreement. Grimes stated that there is a
redevelopment plan for 1-394 that was previously approved by the Planning
Commission and the City Council. He stated that, in a redevelopment district, a
redevelopment plan is approved and then implemented by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA). Grimes stated that, from a historical perspective, the
HRA became involved years ago because they felt that if there was no plan,
development could proceed in a very haphazard manner and they wanted some control
to assemble larger parcels of property together. Hoffman asked if Duke is required to
come before the Planning Commission for final approval of the structure they plan for
the property. Grimes stated that when Duke buys the property from the HRA they must
come back before the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval as a
Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). Knoblauch stated that the broad parameters have
been laid out in the development agreement and Duke then presents the final details in
the P.U.D. Grimes stated that the developer must also adhere to the traffic
management ordinance and environmental regulations.
.
Pentel asked about the circulator system mentioned on page five of the minutes.
Grimes stated that St. Louis Park is working on a circulator system with Minnetonka and
Hopkins. He stated that they have indicated they would be willing to consider extending
the system into Golden Valley.
Groger stated that the address for the minor subdivision for the Lesters in the June 14
minutes should be corrected to 1645 and 1637 Lilac Drive North.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the
June 14, 1999 minutes with the correction to the address, as noted above, on the
Lester minor subdivision.
II. Reoorts on Meetinas of the Housina and Redevelooment Authority. City
Council and Board of Zonina Aooeals
There was brief discussion regarding the City Council meeting and review of the
Transportation Plan. .
'.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28, 1999
. Page 3
III. Other Business
A. Continued Discussion of HRA Charge - Golden Hills Redevelopment Area _
Future Development
Commissioner Eck stated that it would be helpful to have an up-to-date map of the 1_
394 corridor showing current property owners/tenants. Pentel stated that this should be
an item that is included in the budget request.
.
Eck stated that the 1-394 corridor study addressed non-conformities in the area. He
questioned if the non-conformities exist because the buildings were constructed prior to
the current City code. Grimes stated that some of the non-conformities are a result of
changes in City code. However, he indicated that some of the non-conformities are due
to shifting land uses and to changes to structures that were done without permits. Eck
asked if it is practical to require correction of the non-conformities. Grimes stated that
requiring corrections would probably not be successful, but the City could go through a
process to make them legally non-conforming. Knoblauch stated that one of the
possible outcomes of this project may be a policy that no additional variances be
granted on existing buildings or only certain types of variances could be granted. She
indicated that this would provide a guideline for other bodies that become involved in
these redevelopment projects. Groger stated that there have been a number of
redevelopments where the Commission allowed variances because the new
development provided a substantial improvement over the existing building. Grimes
stated that the industrial zoning along 1-394 has always been a problem and that the
City has done things to compensate for the industrial zoning rather than coming up with
a new zoning district.
Eck stated that some properties along the corridor are made up of unconsolidated
individual parcels. He asked if the property owners could potentially sell off these
individual parcels. Knoblauch stated that, in the past, the City allowed property owners
to build over property lines without consolidating the parcels, which has resulted in the
current situation. She indicated that property owners could sell off individual parcels.
Grimes stated that the City no longer allows property owners to build over property lines
without consolidating the lots.
Eck asked about the recommendations of the 1-394 corridor study. Knoblauch stated
that none of the recommendations were actually implemented because one of the
recommendations was that the area be reviewed again after 1-394 was completed. She
stated that the comprehensive plan and zoning code were not amended based on
these recommendations.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28, 1999
Page 4
.
At the previous meeting, the Commission outlined six items to be addressed in regard
to the 1-394 corridor redevelopment issue:
· define land area (scope)
. define stakeholders
· define process steps
· define time frame
· define goals and type of product
· determine budget requirements
The discussion for the remainder of the meeting was centered around these items.
Define the land area:
Pentel stated that the study area should extend beyond Olympic Printing.
Shaffer stated that he felt areas defined as 3, 4 and 5 in the 1990 1-394 Corridor Study
should be the study area. Pentel stated that she would like to see the residential area
that is west of Winnetka included in the study area. Shaffer responded that he felt
these residents would be considered stakeholders but not part of the study area for .
redevelopment. Knoblauch suggested that the one area be defined as the study area
in terms of potential changes in land use and that a second, larger area be defined as
the potential impact area that would be affected by the changes. She suggested that
the surrounding residential areas be included in the broader impact area since they are
not being considered for possible change in land use. Grimes stated that any
redevelopment plan proposed must consider the impact on housing and ensure the
preservation of affordable housing. He stated that the residential area land use should
remain unchanged but the Commission should ensure that any proposed
redevelopment enhances the surrounding neighborhoods.
There was further discussion regarding expansion of the study area beyond Olympic
Printing. Grimes stated that the Olympic Printing site would most likely not be
redeveloped in the very near future so there will be time to do some planning in regard
to the site.
Grimes stated that the Commission should request a budget from the Council that
would include funds to obtain input from outside consultants that may produce some
fresh ideas in regard to this area.
Groger asked if there is any possibility of the City creating more redevelopment districts
in this area. Grimes stated that this may be a possibility. Groger questioned if the City
is willing to take an aggressive approach to this area to ensure their plan is executed. .
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28, 1999
. Page 5
Grimes stated that whatever the Commission recommends will have a positive impact
on property values in the area.
There was further discussion regarding the boundaries of the proposed study area. It
was decided that the area should include sections 3, 4 and 5, eliminating any single
family residential area. The apartments near Circle Downs and the nursing home would
be included in the study area.
Define stakeholders:
Pentel suggested that the stakeholder area be bounded by Highway 100 on the east
and Highway 55 on the north. Groger suggested that the area be bounded on the west
by Brookview. It was suggested that homeowners, renters, business owners, business
tenants, churches, and schools in the defined area be invited to provide input. Pentel
suggested that landlords be asked to forward the information to their tenants if it is not
possible to mail directly to renters. Grimes stated that the existing City communication
system, including the City newsletter, could also be used to inform residents.
.
The Commission also discussed obtaining input from experts such as developers,
architects, etc. McAleese stated that it may be helpful to have a presentation by
someone who can address the aesthetics of the individual structures and the a'rea as a
whole.
Groger suggested that all City residents be included in the list of stakeholders. He
stated that redevelopment of the 1-394 corridor could provide shopping and other
services that would be used by all residents and it would be good to get their input and
see what kinds of things they would like to see included in area. He suggested that a
survey be placed on the City web site requesting input from residents. Knoblauch
stated that the Council was considering conducting a resident survey this year.
Knoblauch asked if an effort should be made to obtain input from youth given that the
area includes two schools and some parks. The Commission concluded that it was not
necessary to make a special effort to obtain input from youth.
Knoblauch asked for clarification regarding reaching business owners and property
owners within the study area. Pentel responded that the Commission would want input
from both tenants and property owners.
Define process steps:
.
Pentel suggested that the Commission obtain the background information before
proceeding with defining the process steps and the end product.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28, 1999
Page 6
There was substantial discussion regarding the best structure for conducting this
project, including the public process. Groger stated that he was concerned regarding
the time required to successfully complete the project and that it may be difficult to
complete other Planning Commission business in ad~ition to this project. He suggested
that a task force be created with representatives from the Planning Commission and
other stakeholder groups. He stated that the full Commission could operate as a review
and decision-making body. Grimes responded that it would be essential for the task
force to understand the role of the Planning Commission.
.
Shaffer suggested that one of the methods for obtaining citizen input would be to
include specific questions in the survey regarding some of the options under
consideration. The questions and the survey response could be used as a framework
for discussion at public meetings.
There was discussion regarding whether separate meetings should be conducted to
obtain input from residents and business owners. Grimes stated that it should not be
assumed that there would be disagreement between residents and business owners.
McAleese stated that it may be beneficial to have separate meetings to allow people to
speak freely.
Eck commented that it may be difficult to obtain a good response to a survey and that it .
may be better to frame the public hearings around some key issues that need to be
addressed.
Pentel suggested that the first meeting in the public process should provide background
information.
Grimes suggested the Commission may want to conduct some focus groups to obtain
input from smaller stakeholder groups to define their issues.
Pentel asked about the origins of the previous 1-394 study. Knoblauch responded that
there was concern regarding haphazard development in the area and the study was
initiated to determine what could be done to improve development. Shaffer asked if
there had been public input on the previous study. Knoblauch responded that no public
input had been obtained.
