Loading...
02-27-89 PC Agenda � . , � GOLDEN' VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSTON � Golden Valley Fire Station #2 � 400 Turner's Crossraad Soutfi Monday, February 27, 1989 AGENDA I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FE$RUARY 13, 1989 II. ADDITIONAL INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - FLUIDYNE - REZONING APPLICANT: F1uiDyne �ngineering Company LOCATION: 5$28 O1son Memorial Highway REQUEST: Rezone the property at the Northeast corner of Zane�Avenue and O1son Memorial Highway from tfie- Open Development Zoning District to the Industriaa Zoning District III. ADDITIONAL INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TQ COMPRENENSIVE PLAN 14PPLICANT: FluiDyne Engineering Company - LOCATION: 5828 Olson Memorial Highway REQU�ST: Change the Land Use Designation orr the Comprehensive Land � Use Plan Map from Business and Professional Uses to Industrial Uses IV. COMPRENENSIVE PLAN - WORK SESSION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ,� * * * * * * * * * * * * * :* * * * * * * PLANNING COMMISSION u�r!L•EL[NES FOR PUBLIC`INPUT The Ptanning Gommission is an'advisory Dody, created to advise the City Council ort land use. The Commission will recommend Cauncil approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Comnission's determination af whether the proposed use is permitted under the toning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the pro- " posed use will, or will �ot, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Camiission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to tearn, first-hand, what = such proposals are, and to permit you to ask quesLions and offer comnents. Your questions and com�ents become part of the record and will be used by the;Gouncil. atong with the Commission's recomnendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Comnisslort Chair wi1J introduce the proposal and the recomnendation from staff. Commission oemberS may ask questions of staff, 2. 7he proponent will describe Lhe`proposai artd answer any questions from the Gortmission. 3. The Chair will open the public fiearing, asking first for thase who wish to speak to so indicate by rdising their hands. The Chair aiay set a time limit for individual questions/canments if a' large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer<period of ti�e for questions/comnents. � 4. Please give your full �ame and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember. your ques#ions/co�e�ts are for the record. ' 5. Direct your questionslcomments to the Chair. The Chair will determine Mho will answer your questions. 6. No one wi11 be given the opportunity to speak a second time untii everyone has had the opportunity to 's�ak iaitia111y.' Please limit your second presentation to new inforn�ation, not rebuttal. 7 e+ .r,. ..�.,__ _� «- ---.'_- .--�-_-- ��_ ..__-;_ . ... ,. . _ � MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY ' � PLANNING COMMISSI�N February 13, 1989 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission w«s held in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valiey Road, Golden Va11ey, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chair Prazak at 7:00 P.M. Those present were Commissioners Kapsner, Leppik, McAleese, McCracken-Hunt, Prazak, and Russell . Commissioner Lewis was absent. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner, and Gloria Anderson, Planning Secretary. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1989 It was moved by Commissioner McAleese, seconded by Commissioner Leppik, 'and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the January 23, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. II . INFORMAL PUBLIC NEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Golden Valley Lutheran Church (Cindy Wheeler) LOCATION: 100 Turner's Crossroad South REQUEST: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a � Child Care Center in an I-1 Institutional Zoning District This item was introduced by Chair Prazak who asked for a review of the staff report. City Planner Beth Knoblauch reviewed her report indicating there is a definite need in Golden Va11ey for additional day care for infants and children. She stated that she felt this proposal would not be detrimental to the neighbor- hood nor would it cause a major impact on the streets in the area. The only problems may be for the people getting into and out of the parking area. Commissioner Kapsner asked if there would any drop off or pick up at the main building or just the parsonage. City Planner Knoblauch stated that the proponent did not have a preference, that she was willing to have the Planning Commission make a recommendation. The Planning Commission indicated that the drop off and picK up area should probably be from the main parking lot in order to access botfi buildings. Commissioner Leppik questioned the high number of infants proposed in this day care center. City Planner Knoblauch stated that the greatest need at this time in the Metropolatan area was for infant care. Ms. Cindy Wheeler, Director of Family Life Ministries, was present to represent the proponent. � Minutes of the Golden Va11ey PTanning Commission February 13, 1989 . � Pa9e 2 Chair Prazak asked what the staff ratio would be for the day care center and what they used as evidence that there was a need for this level of care. Ms. Wheeler said the State requires one staff person for every four infants and that they hope to exceed this ratio if they could, She said she had done a study on the need for day care last summer and statistics from the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Associataon showed a pressing need for infant day care. Commissioner McAleese noted that he would like a copy of the study Ms. Wheeler had done. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt asked if they could mix the toddlers and infants. Ms. Wheeler said they could not. - Chair Prazak asked Ms. Wheeler if there would be any major changes to the building. She said most of the changes would be to the interior of the building including bringing the fire system up to code. There would also be some chain link fencing added for the play area for the toddlers. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt asked what type of ineal service there would be. Ms. Wheeler said they were planning to serve hot meals but have not decided whether they would be prepared on site or catered. � Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one, the informal public hearing was closed. Chair Prazak stated that with access to the parsonage being changed to the rear, this seemed like an appropriate proposal . It was moved by Commissioner Russell , seconded by Commissioner McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend City Council approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a child day care center at Golden Va11ey Lutheran Church, 100 Turner's Crossraad South, subject to the following conditions: 1. The center, including the preschool program, be limited to a maximum of 50 children. , 2. The activity areas exist as designated on the site sketches filed with the Planning office. , 3. The center comply with all other City and State requirements before beginning operation. 4, Any failure to comply w�th one or more of the conditions of approval shall be grounds far revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. Consensus of the Planning Commission was to recommend that the access to the parsonage be changed to the rear of the building. . � Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Corr�nission February 13, 1989 ` . Page 3 Commissioner McAleese asked if the Zoning Code should be changed to allow day care as a regular use in the Institutional Zoning District and asked if staff could look into this and get back to the Cort�nission in the future. III. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT (MINOR SUBDIVISION� APPLICANT: Robert Mikolajczyk LOCATION: 201 Meadow Lane North � REQUEST: Approval of the Preliminary Plat to Subdivide This Parcel to Create an Additional Single Family Lot ; This agenda item was introduced by Chair Prazak. City Planner Beth Knoblauch reviewed the staff report. She indicated that the proponent had brought in a new plat which met met all conditions of the City Zoning Code for a minor subdivision. They had more than the minimum square footage necessary for the new lot including twenty feet of street frontage to provide for a driveway. The existing home on the lot would also comply with the Code. City Planner Knoblauch said the staff recor�nended this plat be approved. She also introduced a letter from a neighbor, Mr. Onan, who stated he would be out of town and could not attend the hearing. He wanted to make sure that this proposal would conform to � the City Zoning Code. City Planner Knoblauch brought up the sewer line which runs along a private drive. Staff believes this to be a private sewer line in which case the owners would have to have a sewer line brought in to the lot from the street. Director Grimes later indicated to the proponent that they should talk with the City Engineer regarding the sewer Tine. Commissioner Leppik questioned the space between the present private driveway and the proposed driveway for the new lot. City Planner Knoblauch stated that only ten feet of the twenty feet would be used #or the driveway allowing for a ten-foot separation between the two driveways. The proponent, Mr. Robert Mikolajczyk, and his representative, Mr. Jerry Foss, were present to answer questions. Comnissioner Leppik asked Mr. Foss if they would use the present private driveway or put in a new driveway. Mr. Foss stated there is enough land so a driveway can be constructed. He also noted that the lot was large and therefore there would be no need for any variances to build a house. Commissioner McAleese noted that once the lot was divided, the rear setback on the existing house was shown as 34+ feet and not the required 34.8 feet. He felt this should be checked out before the finaT plat is prepared. � Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission + � February 13, 1989 Page 4 Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing. Ms. Nancy Young, 219 North Meadow Lane, stated one of the reasons they had purchased their home in this area was because of the large lots and she was bothered that people were dividing their lots into smaller parcels. Her husband, Eric Young, presented a letter from the owner of the private driveway. Ms. Pat Bonander, 221 North Meadow Lane, was concerned that lots are being broken up and smaller homes are being built. Mr. Randy Clark, 220 North Meadow Lane, said he moved into the area thr�e years ago because the homes and lots are large. He is opposed to