09-08-86 PC Agenda .. � r + �
� Galden Valley Planning Commission
Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road
SEPTEMBER 8, 1986
� � 7:00 P.M.
� AGENDA
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1986
II. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN OF PUD #54
APPLICANT: Russell Sovde
LOCATION: 285-287 Yosemite Avenue North
REQUEST: Approval of Preliminary Design Plan of PUD #54
to Allow for Zero Lot Line Division of a Double
Bungalow
III. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 2, 1986
IV. REPORT ON HRA MEETING - AUGUST 12, 1986
� V. WORKJSTUDY SESSION
********************************�*.�*���**.**�r:�.�*.***.*:��.*.*,**,�����****************
PLANNING COMMISSION GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC INPU7
The Ptanning Conmiission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. fhe Comnission
will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal 6ased upon the Cort�nission's determination of
whether the proposed use 9s permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the pro-
posed use will, or aitl not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood.
The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-ha�d. what
such proposals are. and to R�rmit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comnents 6ecome
part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Commission's recommendation, 9n reaching
its decision.
To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your cortanents and questions, the Comnission will utilize the
following procedure:
1. The Comnission Chair Mill introduce the proposal and the reconerrendation from staff. Comnission
members a�y ask questions of staff.
2. The proponent will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the Comnission.
3. The Chair will open the publ9c hearing. ask9ng first for those who wish to speak to so indicate
by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/cormnents if a
large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a
longer period of time for questions/comnents.
4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember, your
questions/comnents are far the record.
5. Direct your questions/comnents to the Chair. The Chair wi11 determine who will answer your
questions.
, 6. No one will be given the opportun9ty to speak a second ti� until everyone has had the opportunity
to speak initially. Please lim9t your second presentation to new infarmation, not rebuttal.
7. At the close of the pubiic hearing, the Comnission wi11 discuss the proposal and take appropriate
action.
. ,
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
� August 25, 1986
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission w�s held in the
Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley,
Minnesota. Chairman Prazak called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M.
Those present were Commissioners Leppik, Lewis, McAleese, McCracken-Hunt and
Prazak. Commissioners Kapsner and Russell were absent. Also present were Alda
Peikert, City Planner, and Gloria Anderson, Planning Secretary.
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1986 •
It was moved by Commissioner McCracken-Hunt, seconded by Commissioner Leppik
and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the August 11, 1986 Planning
Commission meeting as recorded. �
II. SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN - PUD #54
APPLICANT: Russell Sovde
LOCATION: 285-287 Yosemite Avenue North
REQUEST: Approval of Preliminary Design Plan of PUD #54 to �
. Allow for Zero Lot Line Division of a Double Bungalow
Chairman Prazak introduced this agenda item and noted the September 8, 1986
informal public hearing date recommended by staff.
It was moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Commissioner McAleese and
carried unanimously to set an informal public hearing date of September 8, 1986
for consideration of the request by Mr. Russell Sovde for approval of the
Preliminary Design Plan of PUD #54 to allow for a zero lot line division of a
double bungalow.
III. WAIVER OF THE PLATTING ORDINANCE
APPLICANT: Bruce and Sara Monick
Lawrence and Elizabeth Cramer
LOCATION: 4215 Poplar Drive and
205 and 215 Meadow Lane
REQUEST: Parcel Division and Consolidation
This agenda item was introduced by Chairman Prazak and a summary of the request
was given by City Planner Alda Peikert. She indicated the request was division
of small parcels and consolidation of remnants with single family lots in order
to simpl.ify property divisions along the private access drive.
.
l p
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25, 1986
� Page 2
Mr. Bruce Monick was present to answer questions from the Commissioners. He
stated his request was for the consolidation of remnant parcels which he and
and the Cramers had purchased for resale and would create a separate parcel for
the private access drive.
City Planner Alda Peikert indicated that adjacent property owners had been
notified. Mr. Val Silins was present to represent Mr. George Keister who lives
at 211 Meadow Lane North. He stated that he now understood the request and had
no objections.
It was moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Commissioner McAleese and
carried unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the request by Bruce
and Sara Monick and Lawrence and Elizabeth Cramer for Waiver of the Platting
Ordinance to divide and consolidate remnant parcels to simplify property lines
in the area served by a private drive to the west of Meadow Lane.
Staff indicated this would come before the City Council on September 2, 1986.