Groger stated that before the Commission proceeds there must be a commitment from
the City Council for funding to conduct a survey, and possibly hire consultants and
other experts for their input. He suggested that once there is a funding commitment
from the City Council, the survey can be conducted and we can determine the
stakeholder issues. He stated that once this input is received a decision could be made
on how to proceed. He suggested that the Commission would probably want to look
.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28, 1999
Page 7
first at land use issues and then obtain additional public feedback. Groger stated that
from there the Commission could proceed to further detail including the aesthetics
element. He suggested that sub-teams could be utilized, if needed, to address certain
issues.
There was discussion regarding the traffic issue at laurel and Winnetka. Grimes stated
that this area is currently under study. He will obtain an update on the status.
McAleese stated that it is essential to determine the City's commitment to the process.
He suggested that it may be helpful to meet with the HRA to get a better direction on
the project. Grimes stated that he would contact the HRA regarding meeting with the
Commission. The minutes of this meeting will be sent to the HRA after review and
approval by the Planning Commission. Grimes said the next HRA meeting will be held
on July 13th and said that he would talk with HRA members regarding potential dates for
a joint meeting and then contact Commission members.
IV. Adiournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Richard Groger, Secretary
~
"!
.
.
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28, 1999
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
June 28, 1999. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:00 p.m.
Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Hoffman, McAleese
and Shaffer. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development,
Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Tammi Hall, Recording Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - June 14. 1999
Chair Pentel asked Grimes about his statement at the June 14 meeting that potential
buyers would be unable to purchase the Olympic Printing property without City
assistance. Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes responded that, most
likely, a potential buyer would be interested in redeveloping the property for office or
office/warehouse use. Since they would be unable to use the existing building, they
would be willing to pay only the going market rate for raw land. Pentel asked if we are
creating a potential problem in redevelopment districts by giving developers the
impression that the City will always provide assistance to enable them to purchase
property at raw land prices. Grimes stated that the tax increment financing district will
be ending in the very near future and there will be no funds to continue to assist
developers. He stated that it is also possible that Olympic Printing would decide to stay
and rehabilitate the building. Grimes stated that, at the current time, developers would
not be willing to pay market rates for property such as Olympic Printing because the
economics of the purchase would not make sense. Commissioner Shaffer stated that if
you wait for the market to reach the point that the property can be sold to a developer at
market rate, it is likely that the building would have deteriorated to the point that it would
degrade the value of surrounding properties. Commissioner Groger stated that the
Olympic Printing building is unattractive and could potentially increase vacancy rates in
the adjacent office building. Grimes added that there is currently a glut of office space
which creates competition for tenants and developers want their properties to be in
prime condition to ensure they are able to attract tenants.
Commissioner Hoffman asked about the discussion on page three of the minutes
regarding the Breck Ice Arena and the three buildings in the west area. Grimes stated
that there is a development agreement with Duke that, if they meet certain
requirements, the City will obtain this land and sell it to Duke for the purpose of
constructing office buildings on the property. Hoffman asked if these sites were
purchased before the agreement with United. City Planner Beth Knoblauch responded
that these properties have not been purchased by the City and are currently controlled
,
Qoo
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28, 1999
Page 2
.
by private owners. She stated that if Duke meets the requirements set out in the
development agreement, the City has agreed to acquire the property and sell it to Duke.
Hoffman stated that, as a result of this existing development agreement, the
Commission cannot consider this area as part of the area that will be reviewed. Pentel
stated that the Commission cannot have input on the specific land use for this area, but
they can consider the area in terms of traffic impact and in terms of land use mix for the
entire area. Hoffman asked if there are limitations as to what Duke can construct on
these properties. Pentel stated that the parameters for what can be built on the
property are included in the development agreement. Grimes stated that there is a
redevelopment plan for 1-394 that was previously approved by the Planning
Commission and the City Council. He stated that, in a redevelopment district, a
redevelopment plan is approved and then implemented by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA). Grimes stated that, from a historical perspective, the
HRA became involved years ago because they felt that if there was no plan,
development could proceed in a very haphazard manner and they wanted some control
to assemble larger parcels of property together.. Hoffman asked if Duke is required to
come before the Planning Commission for final approval of the structure they plan for
the property. Grimes stated that when Duke buys the property from the HRA they must
come back before the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval as a
Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). Knoblauch stated that the broad parameters have
been laid out in the development agreement and Duke then presents the final details in
the P.U.D. Grimes stated that the developer must also adhere to the traffic
management ordinance and environmental regulations.
.
Pentel asked about the circulator system mentioned on page five of the minutes.
Grimes stated that St. Louis Park is working on a circulator system with Minnetonka and
Hopkins. He stated that they have indicated they would be willing to consider extending
the system into Golden Valley.
Groger stated that the address for the minor subdivision for the Lesters in the June 14
minutes should be corrected to 1645 and 1637 Lilac Drive North.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the
June 14, 1999 minutes with the correction to the address, as noted above, on the
Lester minor subdivision.
II. ReDorts on Meetinas of the Housina and RedeveloDment Authority. City
Council and Board of Zonina ADDeals .
There was brief discussion regarding the City Council meeting and review of the
Transportation Plan.
.
"
Minutes of the Golden VaHey Planning Commission
June 28, 1999
. Page 3
III. Other Business
A. Continued Discussion of HRA Charge - Golden Hills Redevelopment Area -
Future Development
Commissioner Eck stated that it would be helpful to have an up-to-date map of the 1-
394 corridor showing current property owners/tenants. Pentel stated that this should be
an item that is included in the budget request.
.
Eck stated that the 1-394 corridor study addressed non-conformities in the area. He
questioned if the non-conformities exist because the buildings were constructed prior to
the current City code. Grimes stated that some of the non-conformities are a result of
changes in City code. However, he indicated that some of the non-conformities are due
to shifting land uses and to changes to structures that were done without permits. Eck
asked if it is practical to require correction of the non-conformities. Grimes stated that
requiring corrections would probably not be successful, but the City could go through a
process to make them legally non-conforming. Knoblauch stated that one of the
possible outcomes of this project may be a policy that no additional variances be
granted on existing buildings or only certain types of variances could be granted. She
indicated that this would provide a guideline for other bodies that become involved in
these redevelopment projects. Groger stated that there have been a number of
redevelopments where the Commission allowed variances because the new
development provided a substantial improvement over the existing building. Grimes
stated that the industrial zoning along 1-394 has always been a problem and that the
City has done things to compensate for the industrial zoning rather than coming up with
a new zoning district.
Eck stated that some properties along the corridor are made up of unconsolidated
individual parcels. He asked if the property owners could potentially sell off these
individual parcels. Knoblauch stated that, in the past, the City allowed property owners
to build over property lines without consolidating the parcels, which has resulted in the
current situation. She indicated that property owners could sell off individual parcels.
Grimes stated that the City no longer allows property owners to build over property lines
without consolidating the lots.
Eck asked about the recommendations of the 1-394 corridor study. Knoblauch stated
that none of the recommendations were actually implemented because one of the
recommendations was that the area be reviewed again after 1-394 was completed. She
stated that the comprehensive plan and zoning code were not amended based on
these recommendations.
.
"
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28, 1999
Page 4
At the previous meeting, the Commission outlined six items to be addressed in regard
to the 1-394 corridor redevelopment issue:
.
· define land area (scope)
· define stakeholders
· define process steps
· define time frame
· define goals and type of product
· determine budget requirements
The discussion for the remainder of the meeting was centered around these items.
Define the land area:
Pentel stated that the study area should extend beyond Olympic Printing.
Shaffer stated that he felt areas defined as 3, 4 and 5 in the 1990 1-394 Corridor Study
should be the study area. Pentel stated that she would like to see the residential area
that is west of Winnetka included in the study area. Shaffer responded that he felt
these residents would be considered stakeholders but not part of the study area for
redevelopment. Knoblauch suggested that the one area be defined as the study area .
in terms of potential changes in land use and that a second, larger area be defined as
the potential impact area that would be affected by the changes. She suggested that
the surrounding residential areas be included in the broader impact area since they are
not being considered for possible change in land use. Grimes stated that any
redevelopment plan proposed must consider the impact on housing and ensure the
preservation of affordable housing. He stated that the residential area land use should
remain unchanged but the Commission should ensure that any proposed
redevelopment enhances the surrounding neighborhoods. .
There was further discussion regarding expansion of the study area beyond Olympic
Printing. Grimes stated that the Olympic Printing site would most likely not be
redeveloped in the very near future so there will be time to do some planning in regard
to the site.
Grimes stated that the Commission should request a budget from the Council that
would include funds to obtain input from outside consultants that may produce some
fresh ideas in regard to this area.