dividing the lots in this area. Mr. Bruce Monick, 4215 Poplar Drive, felt a precedent was being set by breaking up these lots. He stated that when another owner in this area wanted to divide his property, he could not. After a short discussion, staff explained that the reason was probably because he would not have had any street frontage for the new 1ot. Mr. Eric Young, 219 North Meadow Lane, was concerned about precedents being set and what it would do to the neighborhood. � Chair Prazak reviewed the letter presented by Mr. Young from Dr. Sweet. Dr. Sweet's concerns were regarding the change in the presentation of other homes in the area and because he was not allowed to subdivide his lot. Mr. Mikolajczyk stated it was a mixed neighborhood, some lots were small and some were large, and that his lot was large enough to divide and still provide a good size 1ot and meet all the requirements of the Zoning Code: He felt he was not infringing on anyone else's rights by dividing his lot. The informal public hearing was closed. Commissioner Russell stated there seemed to be no choice but to recommend approval as it meets all requirements of the Zoning Code -- there would be no grounds for denial . Commissioner McGracken-Hunt noted that some lots nearby were about the same size and even smaller. She felt this was still a large lot. It was moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Commissioner Kapsner, and carried unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the minor subdivision, as indicated on the revised sketch dated February 9, 1989, of the property at 201 Meadow Lane North. Commissioner leppik stated that she understands the neighbors' objections but when a subdivision meets all the requirements of the Code, the Commission is not � in a position to recommend denial . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission � � February 13, 1989 Page 5 Commissioner McAleese said he would encourage the proponents to try to hook up to the private drive rather than creating a new driveway on the twenty foot frontage. A property owner in the area stated there are presently five properties using this existing driveway. IV. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPLICANT: Daniel F. Otten LOCATI4N: 1566 Winnetka Avenue North REQUEST: Rezone from the Single-Family Residential to the Two-Family (R-2) Residential Zoning District V. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPLICANT: Daniel F. Otten LOCATION: ll20, 1800, 1810 Winnetka Avenue North � REQUEST: Rezone from the Single-Family Residential to the Two-Family (R-2) Residential Zoning District VI . INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPLICANT: Daniel F. Otten LOCATION: 1611 Pennsylvania Avenue North REQUEST: Rezone from the Single-Family Residential to the Two-Family (R-2) Residential Zoning District These items were introduced by Chair Prazak. City Planner Beth Knoblauch gave a short review of this request and noted that it had been t�rought to the City's attention that there are existing covenants on the Val Wood Addition that state that nothing other than single-family homes can be built on these lots. The covenant will expire in September of 1989. She stated the lots all meet the requirements of the City Code for lot size in the R-2 Zoning District but based on the Covenants, she could not at this time recommend approval of the rezoning. Options that the Planning Commission considered were to make a decision on the rezoning, in which case two-family dwelling could not be constructed until the Covenants expired, or the proponent could ask that the request be tabled. � Mr. Daniel Otten, the proponent, was present. He stated he would like to table his request until such time that he had legal counsel and that the Planning Commission considered his request at a later date. Minutes of the Gotden Valley Planning Commission , february 13, 1989 � Page 6 It was moved by Commissioner McCracken-Hunt, seconded by Commissioner Russell and motion carried to table the request for rezoning from the Residential Zoning District to the Two-Family Residential (R-2) Zoning District. VII . 1989 APA CONFERENCE - ATLANTA The APA Conference to be held in Atlanta April 29 to May 3, 1989 was discussed. - Na final decision was made as to who would be going. A decision will be made at the next Planning Co�ruunission meeting. VIII. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT Commissioner McAleese briefly reviewed the procedures and time frame for hearings on the Hennepin County Light Rail Transit system. Director Grimes was instructed to arrange a joint informational meeting far the Planning Commission and the Golden Valley Open Space and Recreation Commission at which representatives from the County would explain the system and its program of implementation. Director Grimes will also find out whether the Planning Commission is expected to hold an informal public hearing before making a recommendation to the City Council . � IX. REPORT -0N JANUARY 17, 1989 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Commissioner McCracken-Hunt gave a report on the January 17, 1989 City Council meeting. X. GOMMENDATION FOR CITY ENGINEER The Commissioners asked that an entry be made in the minutes congratulating Lowell Odland on being named Engineer of the Year by the Minnesota Association of City Engineers and commending him for his•many years of service in Golden Valley. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M. � , � February 22, 1989 T0: Golden Va11ey Planning Comnission fROM: Beth Knoblauch, City Planner SUBJECT: Additional Informal Public Hearing for F1uiDyne Rezoning and Change of Land Use Designation in the Comprehensive Plan - 5828 Olson Memorial Highway (NE Corner of Olson Memorial Highway and Zane Avenue North There was an error in the notice sent out last month to property owners within 500 feet of the proposed F1uiDyne parking lot. The date for the Planning Commission's informal publie hearing was incorrectly given as Monday, February 23 instead of January 23. Two people have now called to point this out, and one was quite angry. Our City Attorney has recommended that we renotify all affected property owners and reopen the informal public hearing next Monday. The City Council hearing is already set for March 7, 1989 and people would still have an opportunity to � be heard at that time, but aur City Ordinance specifies that property owners will be notified of the Planning Commission's informal public hearing as well . The implication is that the Planning Commission should take due note of appropriate public input when making its recommendation to the City Council . I apologize for not catching the incorrect date before the notices went out. � �� February 22, 1989 T0: Golden Valley Planning Corr�nission FROM: Beth Knoblauch, City Planner SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update I have attached a short outline of the steps to follow in updating the Compre- hensive Plan. For the earlier steps, I have also identified some issues to discuss regarding procedural matters. The ather attachment is a copy of the 2010 narrative for Golden ValTey. For our meeting, I will bring in a copy of a comprehensive plan that I completed in my previous job. This will give you a better idea of-how I have structured plan development in the past. I will also have one or more sample lists of characteristics that are commonly examined when doing the background research for a comprehensive plan. I may bring in the map of existing land uses that I have been working on. Following our discussion, we should all have a much better idea of how much � time it will take to complete the update. Right now, I would say that we are looking at something between six and sixteen months, with my main comfort range lying between eight and twelve months. This would put us in good shape for final plan adoption in 1990, with a twenty year interval to the vision presented in the 2010 narrative. . � STEPS IN UPDATING THE GOLDEN VALLEY �� COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. DEVELOP GENERALIZED GOALS: A °VISION' OF THE FUTURE This has been done in the form of the "Year 2010 Vision of the City of Golden Valley". The narrative provides a guide for research into existing conditions and for the formulation of more specific goals, objectives, and policies. ISSUE: Is the narrative adequate for our purposes, or are there some additions or deletions that should be made? 2. PREPARE THE PLANNING DOCUMENTATION I have been working on this off and on. For research purposes, I -have set up four broad categories of characteristics to look at. These are: population, land, land uses, and government administration. Within each category I have a list of particular items to highlight, based in part on standard planning research and in part on the contents of the 2010 narra- tive. The list is not complete at this point, but will continue to evolve as the research proceeds. ISSUE: Based on your own vision of what is important to the future development of Golden Valley, are there any particular types of inform- ation that you want to make sure we include in the planning documentation? � 3. PREPARE A LIST OF POTENTIAL ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND STRATEGIES I like to do this concurrently with #2. As I complete each section of research, I "pull out" a summary of the major findings, identify them as issues to be resolved or opportunities to be capitalized on, and prepare a list of strategies that might be used to address them. This is one aspect of plan development where I really like to see a lot of input from the Planning Corr�ission, usua]ly in the form of brainstorming sessions as each section of research is completed in draft form. ISSUE: Some sections of the planning documentation will take longer to prepare than others, and unexpected short-term work assignments could also interfere with progress from time to time; should �e continue to set aside monthly sessions to review whatever material is rea�y at that time, or should we hold work sessions only when a major research section has been completed? 4. DEVELOP UPDATED GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES These will follow naturally from the swr�nary lists of issues and oppor- tunities when the planning documentation is completed. 5. DEVELOP UPDATfD PLAN MAP � The updated goals, objectives, and policies will provide some direction to the updated p]an map. 6. DEYELOP TEXT TO ACCOMPANY #4 AND #5 This will probably consist mainly of a finalized version of the 2010 narrative, though other options could be discussed. 