IV. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT
APPLICANT: Steve McCough
• LOCATION: 415 Turn'ers Crossroad North
REQUEST: Approval of Preliminary Plat of "John James Addition"
Chairman Prazak introduced this agenda item. City Planner Alda Peikert reviewed
the staff report. She stated that the request was for division of one single
lot into five lots which meet Zoning Code requirements and were adequate to �
accommodate a single family residence. She also indicated that staff recommended
approval with conditions noted in staff report.
Chairman Prazak asked what the estimated park dedication fees were. City
Planner Alda Peikert stated that in the past the fees were 10 percent of the
market value of the undeveloped property or $400.00 per new lot, whichever was
the lesser of the two.
Ms. Pat Kelly, representing Mr. Steve McCough, was present to answer questions.
She stated that they wished to preserve the character of the neighborhood and
each lot would be sold as a single family lot.
Chairman Prazak opened the informal public hearing for input.
Ms. Lee Parmalee, 5701 Woodstock, asked if the home presently located on the
lot would remain and when the other lots would be sold.
Ms. Kelly stated the house would remain and that the other lots are now on the
market but there was no specific time frame for selling them.
•
r •
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25, 1986
Page 3
�
Mr. James Gurovitsch, 501 Valley Wood Circle, asked if the corner lot would
have access from Turners Crossroad or from Woodstock. He suggested there be no
access from this lot onto Turners Crossroad for safety reasons.
Ms. Kelly and staff both indicated that access would be up to the owner or
developer of the lot.
The informal public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Leppik asked what the average frontage of lots along Woodstock
were. It was noted by other Commissioners and staff that average frontage was
approximately 100 feet for other lots. Commissioner Leppik indicated that
although the division met all the Zoning Code requirements, she would prefer to
see the property divided into four lots rather than five to keep them more
consistent with the neighborhood.
Commissioner McCracken-Hunt agreed.
Commissioner McAleese said he preferred to see the smaller lots as it would
mean more affordable housing for the City.
Chairman Prazak said he too would prefer the larger lots. He also suggested
that that the staff and Commission make a strong recommendation against an
� access from the corner lot onto Turners Crossroad.
Staff indicated that this could not be a condition on the plat.
Commissioner Leppik asked if there were any problems with drainage and what the
present drainage direction is.
City Planner Alda Peikert stated that the City Engineer is requiring a drainage
plan to make certain there are no drainage problems. Ms. Kelly stated that the
property presently drains toward Turners Crossroad.
It was moved by Commissioner Lewis, seconded by Commissioner McAlees� and
carried unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat
of "John James Addition" subject to the following conditions:
1. A grading, drainage and utility plan be submitted and approved by the
City Engineer before the preliminary plat is submitted to the City
Council for approval .
2. The shed and garage on Lot 1 be removed one year after the final plat
is approved or when a house is built on Lot 1, whichever comes first.
3. Access to the house on Lot 2 be eliminated over Lots 3, 4 and 5 when
Lot 3, 4 or 5 is sold.
,�
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25, 1986
Page 4
� 4. A park dedication fee will be charged at the time the final plat is
approved. The charge covers the four new lots that are created. The
amount of the fee will be determined at the time the plat is approved.
V. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICANT: Rapid Oil Company
LOCATION: 8950 Olson Memorial Highway
REQUEST: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Al1ow
Expansion of an Automobile Repair Business in a
Commercial Zoning District
Chairman Prazak introduced this agenda item. A summary of the request was
given by City Planner Alda Peikert. She stated that the proponents wished to
increase the size of this facility to accommodate clients from their Highway 12
facility �hich was being taken for the upgrading of Highway 12 to I-394. She
stated that it presently does not meet setback requirements.
Commissioner McCracken-Hunt asked if curb would be required to separate the
blacktop from the landscaping and staff replied it would be required.
Commissioner Leppik stated it looked like an improvement.
� Chairman Prazak felt that although the proposed site plan is still nonconforming,
it is a great improvement over what is presently on the site, and that it is
compatible with uses in the neighborhood.
Mr. John Kosmas of K. K. Design was present to represent the proponent. He
stated they had tried to conform with parking, setbacks and green space
requirements as much as possible given the existing conditions of the lot.
Chairman Prazak opened the informal public hearing for input. Hearing and
seeing no one, the informal public hearing was closed.
Consensus of the Commissioners was that this is a great improvement over the
present condition of this site and that their concerns were covered in the
conditions set forth in the staff report and would be made part of the
approval .
Moved by Commissioner McAleese, seconded by Commissioner Leppik and carried
unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit
for Rapid Oil to allow expansion of an automobile repair business in a
Commercial Zoning District at 8950 Olson Memorial Highway subject to the
following conditions:
1. Site improvements shall conform to the Site Plan prepared by K. K.
Design, dated August 11, 1986 and revised August 25, 1986.