Groger asked if there is any possibility of the City creating more redevelopment districts
in this area. Grimes stated that this may be a possibility. Groger questioned if the City
is willing to take an aggressive approach to this area to ensure their plan is executed.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28, 1999
. Page 5
Grimes stated that whatever the Commission recommends will have a positive impact
on propertY values in the area.
There was further discussion regarding the boundaries of the proposed study area. It
was decided that the area should include sections 3, 4 and 5, eliminating any single
family residential area. The apartments near Circle Downs and the nursing home would
be included in the study area.
Define stakeholders:
Pentel suggested that the stakeholder area be bounded by Highway 100 on the east
and Highway 55 on the north. Groger suggested that the area be bounded on the west
by Brookview. It was suggested that homeowners, renters, business owners, business
tenants, churches, and schools in the defined area be invited to provide input. Pentel
suggested that landlords be asked to forward the information to their tenants if it is not
possible to mail directly to renters. Grimes stated that the existing City communication
system, including the City newsletter, could also be used to inform residents.
.
The Commission also discussed obtaining input from experts such as developers,
architects, etc. McAleese stated that it may be helpful to have a presentation by
someone who can address the aesthetics of the individual structures and the area as a
whole.
Groger suggested that all City residents be included in the list of stakeholders. He
stated that redevelopment of the 1-394 corridor could provide shopping and other
services that would be used by all residents and it would be good to get their input and
see what kinds of things they would like to see included in area. He suggested that a
survey be placed on the City web site requesting input from residents. Knoblauch
stated that the Council was considering conducting a resident survey this year.
Knoblauch asked if an effort should be made to obtain input from youth given that the
area includes two schools and some parks. The Commission concluded that it was not
necessary to make a special effort to obtain input from youth.
Knoblauch asked for clarification regarding reaching business owners and property
owners within the study area. Pentel responded that the Commission would want input
from both tenants and property owners.
Define process steDS:
.
Pentel suggested that the Commission obtain the background information before
proceeding with defining the process steps and the end product.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28, 1999
Page 6
There was substantial discussion regarding the best structure for conducting this
project, including the public process. Groger stated that he was concerned regarding
the time required to successfully complete the project and thatit may be difficult to
complete other Planning Commission business in addition to this project. He suggested
that a task force be created with representatives from the Planning Commission and
other stakeholder groups. He stated that the full Commission could operate as a review
and decision-making body. Grimes responded that it would be essential for the task
force to understand the role of the Planning Commission.
.
Shaffer suggested that one of the methods for obtaining citizen input would be to
include specific questions in the survey regarding some of the options under
consideration. The questions and the survey response could be used as a framework
for discussion at public meetings.
There was discussion regarding whether separate meetings should be conducted to
obtain input from residents and business owners. Grimes stated that it should not be
assumed that there would be disagreement between residents and business owners.
McAleese stated that it may be beneficial to have separate meeting~ to allow people to
speak freely.
Eck commented that it may be difficult to obtain a good response to a survey and that it .
may be better to frame the public hearings around some key issues that need to be
addressed.
Pentel suggested that the first meeting in the public process should provide background
information.
Grimes suggested the Commission may want to conduct some focus groups to obtain
input from smaller stakeholder groups to define their issues.
Pentel asked about the origins of the previous 1-394 study. Knoblauch responded that
there was concern regarding haphazard development in the area and the study was
initiated to determine what could be done to improve development. Shaffer asked if
there had been public input on the previous study. Knoblauch responded that no public
input had been obtained.
Groger stated that before the Commission proceeds there must be a commitment from
the City Council for funding to conduct a survey, and possibly hire consultants and
other experts for their input. He suggested that once there is a funding commitment
from the City Council, the survey can be conducted and we can determine the
stakeholder issues. He stated that once this input is received a decision could be made
on how to proceed. He suggested that the Commission would probably want to look
.
. .
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28,1999
. Page 7
first at land use issues and then obtain additional public feedback. Groger stated that
from there the Commission could proceed to further detail including the aesthetics
element. He suggested that sub-teams could be utilized, if needed, to address certain
issues.
There was discussion regarding the traffic issue at Laurel and Winnetka. Grimes stated
that this area is currently under study. He will obtain an update on the status.
McAleese stated that it is essential to determine the City's commitment to the process.
He suggested that it may be helpful to meet with the HRA to get a better direction on
the project. Grimes stated that he would contact the HRA regarding meeting with the
Commission. The minutes of this meeting will be sent to the HRA after review and
approval by the Planning Commission. Grimes said the next HRA meeting will be held
on July 13th and said that he would talk with HRA members regarding potential dates for
a joint meeting and then contact Commission members.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
.
Richard Groger, Secretary
.
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
July 7, 1999
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Mary Dold, Planning Assistant
Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat of Mills Jersey
Avenue Addition - 6835 Glenwood Avenue, Mary Jayne
Mills, Applicant
e
Mary Jayne Mills, with property located at the southeast corner of
Glenwood Avenue and Jersey Avenue, is requesting a minor subdivision
of her property. Staff has been working with her sons, Mark and Walt
Mills, in preparing the necessary application materials for submittal
(location map, survey and preliminary plat attached). It is staff's
understanding that Mr. Walt Mills will be representing his mother at the
Planning Commission meeting. The minor subdivision would allow the
applicant to sell off the newly created front lot and allow the existing house
to remain on the newly created rear lot. According to the survey, the newly
created lot (Lot 1) would be 13,190 sq.ft. in size and Lot 2, where the
existing house sits, would be 21,948 sq.ft. in size.
A variance for the existing three-stall garage would be required because
the subdivision places the garage beside the existing house instead of its
now conforming location behind the house. This occurs because the
existing house will front Jersey Avenue after the subdivision. The Board of
- Zoning Appeals will need to review the applicant's request for a variance
from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 (accessory structures) before the minor
subdivision proceeds to the City Council. If the variance for the garage
were denied, the applicant could have it moved or torn down and
reconstructed on a conforming portion of the property.
The City of Golden Valley requires minor subdivision proposals to meet
City zoning standards. Both proposed lots would meet the minimum area
requirements of 10,000 sq.ft. Lot 1 would exceed the required 100+ feet
of frontage on both Glenwood Avenue and Jersey Avenue and meet side
and rear yard setbacks. (The attached survey shows the building window
of opportunity.) Lot 2 would meet all setback requirements after the
subdivision and if the garage variance is approved.
Considerations for approving or denying minor subdivisions are set out in
City Code Section 12.50, Subdivision 3. Staff findings on each of the nine
points are as follows:
e
.
A. Proposed lots must meet requirements of the applicable zoning
district The proposed lot to be subdivided is zoned single-family
residential and will retain that zoning after the subdivision. Both lots
will front entirely on improved public streets and have a minimum
front setback of 35 feet distant from the street right-of-way line. Lot 1,
which is a corner lot, will exceed the minimum width requirement of
100 feet on both Jersey Avenue and Glenwood Avenue. Lot 2 will
exc.eed the minimum width requirement of 80 feet. Both lots will be
10,000+ sq.ft. in area.
B. Minor subdivisions may be denied upon the City Engineer's
determination that the buildable portion of a resulting new lot is
encumbered by steep slopes or excessive wetness. No steep
slopes or excessive wetness is found on the lots.
C. Minor subdivisions may be denied if public sewer and water
connections are not directly accessible by each proposed lot
Sewer and water is available to Lot 2. As noted in City Engineer Jeff
Oliver's memo of June 30, 1999, there is no water service available
to proposed Lot 1. There are watermains in Glenwood Avenue and
Jersey Avenue that can be tapped into. The City Engineer notes
some of the requirements for accessing either of the watermains.
D. Approval of minor subdivisions shall be conditioned on the
applicant's granting of easements for necessary public
purposes as determined by the City. The plat shows all required
drainage and utility easements, including an additional seven feet of
right-of-way along Glenwood Avenue for future widening of this road.
E. Where public agencies other than the City have some form of
jurisdiction over an area including or directly affected by a
proposed minor subdivision, approval of that minor subdivision
may be conditioned on the requirements of the outside agency.
Glenwood Avenue is a county road. Comments have not been
received from Hennepin County. Staff anticipates that the county will
require the additional seven feet of right-of-way that is now shown on
the pJat.
F. If the applicant is required to submit to a review of the
property's title pursuant to Subd. 4(C) of this section, then
approval of the minor subdivision shall be conditioned on the
applicant resolution of any title issues raised by the City
Attorney. The applicant is not required to submit to title information.