1� MAYORAL ADDRESS TO CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 25TH ANNUAL TOWN MEETING THURSDAY OCTOBER 14, 2010 Introduction Welcome to the 25th Annual Golden Valley Town Meeting. Some of you may recall with me the first Golden Valley Town Meeting, held in Golden Valley's Centennial Year, 1986. At that first meeting we celebrated Golden Valley's 100th birthday. Tonight we celebrate Golden Valley's 124th birthday. The theme of that first Centennial Town Meeting was Golden Valley Tomorrow. The celebration of Go�den Valley's first 100 years focused on the future. That nigfit 24 years ago, the citizens of Golden Valley chose objectives for the future which shaped the outstanding city we enjoy today. The city' s farsighted Planning Corr�nission and City Council of 24 years ago initiated plans and programs to concentrate city resources and efforts on the accomplishment of objectives in ten carefully selected focus areas. The target year for accomplishment of those objectives was this year, 2010. Tonight I wish to review for you our accomplishments in the ten focus areas chosen by � Golden Valley in the city's Centennial Year 24 years ago. � YEAR 2010 VISION OF THE �� CITY OF GOLDEN u�1LLEY Focus Area No. 1: Identity In the Year 2010 the City of Golden Valley retains its identity throughout the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan community as a quality community for both working and living. Golden VaJley continues to be identified with major businesses such as General Mills and Honeywell and with prominent medical facilities such as Courage Center. At the same time, the image which comes to mind when people think of Golden Valley is one of attractive and well maintained residential neighborhoods. Today we have an identifiable Downtown Golden Valley. A unified downtown located at Highway 55 and Winnetka Avenue North offers retail shopping and services, office space, restaurants, entertainment, apartments, senior housing and attractiv� green areas. The focal point of our downtown is our Civ�ic Center block, location of aur city offices, our public library and inviting outdoor gathering spaces. City-sponsored programs, facilities, and activities create a sense of community and foster a sense of sharing. Community-based athletic programs crossing school district lines and an active Golden Valley seniors program are two examples of a broad range of community-based activities serving all age groups. Public facilities today include an amphitheater for concerts and programs, an indoor swimming pool and gymnasium, and several cammunity centers. The traditional Golden Va11ey Days surr�ner festival has been revived and now draws � broad attention and participation not only from Golden Valley residents but from a wider metropolitan area population. Focus Area No. 2: Beautification The City of Golden Valley image is enhanced by city beautification with unify- ing themes. Prominent signs of uniform design and materials, decorated with plantings, welcome people to Golden Valley at the boundary lines on major highways and thoroughfares. Attractive and distinctive uniform signage identi- fies and provides direction to the Golden Valley Downtown Business District, public buildings, and City parks and open spaces. These same areas are further distinguished and integrated by use of uniform decorative lighting. Pedestrian walkway networks utilizing common materials and uniform street furniture unify Downtown Golden Valley and other redeveloped areas. - Continuity is further strengthened by beautification of Bassett Creek throughout the City of Golden Valley. The creek is visible and accessible at numerous locations within the city. A system af walking and biking trails along the creek connects creekside parks and open spaces interspersed throughout the city. The trail system links with corr�nunity and regional trai1 systems. Bridges of an attractive and distinctive uniform design cross the creek at points on the city's Brookview Go1f Course and at trail system creek crossings throughout the city. Lilacs grow on many streets in the City of Golden Valley as a city trademark. � Electrical undergrounding has been accomplished throughout the city. Other Year 2010 Vision (Continued) , Page 2 � beautification themes carried throughout the city are emphasis on landscaping for public buildings and commercial a reas, focus on quality uniform signage for businesses as well as public facilities, attention to creation of attractive rooftops in urban density locations with highrise views of neighboring rooftops, and elimination of unsightly and unmaintained spaces in residential as well as comnercial and industrial areas. Materials and equipment storage and truck loading and unloading areas in industrial districts are screened from view. In residential neighborhoods yards are free of junk and debris, and trailers, boats and recreation vehicles are excluded from front yards. � Potentially unsightly remnant parcels and unused right-of-ways are maintained by neighboring property owners through a program for identification and "adoption" of neglected spaces. . Consistent identification systems and beautification themes uti�ized throughout the city project a coherent image of Golden Valley as an attractive living and working environment. Focus Area No. 3: Well Planned I-394 Freeway Corridor The I-394 freeway corridor through the City of Golden Valley presents a positive impression consistent with the attractive overall image of the city. The I-394 freeway corridor is tied together by