G. Minor subdivisions of nonresidential parcels may be denied
upon the City Engineer's determination that new development
on the resulting lot(s) will cause undue strain on adjacent roads
or on public utilities, or will adversely affect adjacent
residential, institutional, or public land uses. Does not apply to
residential.
H. Approval of the residential minor subdivisions shall be
conditioned on the payment of a park dedication fee in an
e
e
2
.
amount established by Council resolution. The City Council has
the right to request a park dedication fee when a new lot(s) is
created. Staff recommends that a park dedication fee of $500 be
assessed, and be collected at the time the final plat is approved by
the City Council.
I. Refers to minor subdivisions for double bungalows. Not
applicable in this case.
e
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this minor subdivision with the following
conditions including those found in the City Engineer's memo.
1. The final plat shall reflect standard easements along property lines
and such additional easements as the City Engineer may find
desirable for public purposes.
2. The final plat approval shall be withheld until receipt of comments
from Hennepin County and compliance with any applicable
conditions listed therein. .
3. A park dedication fee in the amount of $500 be received at the time
of final plat approval.
4. Payment received of a deferred special assessment on Lot 1 at the
State Aid assessment rate in effect at the time of final plat
approval.
5. A revised address for Lot 2 must be obtained and include U Jersey
Avenue" .
6. Restoration from the watermain right-of-way excavation will be
required consistent with the new street construction and as
outlined in City Code.
7. The subdivision will be subject to the Tree Preservation and
Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Ordinances.
8. Lot 1 must be brought into permanent compliance with City Code
regarding comer visibility as part of this subdivision. This must be
accomplished either within six months of plat approval or
construction of a house on Lot 1, which ever occurs first.
9. All building code requirements must be adhered to.
Attachments:
. Location Map
. Memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development from
Jeff Oliver, City Engineer dated June 30, 1999
. Survey
. Preliminary Plat: Mills Jersey Avenue Addition
e
3
. . I ~ .OS .;:.r-- - -~~---, I 1/lI.U~~V I ~~i""'I1~~~-~ , .~. 5 ~
I~, .... .... ,.- · I,:."r~::- -- ,O't.r. . ~ 2 '. '
..... ,,,. "'Z, I - 11 - g 01' .. ~~_ i ~ 1 ;i'
,~b'&.'&' , " I . #. 'lt~'''Mc.:;' _'J!"c'.!!.... \ \ti.-
l! t).OO..~t I . '"J I.r 1..'441' A'D~ ~'l\.'i I~ri a':."~!::! ~..... ~o_
ft,. \'L4\. ~ 1 '.c .....~"".t r:.' . "'l.~, ':i:l:.1:U!'= ... Ii.? I · ~ :t.,0 .
\ ... -' -~-, ,1:\\~4.\? '7 ~ \1).\4.. - Jj"~ ,,: .....,II':S.. Ii'! ~ 1110" .. S
\..- t41'?l.:3-" I ~ 'i".~~.1.fi.? :A". ~~~ :~~ ~ '-~ ~~ :.._ IZO-;r- ,r,~ .. iP'
\. 17001 69" ...' .-:-rr PQt'\O .5, ..3",ll\'...'Il~"'.!'&-~''''isI0 '=:!\II .~_ :< "'~2~ <?o~ 6..'#), ~ t
\: ..- I i?'~9'A; part of Z<<3.'~ ~~~\:"6~'l.\\ ~\ :''L-~ ,C~-~=~M.",= ~ fl$~.:t..;j!?j~"~
~ -. ~ 'I ~~d'vl ~ 1Il""\l'~D l~,"i ;!i~~ri"~" ...,.,. .. 0 ~ '"
~ -laO- -. ~,... r' S,\Q'; ~ .' 'FIT'U\KL~":O~' '. ~~~'" \0'.. ;::; ',,"'::"
~ . g~;;. \1'1.'1' ...~~... ~i,'ri:'41";4' ~J ,o~'tr~~~~!1 . '\"'i 7 ~ ~ ~."O __ _
' PART OF ...,"'~~,:;;.;"r..,.... ~4'1.~e'-'-~~~ . "''l ~ .:~ :.~~..." "i
'. ~ 0 . . . ~I-"l,/~/, ;,~~ J ......~.. l't... _S;;~'lD~ ~~ Ift-; . ~ ~ ~ ~', (
. ~ ~... l:..ts ~~ ~~i,.. e. ~ ~".'I ?:-i: 6817 68~ :E~~ s~ ~:;~j ~~ 3 ~ I' , .. oQ ~ ~. I
. .;. \ ?-. . . ~.I~ ~ ~~.fG. 6B<'Z~ ;.~~~ ;;; 'Yf~~ - . ..... ... S;.- ,44.1 . .~.~'* :; ,
'3... L'OT' 2',/' DIIR",. II:!' "\"11;"- 66. --- /,Jff'}fs'21~~C ~ ; c ~~ "..,SfI}1~ .~~J~';Y' ~ ~ ~ .rm~~ /.
~ v, rM..... r 0 IOI.l} ~11~. ~o .....~... I!:l _.... _ '.,,!,\ .' r-! .
." - .. - lO.9 !UO ~ ~t"f~l~~~. e .::.., ''A),~' ~ 3.. :::, ....~~ 6 ~.~:: ,..~ ::':~.ttii:: ~ 8 ~ ~J '~~"1r-~'''''
~~....~. ,..... II.., ~.r;B6o,~...-..".~..,lI......... ,.~. "'~ -ik:::-'-ii 4",8~ 1Il;t: ~./
.~ ~.~~ ~~~:ns." ID/).oo r-t-IDD-o =13IU.l..~., 1~1~1i ii~:IJ1il"l5',g~ tSI~~~'8. r ~ 155.'2.' .="~ - ;,-.....~;;...:o ~.... .
'~..~\ ~ '- ~ : _ 16~ '1 I'. 41.4\ f'O R 17 'M,7.,.. 8( ~ ~ 68~ 1~4 !ori;~s,-sS'ZD.w !" <illrr",'zo"'N .~ . ~ 6
.1.~~ i ,,~1'~~. .,~~1 "1/15"~.ii~Wh:1l"l~~l' ~ io ~~~~~~ 7 1r\col~~, JP~- ~.~~'*' ~ ~ &~
~ '.t~'...';'- ~ . 0 a ":ell.l · ~ ;''; 7.jJItt,.....~... 9~~ . ;~I:' ~ 1_'" '~ . ,-.~ ':~
! ~ ~~;..~-~~'- 17"."/1 'iCt-K:.l ~l&" "u}:.~' ~s. . ss'#t Ir,.,." " ~ ~:~i;; llri'ss'tdW I~ ~ 5 ;S~ 1t .~o;;:; . '
~cJ.~~y~ .~ I ~\. I ~68SS ..~-..,:--6....... , lS, It'l'. 's. ,ot: '''I"... '" _ y,'!\. ....
~ .-.=:-" ~ . ~ '1 '.. ." ::1-!l-'~? ",- "'.s .oS ~ . ~""'7 , . .... __ ~ ..,
:lj 14C1.' '", ~ ... ;.~-:. 2 _ .~ g~. 6 --r ~ t ~ 5 :... ...683$. ~ \ :J':1~s ~:';iJ.' 6810:!' = 'lIlII rQ^ ~ .....,.,p ~ 69<5'; I ~
~f.._ I'tH:ff" ~~_~"'-"J.:"'.I'D.DS~" r,'~ /70 .1{"'k."tIu.wl!1-~ $;:r,; ~.~..a.~Il".~ ~i ~~ 6"l~ :: ",aU$ i~'---'14o ust t40t~
'....f m.'~ - -.., :s..... .,." I I I~~ 100 ,. S 918~. ~~ 3 ~~;.r~5; 11'.... r ... co~ 6. .... 1118'45'''' IS" III.tc'
- 2 EA.~ . to ~Ic, \0 .~ ';r... 4! - 1m Iro. - 17 co .. .
''''IB.l ST.'~\~~,. c"..,fAHRIP-N. 3' I j S ~ 6825 ," '.""q~'lI1-IAV~rSl 10 - .....? C
; ~ 7001 6945~" 4~".r~ C>'-:!-'<-.:j1=-1 002~FF:. 'A~~'!,'POarf~'5 ~lJfJ:t..!~, "_'J"/~'.f'~!!~7 ~.. OUTLOT I ~~ -' ;
. Q ~ ';'. "De . ~.~ ". ~ 69/0 ',-it ~ ""1 N 11'{~ -\< '6~..!!.. ~4.., .k- .. ~~ ~ _ -e...._
.-:. · ~ ~~ .::....~t'j-,.~ ~.~f~~ 6900 ~ .....?~ 00 26';~;~'''''/8~~ ~5 ~~~. of :~J:!'
:$ ~ 4!a" /~:.1 ~j;"'~~-'~~:>io.........J~~f !"'":f: ";~,,..e 6M8 ~ ::::';: ~'s"5ifi~ I680J:: l~ ,'" 'DO . ;(i ,.t' O~ ~o;.:io.~ ~
"'"":' :: -...J,J <5'.s>~ I ~J'!~ " . J..r...,.1'#- "'4" ~ ~;... r-l0 a ~~I~ 11'l.1t ~ /,,:..110.. _ c,\ O~ 'I o~~
! ~~.S O~.s> 11 05 "~i~~1tli': ~ ~ "S7.'4zit ::.o1NtA~1~ ac;v ,/';: :I~~
!!j -'~ ~.f} : ~, ...:.~, "'1' D-1J.Zt ~ ~~ ^ .'-k ::: SGIJ':. ::.... ~-..... :t ~,\'1.~1.88
'"':" ~ ~ .., i:Y ~$ " 31':::.:!1 ':.," ~70::...... ~ I"'Q -- ~- ..~...~, , Q". 0::
'f 64 ~~~ ~ · 690.5' I "t..A ~.."':~~.. .1"f01'1~ .:'iJ~~ ~ Q ... L&.II~
"".~'"~ Subject Property ~,,:~-""i'~i;/~ e 16~ ~ ~. f::; .:..!.
tUNIA> 6835GlenwoodAvenue ~~~ .:., . - .:.",,~~'). 4."
N I : Mary Jane Mills . '. ~.Ie !'iff'....8!.l ~- '" ,. I ",,:S 't." ::; <IIIIl:: \l
o 2 I ". ~ "9. - I ..::; ,.
I -' ~.- .~~ /OOf1"IV ...'fft..,....."'cr :< ~
I n Ie IQ ~ ..... ~ CS>...... '-99 ~ 0 ~L.. _
~ · '. ~ ~ I~ · ~ ~ · ~ =.: ~ r ~ '" "".~ 45'~ ;~ 2:; 1Il~ 0-- ~
....240 ~ :1.12 ~/: 2~ ~ .... .... ~ ]j'6 ~ ~ 1. rI /'77 ~:" .,~~6"..... ~'lI:' ~ ~ . ;:; ......
.'3.0 flJ.7D I \II; \ ~ ........ a a. " "iJ II:~' "'or G: ~
'14 . a ... .."".- -. "(II." "'F'IlZ.f7 S ....J B ~ I 0; ;0 ~ .\ I. 45''''0", I ~&. ~~....o " ......
- . : U \s... : - '" 'I.' I ~" ...... (I., co
f'slf~'U ru. 'I: .. a ....,. . ~:o J.. ~.<I ~ ..... .....
""..;~ ..t\t~ ~..;;;.,. . ~
. .. 100.'3. 100.111....., ~ ~ . '" . l"\.... '" ~ ~ to ~i ~.. . \ ,~~ -~ ~ t ~
I;;'Jlo'l~ 246 '..1'1..../ ~- . . .... . "'. ~ .~~ m;;; , . t >;~ ~o .J il
14 i=.' -; 1'2. . ....1';; ~ ...'fB.4.., ..- 1'fU.t.A. " ~ "lOr.; '''''.or, 72.oINRR"4Ij'''''''' 1 L ' . ~~,...( '':.~/:-::'
\'2C;.ot m.Dt r-}Q,O 1'Z.'.01. \'- .' <t t~'.1 a""".1 . Pm af _ FlJrfof ir<i"'!r~;~
~ . a ..,,:- !:-~ . ~ 4D V,r (l't
~~~~.f ~ .~.. ~~. 74 ~~c I~~:~~:;:'l; Lotl! "Lot7~ ~ .l.:.;t;"of'.'7.'f~
~;.2. = ll.~ .....- ~~ "'- -- ~::::~,'"I: I ~ ~1.,.:.41}.,3'~1.:
:; ,,!...~, 1~C;.~2 = ~ 'U 'Z%.Oli _~.,~~~..."I I. I~.~ ~ Iii,'.,!>-, ~ iI:Z J ~ 3 ~l
~ ....:. . ,- ~ ~ zta~t ~ C/~::~j~ ~ If--. n'\~ 11.'-' ....ro1 ~}l;:t
7i a 3 ~ '=0." .. 1 ..... I g- ~!:- ~ I .!:!j ~ ~
I .~ Q' ~,:~ :1:7 ~ ~; P~~t ,{ ~.... a: 7.3 1:: ~M.~~i;n~~ ~"'-~ft\~; Z I ~"~I ~.~ 2
~ 11~G'l - 12 .n ~ ~ . _ ~ t! · :. Ll.1fz.Jl....:; .:~!~ I ~ ~ ~ . :: -::.... ""lzz2u.:
! = Q. - 3':'''': 1'''.0 '-. 3 ~ii'l . 11"i.~m..... ~-' ....~ ~ !:
g' 4..... 2" ~ . Q . ~ ~ . lIJu ,,~~ ~ I~I~, _ z. ~T ~ '.0 3
- .... ,....lt~l..... :oiiiiiii.: ,18'if~" ~ ; I a ~2 Z _ o. ~ ".CSBB4~
! IZS.Al - .. .c. ;; · ~ ~ ~'. 72 -: ~ 1'44" "",i ~ ::01Q ~"'. ~. ~! -=- <lIS'"
! ~:.~ :: U,;~ ~~ 4~-": >- tqC;llc; 'a::4.~~ "".~..ifllt::'24,~C3. ~W)i~~.14
2'" m.ot I 11o;.~ . 1'l.(, .... els~ ,~~, ZOo. 'J5 ~'5 :;. iL iJ 14(1. I ~~ ~ 8 ~.;_. ~ ~ lJJ.n;4
) · \ ":---~~" ""I:;; I ,-.I ...~,~li I- I.,J ~:llo<- C(::;. .,..P", _I ...J 157. ,
) ~... ~.. ,:t. '!! ~ '!:,.... 5 ~ · ~r:. :::l!:l. 2DM2 _?~ "~.A 5 !; ~i.~1;: c:i 1 r .1i'J II> ~a ~....J 5
.J '" ~ ,,~ . : - ::-:. g 111.'2 ~--,z v, . ~.. ... _ J- '. CD 4 ~ Q.T ~
It".D1 I~H~ ?J... - IIU4- 1 la ."f.~ I i3 4::: C! -~ (1)\'14 C.- ~ " IJJS!'9~
'U S "J't. ,!""! ~ B""n. ~ ~ 2, ~ ~.,'O....).( I~~ ~ -.:- -g;- ~iiIJ <II ..L.-/57.'
~.'; ". I "::\:;:: \ . .. ... ~ _V'r . ..: J . .:; . -I"": _ . _ % _.
.. - ;.0.. P. t 0( ~ ~... t: f--/.f5.51~ .. ~ 3. Y" ~.. ~ ~ 6~~~' ~O~~I:;.; 1L3 ;0' ~ 5 ~ ~ J: <t 6{
! '11"". '. ~ ". ~ - ~ :) . ~ "". .- ..... .... . I ~ 2.-.so ~ 4D ~ ~ .,
0: . $.Dzlc !!:'.... 3D ~ /81.1& '2 '5 9. I2n.19.~ ... -.. -,. lot 10':10 ~:' ~/1 /58.41 &
i L.i... \7040 7000 \. ~~ ~: ',*a.t.f/lf., ,'z 6900 ;., ~ 6840 6820 '0 '~.w..w"'.:l AVE. ~ \II , ..~ I 8. .
4'0.-..' II "&./0' H88"4S'Jf
.... tG 0 .'0 'l\es. .-
e
m:1
! :'~
18
.TATE
NOW
Note: .
For a!idnm,n+ 01 Co toad No.
.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
June 30,1999
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer~
Review of Preliminary Plat for Mills Jersey Avenue Addition
e
Engineering staff has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat for Mills Jersey Avenue
Addition. This proposed subdivision is a lot split, and is located in the southeast
quadrant of Glenwood Avenue (County Road 40) and Jersey Avenue North. Based
upon this review the following issues need to be addressed prior to approval of the final
plat:
1) The City of Golden Valley reconstructed Jersey Avenue North in 1995. At that time
the original property had one special assessment levied against it and an additional
special assessment deferred until such time as the property was subdivided.