traffic, pedestrian, signage and landscaping systems which provide continuity throughout the Golden Valley portion of the � corridor. Coherence is the result of careful planning for development. Land uses existing along the I-394 corridor are attractive and apprapriate to the freeway carridor. There is no residential land use, either single fami�y or multiple family, in the freeway corridor. Uses include office, retail and services, hotels and motels, restaurants and entertainment, and light industrial uses combined for functionality and aesthetic appeal . Developments consist of large facilities with expansive grounds or clusterings of uses and buildings in campus settings. There are no small individual buildings planned and construc- ted in piecemeal fashion. Taller buildings exist at selected locations along the freeway corridor with appropriate transitions provided to adjacent neighbor- hoods. Uses are mixed for maximum utilization of shared parking in order to minimize expanses of asphalt paving. Clustering of uses and buildings is arranged in such a way as to promote pedestrian circulation, and pedestrian networks constructed of uniform materials serve to integr,ate development areas. The Golden Valley portion of the I-394 freeway corridor is attractive. Land- scaped setbacks are maintained from the freeway, and frontage roads are land- scaped. A coordinated signage system is in place along the freeway corridor. Business signs are combined on uniform standards, and there is no proliferation of individual business signs. Signs along the freeway are no higher than necessary to provide reasonable visibility. Freeway sound barriers are consistent throughout the City of Golden Valley and are enhanced by use of color, texture and plantings. The frontage and local road systems serve the needs of Golden Valley residents for accessibility to businesses Tocated in the � freeway corridor. Year 2010 Vision (Continued) Page 3 ^� Focus Area No. 4: Orderiy Redevelopment The City of Golden Valley has the appearance of a new and vital community. Despite the fact that it is an older �nner suburb, it has not succumbed to the aging suburb look. This is due to a carefully prioritized ongoing redevelop- ment program. Today not only are the Golden Valley Downtown Business District and the I-394 freeway corridor fully redeveloped, but additional redevelopment projects have maintained Golden Valley in the modern and attractive image chosen by the community. Deteriorating areas have been redeveloped to conform to new needs and desires within the community. A few redevelopment projects are ongoing today, and additional areas are programned for future redevelapment beyond the Year 2010. The City of Golden Valley continues to conduct an ongoing program for identifi- cation of areas in need of revitalization, upgrading or total redeveiopment to maintain a balanced and vigorous community. Criteria for scheduling redevelop- ment projects are incorporated into the redevelopment program. By means of this highly selective redevelopment program, the City of Golden Valley has maintained and will continue to maintain its identity as a quality community for business and housing. i Focus Area No. 5: Full Range of Shopping and Services �° - Today a full range of community shopping and service facilities is available and easily accessible to residents of Golden Valley neighborhoods. All residents have a gas station and convenience store within a distance of one and a half to two miles. These facilities are easily accessible by automobile at all times of day including peak traffic hours. Community level shopping and service facilities are available and easily accessible at selected locations interspersed throughout the City. These include grocery stores, drug stores, hardware stores, barber and beauty shops, restaurants, branch post offices, dry cleaners, and automobile repair as a minimum. Clothing and shoe stores and various specialty shops and services are located at different centers. We even have a movie thea;ter within the City of Golden Valley. , Convenience shopping, services, and gas stations are incorporated into new developments and into redevelopment projects. Retail shopping, services and restaurants are located on first levels of residential and office buildings in major complexes. Gas stations and car wash facilities are incorporated into parking ramps for major office or housing complexes. Major developments p�ovide convenient shopping facilities, services, and restaurants for the residents and employees. Convenient shopping and services contribute to the City of Golden Valley's identity as an inviting place to live and work. � Year 2010 Vision (Conti�ued) '� Page 4 Focus Area No. 6: Well Maintained Housinq Stock Today, although most Golden Valley residential neighborhoods are categorized as older, Golden Va1Tey homes retain their quality and value. The City of Golden Va11ey housing stock is well maintained. The high quality of the existing housing stock is the result of ongoing city programs concentrated on housing maintenance. A City Housing Code is in place and enforced to mandate compliance with basic housing standards. The City of Golden Valley also requires inspections and upgrading to code at the time of home sale. The city has ongoing assistance programs for housing repair targeted at areas with the oldest housing stock. Golden Valley