Therefore, payment of an additional street assessment, at the State Aid assessment
rate in effect at the time of final plat approval, will be required as part of the plat
approval.
2) There is no water service available to the proposed Lot 1 of this subdivision.
However, there is municipal water available in Glenwood Avenue and Jersey
Avenue that service can be provided from. The watermain in Glenwood Avenue is
on the south side of the centerline, and connection to it will require a permit from
Hennepin County. The watermain in Jersey Avenue is on the west side of the
centerline. Connection to the Jersey Avenue watermain will require a right-of-way
excavation permit, as well as the removal of curb and gutter, a retaining wall, and
the concrete sidewalk. Restoration of the above items will be required consistent
with the new street construction and as outlined in City Code. Information regarding
these requirements will be provided when application for a permit is made.
3) Clarification must be provided regarding the proposed location of the driveway for
Lot 1.
4) The address for the existing home is a Glenwood Avenue address, which must be
revised to be a Jersey Avenue address. The address of the new lot will be based
upon the driveway location of the home.
e
F:\GROUPS\ENG\DEVELOPMENTS-PRIVATE\MILLS JERSEY ADDITION\PRELIMINARY PLAT
REVIEW. DOC
.
e
e
5) This subdivision will be subject to the Tree Preservation Ordinance and the Grading,
Drainage and Erosion Control Ordinance. The plans for conforming to these
ordinances will be required at the time a new home is installed on Lot 1.
6) The underlying property has a history of complaints regarding corner visibility. Staff
has addressed this issue with the homeowners several times in the past. Efforts
should be made to bring this property into permanent compliance with City Code
regarding corner visibility as part of this subdivision.
Engineering staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat of Mills Jersey
Avenue Addition subject to the comments contained in this review, and the comments of
other staff.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Technician
Gary Johnson, Building Official
2
~:-.....t PRELIMINARY PLAT OF:
-'-. -:~:~~---'~~>~:.""""~~LLS JERSEY AVENUE ADDITION
. ~ ..~ -.........::..:...... ......
,. ro ---.:. ... ......
Q lJ'l:tN "~ ...... ......
- .., '........ ....." ....... P'?Op wOa~'" '\~"!'t$'" ...... ...... """""-
\ 0 ; ~... ...~!t1I. (~RE'~ oS~l?'G "'-"l::..\ .. "
.. ... ~~ .. I.;:j ... I .......
\ · -'" , Co..ClIc ~8... "00, s~ 'L.t", ... -I.. ............
, :' ': ~ 1'!"1 " It !i... ...... ~1i'E' 11'0011'1. . ... ..... .......
\ ~ . . V'
::'6~
?o~.
- ~
-
r\ ~ ~ . ~
\ ~ t ~ ~ ".,' "
\.. "-
I \ m "-
I ~
r
I... i
I
\
\..
I
I
\..
I
I
I
\..
\
\
I"
I
\
\..
I
I
I..
\ \
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L....--....-..-- .. ...-...
i
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
\
I
\
I
\
I
"'
"
r~
GAS METER
-
-
31 PROPOSED LOT
~ (AREA ,;(1J.910 SQUARE FEET)
, f:~
\ .:
....u ........: ;..
l'~fl~\
'~~ 110
~~ ~
!~S"I
-~ t~ 1\
0' J'"
i/-. ,.\~
IIJf, ......~.
i
i
......
;'
1
~
I
ri
.....
cr
...
i
o
. toI.J,3
!
~
~
o 20 40
k.-~
SCALE
60
I
100
I
FEET
IN
'"
.......QOUJI
.
LEGEND
0 MANHOLE
G CATCH BASIN
GUARD POST
<> HYDRANT
. SIGN
. GATE VALVE
~ PO~R POLE
..""
'-
.
~
~
,
", ....
.:.".80
...
-..
~
GARAGE
"
III
i,
........-
\0;" , :. "
" 'It,~ '.
!" '''EDCE tI
SltulollHOUS
i : '. - ""'-..
...', ,
i", '''.'0. ...~ ~'~""JJ
, .' I
.J ~Il J ." ...
,'l. ,: , .
. .
..--.,., -a' 10204
CIOOOCX:> KEYSTONE WALL
._..._J!.9'_....~..
"'.. "
'It .. \-'
. M20.1
,
- POLE ANCHOR
'"
(I
UGHT POLE
--OVERHEAD WIRES
'\
.,
a
I:!
13
~ ~ :
, ,~,
:\ ~'-',-
I _~ " . .....
-.- SANITARY SE~R
11
~ FLAGPOLE
--:;r
III
TELE. BOX
.
.
o
o
o
.
o
,
: '"
I ;'1
. r/. ~
. "
! J 2 stORY
: ." " ..~N&.';~o,
i i \ "
f'
",
i !
o I
: I
: I
: I
! \
1 S. IJNE. LOT ."
,-
~~J
~i: 1" .',
"f
" '11 \.
r'~~
I
,'"
\
-..
-II
I-
,
~.- STORM SE~R
;"...
I
.'
1.
I
-..
-,,~ WATER MAIN
\
it "
: '\"
I
\
I
I
i-
I
I
<'..)
-G~ GAS MAIN
~
~ -<:
I ._~J
I
\
......
-E~ UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
D CONCRETE
'\
SURVEY FOR:
MARK MIL~~
ia tOJ.02
... ..
MARILYN 0: MARBEN
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
68J5 Glenwood Avenue. Golden Valley. Hennepin County, Minnesota,
.~
,
,
,
.
.
,
-L
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That part of Lot 75, Auditor's Subdivision Number J22. Hennepin County, Minnesota l~n9
north of the south 100.00 feet thereof. ,
I hereby certify that this map or plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am
a duly licensed Land SurWl)'Or under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Dated this 15th day ot June, 1999. by _ ~________
~e. Minnesota License No. 20281
OWNER:
NOTES:
1. The orientation at this bearing system Is based an the west line of Lot 75, Auditor's Subdivision Number
322, which Is assumed to have 0 bearing at North 1 degree 27 minutes 19 seconds West.
2. No title work was furnished for the preparation of this survey to verify the legal description or the
existence at any easements or encumbrances to the property.
3. The area of the property described hereon Is 36,865 square feet or 0.8463 acres,
Mark Mills
6835 Glenwood Avenue
Golden Valley, Minnesota
tele: (612) 545-9052
SURVEYOR: Egan, Field &: Nowak, Inc.
7415 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN 55426
tele: (612) 546-6837
4. Existing utilities, services and underground structures shown hereon were located either physically, from existing
records made avoilable to us, or by resident testimony. Other utilities and services may be present. Verltlcatlon
and location at all utilities and services should be obtained from the owners of the respective utilities prior to
an y design. planning or excavotion.
5, The property desclbed hereon Is In Flood Zone C (mlnlmol hazard) per Federal Insurance Rote Map Community
Panel No. 2701620003 B, dated August 19, 1986.
6. According to the City of Golden Valley, the property Is zoned .slngle family residential. and hos the following
building setback requirements:
Front. 35 feet (Includes all rhaht-of-wo)")
Side . 15 feet
Rear . 20 " 0' lot depth
.
-------
---
--,
CJ
CJ
V}
1IO
o
-"
~-
-.-
i='=
U:::
()
-..
..-
-"
""-
o
LoJ
:)
-..
..-
L,j
'"
~C
(:)
"
e
()
m
:)
(:)
(,')
Q~
o
t:
()
:)
<(
.
~
"'''''
b4.C/' 11.,,,\
."vOt)
...........
...
....
E
d)
("
o
C'l
"1--
1
GO
GO
~1'll
L
.......
~
.
... ,..
(.J ;..
L'l S'"
U::: Ci
Loj z
J
2
1IO
,1,
~O
..............-
S89044-'27"W
I
I
I
I '~
I
I
I
I
I"
I
"
r~
!!
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
~ s. UNE. LOT 7S-\
--L- _ -1-
MILLS JERSEY AVENUE ADDITION
C. R. DOC. NO.
.. I ''''''
"'l.,~.... _" 'i'
-"~c
~
"
.,
"\.:,
<..'1,
, >-
'L/,
'<J
GO
GO
_. oi
- - lf1 ~
I
16
I
I
II~
I~ ~
I;
I
I
I
133.05
-............
r,
,.... ... 1,_ .
,..V7,.....Jt:.,,, I",
1...., YI."Qi:Jr'r,
I"... ,'"
- - .. "'",
-- ""11."1.,,,.,..,'")
-- '1,1",'"
-, Iy
"
'........
...............,
................
................
"
.
r-
I
II I
I
I
I
8 I
~ I
I
I
I
12 I
I ~ I
L_________J:,'
'. /
:0.
'_I)
\)
~
,"
\.' ,
L;~,
-<..'1"
'~;~"\
\.' ,
'0
'Z"
~
,..
BEARINGS SHOWN ARE ASSUMED
o DENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT
SET AND MARKED BY UCENSE NO. 20281.
. DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENT.
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS:
I
6--1
I
i
____-1__-1
I
~
I
r-6 ~
L__1-____
~
'\
BEING 6 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING SIDE LOT
LINES, AND BEING 12 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOININC
RIGHT OF WAY LINES AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT
.I
KHOW AlL \IEN BY THESE PRESENTS; Thot lIory Jone 1I1l1.. 0 .ldow, I.. ........ 01 lIMo IoIIowVIt -- ~J oituot. In tII. County
01 Hennepin, Stot. 01 lIiv1aoto. to .It
Thot port of Lot 7', Auditor'. Subcll1llalon Numbor 322. Hennepin County. IIInn....to I~ nortII of
tII. ....tII 100.00 f..t tII..aol.
How cauaed tile aome to be IUIW~ ond plolted o. IIILLS .ERSEY AVENUE AOlllllON ond _ h..oby _I. ond -'cote to tII. public
for public u.. fore_ tII. ..-..... and tII. ao......ta os Ihown an tII. plot fOl' clrolnote ond utilty purpoHll only.
In wlln_ ""......f aoid lIory Jon. lIil.. 0 widow, hoe h..eunto ..t har hand tlliII _ doy of
,111ll_.
by. lIory Jane 11;1.
STAn: OF IIINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The foretolnll In.trum..t _ !""",_Iedted belor. m. till. _ doy of
, 1811_ , by lIory Jon. II~I.. 0 widow.
Nolory Public.
lIy Commluion Eoplrea:
County,
1 h...eby certlly tIIot I how """"'~ ond plotted tile prop...ty de_ed on tllla plot os IIIl.LS DSEY A 'oENIIE ADlllllON: tIIot tlliIo plol
Ia 0 corrac:t rept....tollon 01 aoId .......Yo tIIot 011 dI.tancee ore correctly Ihown on tII. plol In f..1 ond hundredth. ef 0 loot: lIIot 011
monum..ta how be.... corracUy ploced In tile ground o. 0/10"": tIIat tile outalde boundory tin.. ore corrac:UJ daaltnoted on lIMo plot ond
thot th.... or. no wet lond. os d.fined In II.S. ~~02 Subd. 1 to be deal9nolad.
Jock Boike. Land Su",.,.,..
IIInn....lo u.:.n.. No. 20281
STAn: OF IIINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The foratOlnt In.ltum....t woe ocknowlaclted belore me tllla _ doJ of
lIinn....to Uc:...... No. 20281.
, 11111_ . bJ Jocl& 8oIke. Land Sutw,.,..,
Nolory Public.
lIy Commlaalon E""lrea:
County, lIin_to
COlDEN YAULY. IIINNESOTA
This plot of lI1l.I.S .ERSEY AVENUE AOlllllON .os approved ond accepted by tile CIty Cound 01 GoIdOI'I YoIIey. IIlnnuolo at 0 r.........
meetint tIIer...f hald tllia _ do, 01 , 1119_ . If oppIicolIl.. lIMo wrill.... comm..l. and rac:omm_llon.
01 tile Commlasloner 01 Transportation ond tile CountJ Hft/lwoy EntJnaer _ been received by tile Oty or tile pre__ 30 clOy parIod
hoa a10paed w1t11out rac:elpt of ..ell ccmm..te ond rac:cmm..dollona, oa provIcIed by IIlnn_to Stotutea, Section ~03, Subd. 2-
OTY COUNOI. OF GClt.DEN YAULY, IIINHESOTA
by.
,110"'"
by.
, Oart<
TAXPAYER SER'IICES Dl'llSlON
Hennepin County, IIInn_ta
I hereby cartlly tIIat t_ pa)lGbl. In _ ...d prlor )OICQ how been poId fOl' land __ an tills ploL Doted lIIla _ doy
of , ",,_ .
Patrlck H. o'Connor. Hennepin Count)' AudltOl'
by.
SURVEY SECllON
Hennepin County, IIInn_to
Pursuant to IIINN. STAT. See.. 3B3B.~ (1989). tllla plot hoe ....... approved tills _ doy of
,199_.
Gary F. !:oswell, Hennepin County Su"",,.,..
by.
COUNTY RECOROER
Hennepin County, l.Iinn_to
I h...eby certify tIIot tile .ltIIIn p101 of IIILLS DSEY AVENUE AODlllON wo. fOed In till. oMc. thla _ doy of
199_ ot _ o'clock _ 1.1.
lIicltoal H. Cunniff, County Record...
by.
, Deputy
EGAN FIELD & NOWAK INC.
SURVEYORS
/
.'
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
e
e
July 6, 1999
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
DRAFT REPORT ON 1-394 CORRIDOR STUDY
PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on staff notes taken during the last work session, a report on your
preliminary recommendations (attached) has been drafted for review and
comment. The report sets out boundaries for the "core study" and
"potential impacf areas, and outlines the earliest of the study steps, with
the bulk of the study process summarized as two widely differing options.
It also explains why the Commission's full recommendations will not be
available for this month's HRA meeting as instructed. Its most important
function is to show that the Commission has not taken its charge lightly,
and in fact has made solid progress toward completion of the assignment.
Parts of the work session discussion were not as clear as others, and gaps
in continuity began to appear as staff tried to link various components
together into a unified whole. Staff therefore indulged in a bit of "creative
writing" here and there, in order to provide you with a complete document
for critiquing. By all means, don't spare the red ink while reading; we
expect you to find several passages that could use some cleaning up.
Staff have forwarded the Commission's request for a meeting with the
HRAlCouncil prior to submitting a second report with a complete study
design outline. The request will probably be added to the next Councill
Manager agenda. Your preliminary report is not expected to be distributed
at that time, but staff feel it is important to be as prepared as possible; we
hope to get your sign-off after one more round of discussion Monday night.
Attachments:
. "Preliminary Planning Commission Report, 1-394 Corridor Land Use
Study Design Charge"
.
PRELIMINARY PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT,
1-394 CORRIDOR LAND USE STUDY DESIGN CHARGE
The Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has charged the
Planning Commission to design a public-participation process for determining
desired future land uses in an area abutting 1-394. The HRA's sphere of activities
covers only established redevelopment/housing areas or projects. The site that
triggered the request for Commission involvement is the "Olympic Printing" block at
the northwest corner of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive, which is in a
redevelopment area. The draft land use element of the City's comprehensive plan,
however, already sets out a broader objective of considering land use issues
throughout the 1-394 corridor at some time within the next 3-5 years.
e
The Commission divided its charge into six related tasks:
. Definition of appropriate study area boundaries;
. Identification of interested parties ("stakeholders");
. Establishment of an overall study process;
. Estimation of time needed to complete the study;
. Description of final product form and content; and
. Outlining of basic budget needs for the study itself.
In working through these tasks over the course oftwo extended Planning
Commission meetings, it became clear to Commissioners that most of them can
only be addressed on a preliminary basis until the Commission is able to obtain
additional information on two points.
e
The first point is the possibility of ongoing HRA or other City participation in long-
term community development activities throughout the area after the study is done.
"Participation" might mean many things, including but not necessarily limited to
establishing a new redevelopment area for tax increment financing or other HRA
purposes, prioritizing targeted locations for City infrastructure improvements or
public amenities, contributing regularly to a pool of funds reserved for the fair
market purchase and turnaround of key properties as opportunities arise, or setting
up a City funding source for aesthetic improvements by area businesses and
property owners. The likelihood of public financial support will have a bearing on
the scope of "visioning" and other study efforts it might be realistic to undertake. If
there is little or no chance of direct HRAlCity sponsorship of area improvement
projects arising from the study, then the appropriate public process and final product
should be limited accordingly. Conversely, as the will to commit long-term HRAlCity
resources increases, it becomes reasonable to include a broader and more detailed
range of study considerations. Before submitting a final recommendation regarding
its charge, and even before executing any of the preliminary recommendations
sketched out below, the Planning Commission thus requests a meeting with the City
CouncillHRA to determine the likelihood of committing to these or other options staff .
might be able to suggest.