residential neigfiborhoods retain their image as attractive living environments. - Focus Area No. 7: Variety of Housin The City of Golden Valley offers a variety of housing types designed to meet the needs and desires of all age and income groups. A profile of the housing stock in Golden Valley reveals balance and choice in te►�ns of type and style, price or rental rate, and occupant age group mixture. Housing types include ownership and rental , single family and multiple family, suburban and urban density, and moderate to high priced components. Housing styles include single � family detached, townhouses, low rise and high rise apartments and condominiums, and group living situations. There is balance in age and income mix. Golden Valley is not an enclave for the elderly or for any other single age or income group. Options for seniors include a full selection of ownership and rental choices ranging from fully independent to fully supported living arrangements and from high rise adjacent to services in the Golden Valley downtown to low rise small scale elderly housing integrated into establisfied single family residential neighborhoods. Various ownership and rental aptions are available to singles, to young couples, and to young families. Accessory apartments are availabTe in single family homes. Low and high rise apartment complexes can be found in both suburban and urban surroundings. Moderate cost housing options are retained in established neighborhoods and are included in newer housing complexes. New housing options are available to residents within the Ci�y of Golden Valley as age and changing life style alter their housing needs. , The balance of housing options available in the City of Golden Valley today serves to maintain healthy residential neighborhoods and a balanced and vital community as a whole. Focus Area No. 8: Sense of Security Golden Valley residents enjoy a sense of security of their persons and property. The major factor contributing to this sense of security is strong neighborhood cohesiveness. Neighbors are acquainted with each other, have a � sense af how things should look in the neighborhood, and cooperate in guarding Year 2010 Vision (Continued) , Page 5 � the safety of neighbors and their homes. Balanced age mix in residential neighborhoods ensures the presence of older people and young families where family members are home during the day and remain aware of activity in the neighborhood. This neighborhood cooperative spirit is the most important contributor to a sense of security in Golden Valley residential neighborhoods. Another component of the sense of security felt by Golden Valley residents is an assurance of police presence and effectiveness. Regular police patrols, up-to-date methods and technology, and well publicized successful police efforts and programs enhance a public sense of security. Focus Area No. 9: Access to Sweene and Twin Lakes Today all residents of the City of Golden Valley enjoy access to the city's major water bodies through a new city park with lakeshore frontage on Sweeney and Twin takes. The park is easily accessible by car and has ample parking. It is also accessible by pedestrian and bicycle trails linked to community trail systems. The park offers a swim beach, picnic facilities, a fishing pier, and public boat launch facilities for nonmotorized boats. The lakes are stocked for fisfiing by the general public. The lakes and park are now a major public recreational amenity contributing to the image of Golden Valley as a complete community. � Focus Area No. 10: Citizen Participation and Access Golden Valley residents are active in city government. Interest in 1oca1 government is evident in the number of volunteers for city commissions and task forces, in the amount of public enthusiasm and support generated during election campaigns, and in voter turnout for city elections. The annual town meeting has become an institution in the City of Golden Valley. Citizens utilize this open forum to participate in city pianning and direction. Issues, concerns and complaints are expressed in the small discussion groups which are an integral part of the. annual town meeting program. City government is readily accessible throughout the year, as well as at the annual town meeting. Agendas and programs for upcoming meetings are available through the public media and generate citizen participati"qn. Individual city residents find both elected and employed city officials available and responsive to their inquiries. This accessibility to city government is an important factor in the cohesion and sense of corr�nunity among residents of Golden Valley. � Year 2010 Vision (Continued) Page 6 � Conclusion Tonight we celebrate our City of Golden Valley in the Year 2010. We have a right to feel proud of our accomplishments, of our community leaders of yesterday and today, and of our Golden Valley residents who continue to participate in our city planning efforts. This year, as in each of the 25 years we have been gathering for our Annual Town Meeting, we again look toward the future. We again invite your contributions to planning for the future of Golden Valley. We look forward to continuing the community planning process which has built the City of Golden Valley into the fine city it is today and which will safeguard Golden Valley as an outstanding community in which to live and work. � . E