The second point is the public understanding of assets and/or deficiencies in the
subject area as it exists today. If this is to be a truly participatory process, then
public input should begin at a very early stage. Therefore, rather than having the
Commission or outside experts make an up-front identification of issues or concerns
for subsequent public reaction, the Commissioners recommend a preliminary phase
of study in which members of the public are empowered and encouraged to
contribute toward a consensus view of area issues or concerns. That view in turn
would provide a focus for the rest of the process. The full recommendations of the
Planning Commission with regard to the HRA's charge would be finalized after
conclusion of the preliminary study phase.
For the six related tasks making up the HRA's charge, Commissioners have
formulated the following preliminary recommendations.
APPROPRIATE STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES-The HRA's targeted
block cannot be properly evaluated on its own; it is an integral part of a larger
area which will flourish or fail as a whole over time. Also, while this is to be a
future land use study and recommendation, there are potential infrastructure
and quality of life impacts that may also positively or negatively affect nearby
properties where no land use changes are contemplated. Thus, the Planning _
Commission finds a two-tiered study area to be most appropriate. _
The Core Study Area should comprise all properties where long-term
changes in land use are being considered. With two exceptions, it should
generally include lands bounded by:
1-394 on the south;
laurel Avenue on the north;
Rhode Island on the west; and
Turner's Crossroad and Circle Down on the east.
Exceptions are the single family homes on Circle Downs and the designated
redevelopment area sites for which HRA activities are already completed or
in process; all such properties should instead be included in the second tier.
The Potential Impact Area should generally include everything lying outside
the Core Study Area but within the limits of:
1-394 on the south;
Highway 55 on the north;
Brookview Park/Golf Course on the west; and
Highway 100 on the east.
e
2
"
.
INTERESTED PARTIES-Public participatian shauld be drawn from a
variety af stakehalders ar ather patentially interested parties. Details af
participatian will be fleshed aut an the basis af the preliminary process steps
identified belaw. At minimum, the full pracess shauld seek to. invalve:
Core Study Area business awners and managers as well as property
owners/land lards;
Potential Impact Area residents and property awners, which shauld
include encauraging apartment awners and ather land lards to. send
any natices alang to. all tenants, as well as encauraging churches,
schaals, and ather facilities to. select interested delegates;
Citywide residents and praperty awners via at least ane public hearing
ar ather public farum (city survey, camments salicited at web site, et
cetera); and
The Development Community via at least ane presentatian an current
metra area develapment trends and apprapriate area market
demagraphics, mast likely from a "full-service" autfit such as Duke,
Opus, ar United Properties.
e
THE STUDY PROCESS, PRELIMINARY PHASE-Using the autcame af
the jaint meeting an lang-term City/HRA financial cammitment as a guide to.
an appropriate level af effart, the pracess shauld begin with callectian and
presentatian af data an existing canditians.
Step 1, Data Collection: Far the Care Study Area, this effart shauld be
similar to. what Cammissianers did in a 1989-1990 1-394 carridar study
and repart. Factars examined at that time included fairly specific land
uses, general City Cade vialatians, general appearance, praperty
awnership patterns, lacatian/access issues, enviranmental canstraints,
and existing plans and ather studies. Far the Patentiallmpact Area,
samewhat less detailed infarmatian wauld be callected, with emphasis
an land uses and linkages with ar buffering fram the Care Study Area.
Step 2, Data Presentation: The data callected, alang with a cancise
statement af the study's purpase, shauld be made public in a variety
o.f ways. If at all passible, early natice af the upcoming study shauld
go. aut in a City newsletter. As a "kick-aff' event, the City Cauncil/HRA
and Planning Cammissian shauld hast a jaint public meeting, which
shauld be cable-cast, to. present the callected infarmatian and take
public camments ar suggestians far shaping Phase Two. of the
process. Caverage af the meeting by the lacal Sun Past newspaper
would certainly be helpful, but a "preview" article, ar a guest calumn by
the Planning Cammissian or HRAlCity Cauncil, to. generate interest
befare the meeting wauld be even better. The infarmatian presented
at the meeting shauld remain available in a special sectian af the
afficial City web site thraughaut the entire pracess, alang with
apprapriate updates, natices af any wark sessians ar ather apen
e
3
meetings, and a place for submitting additional comments or
suggestions.
Step J, Public Input on Area Assets/Deficiencies: As indicated in Step .
2, the data presentation meeting should be a forum for public input;
however, it should not be the only such forum. Some people lack
confidence about speaking in public, especially when the cameras are
on; others may have physical conditions or appointment conflicts that
make it difficult or impossible to attend the meeting. The City's official
web site has also been identified as a useful forum; for the purpose of
this preliminary step, a response deadline should be posted along with
the other study information. Most importantly, the City should sponsor
a mailed survey with summary information about the study and
specific questions about perceived area assets and deficiencies. At
minimum, the survey should be sent to all property owners in both the
Core Study Area and the Potential Impact Area, accompanied by a
request that it be passed along to all tenants as well. Question-
drafting assistance from survey research experts is strongly
recommended (the same questions can also be used at the joint
presentation and web site). If budgeting is a concern, the survey
response need not be professionally monitored to a level of scientific
accuracy, though that would be the preferred option.
Step 4, Completion of Study Design: Using everything accomplished
in Steps 1-3, the Planning Commission will expand as necessary on
its preliminary recommendations for any of the six identified tasks, and
will submit final recommendations on the study process itself and the e
nature of its desired product.
STUDY TlMEFRAME at FINAL PRODUCT FORM AND CONTENT-
Alternatives for both of these tasks vary widely, depending on the outcome of
other tasks. They can be summarized as two options, representing the ends
of a spectrum.
Option A: At its most basic level, the process could be very similar to the
one already used for site-specific amendments to the City's Comprehensive
Land Use Plan Map. The standard plan amendment process is a suitable
model to build upon if a City/HRA commitment to long-term financial support
for area improvements is likely to be limited. The process takes about sixty
days and provides for public participation by requesting input on a pre-
drafted proposal at one informal and one formal public hearing; the Planning
Commission would at least want to look at more creative approaches to the
usual hearing format. The draft proposal might be as simple as an updated
version of the recommendation resulting from the 1989-1990 1-394 corridor
study. The end result of this type of process study would be primarily map-
oriented ("retail uses should go here, offices should go there... ").
Option B: If the City/HRA is able to commit to the long-term support
necessary for executing a more detailed vision, the study process would be
e
4
.
.
longer and more involved. The study timeframe could run anywhere from six
months to a year, with many and varied options for large or small scale public
input. The end product might still include a future land use map, but would
focus more on general principles to follow and specific objectives to meet as
land use changes are considered over time, similar to the range of
development guidelines provided in a typical redevelopment area plan.
.
STUDY BUDGET NEEDS- One problem with some past study efforts is
that little or no advance thought was given to potential costs. Regular staff
time and departmental budgets can always accommodate a certain amount
of miscellaneous increased work load or expenses, but a serious effort at
participatory planning may require its own budget line to properly support it.
Public outreach, especially in the form of repeated individual address
mailings, can become costly; in addition to postage, stationery, and labels,
costs include extensive clerical time for initial compilation of the mailing list,
subsequent list corrections and other maintenance, and assembling each
mailing. Depending on the scope of study involved, one or more consulting
experts may have to be brought in to provide certain specialized services like
traffic analysis or survey design. Also, depending on the desired level and
nature of public participation, hiring an outside facilitator may be the most
reasonable way of providing adequate organizational and group dynamic
skills to make the process a success.
For the preliminary phase of this study, the Commission recommends the
following expenses be authorized outside of departmental budgets:
. $3,000 to contract for clerical services in compiling the mailing list;
. $5,000 to cover postage and supplies for 3-5 mailings; and
. $5,000 for survey design assistance and administration.
No facilitator is necessary for the preliminary study phase, but may be
recommended if the full study design goes much beyond the most basic
'option identified above. The need for consulting services beyond survey
design and administration will depend on the issues and concerns identified
through the survey and other early public outreach efforts.
.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Golden Valley has limited experience with successful participatory planning efforts.
Recent Valley Square task force assignments and the Xenia Avenue design
committee can serve as models to some extent; however, each of those efforts was
considerably more limited in scope than what is now being contemplated. The 1-394
corridor study will therefore be a learning experience for elected and appointed
officials and staff as well as for the individual and corporate citizens of Golden
Valley. The Commission expects to be able to refine and streamline the process
through re-use and experimentation on other planning projects over time, keeping
only the elements that appear to yield the best results and learning how to make the
most efficient use of available resources.
5