•
M�nutes of the Golden Valley Plann�ng Commission
August 25, 1986
Page 5
� 2. Approval of the City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
shall be required for variances to landscaped yard requirements in
the City Zoning Code.
3. The existing shed which encroac'hes on Golden Valley Road right-of-way
shall be removed from the site.
4. No additional planting shall be allowed on the Golden Valley Road
street right-of-way.
5. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with a plan which
fulfills requirements of the Ga,lden Valley Landscape Standards and
which meets the approval of th� Building Board of Review.
6. Drive and parking area shall be separated from landscaped area by
concrete curb.
7. Gutter shall be installed as required to facilitate drainage in
accordance with the approval of the City Engineer.
8. Underground storage tanks no ldnger proposed for use or not in use
for a period of one year or more shall be removed from the site in
the manner required by the Uniform Fire Code and under the
supervision of the City Fire Marshal .
� 9. There shall be no outside storage of materials or refuse. All waste
generated by the occupancy shall be stored inside or in an enclosure
approved by the Building Boardlof Review and by the City Building
Official until removed from th� premises.
10. Signage shall conform to the City Sign Ordinance and to the approval
of the City Building Inspector.
11. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be
grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.
VI. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 19, 1986 �
Chairman Prazak did not attend the City Council meeting on August 19, 1986 as
there were no Planning Commission items on the agenda.
� VII. REPORT ON BZA MEETING - AUGUST 12, 1986
Commissioner Leppik was unable to attend the August 12, 1986 meeting of the
Board of Zoning Appeals but gave a review of the minutes from that meeting.
VIII. REPORT ON HRA MEETING - AUGUST 12, 1986
A report on the August 12, 1986 HRA meeting was deferred to the next meeting as
. Commissioner Russell was absent from the Planning Commission meeting.
�
. . ' i
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25, 1986
Page 6
� Commissioner Lewis left the me�eti',n . ', '
9
IX. WORK/STUDY SESSION ', '
I
At 8:00 P.M. the Planning Commiissiion',moved to the Manager's Conference Room for
a work/study session on Golden' Va��lle�r in the Year 2010.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
, �,
Gary Prazak, Chairman �� ��, Linda McCracken-Hunt, Secretary
�
�� I
, ,
i
, , .
I I
�
; ,
'� I
I
' I
i
, ,
,
�
�
I '
. , ,
��
. . . . i
September 3, 1986
�
T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission
FROM: Alda Peikert, City Planner
SUBJECT: Informal Public Hearing - preliminary Design Plan for PUD #54,
Sovde Addition
Mr. Russell Sovde, owner of a duplex located at 285-287 Yosemite Avenue North,
requests approval of the Preliminary Design Plan of PUD #54, Sovde Addition,
which proposes zero lot line division of the existing duplex into two separate
ownership residential units. The purpose of the proposed division is to allow
Mr. and Mrs. Sovde, who live in one of the duplex units, to sell the second
unit to their daughter, who currently lives in the other unit.
Although zero lot line division of duplexes was not contemplated as one of the
uses of the PUD Ordinance at the time it was originally drafted or later
revised, the PUD Ordinance provides for zero lot line division of townhouse
units and may be used for division of duplexes into separate ownership units.
The PUD Ordinance has been used on two occasions previously to divide existing
duplexes into individual ownership units. Previous duplex divisions include
the division of four duplexes on the southeast corner of Winnetka Avenue North
and 23rd Avenue North into eight individual ownership units and the division of
Q a duplex at 5615-5625 Olson Memorial Highway on the service road southwest of
Highway 55 and Highway 100 into two individual ownership units.
The Sovde proposal is, nevertheless, a test case in that this is the first time
the City has been asked to approve division of a duplex which does not have
separate utility services for each unit. In previous cases the duplexes were
constructed with separate utility cornnections to each unit in preparation for
possible future division into separate ownership units. The duplex at 285-287
Yosemite has single water and sanitary sewer connections to the northerly unit
as indicated on a sketch provided by the proponent and attached to this staff
report.
Staff foresees potential problems with combined water and sanitary sewer
connections to two individual ownership units. The problems involve both
payment of utility bills and maintenance of utility lines. Although division
of an existing duplex with combined utility lines has not occurred previously
in Golden Valley, there are situations in the City where individual ownership
units share utility service lines. According to the City Director of Zoning
and Inspection, residents of Kings Valley, a townhouse complex comprised
entirely of duplexes located in nortMwestern Golden Ualley, originally shared
water meters, but a number of owners have applied to the City for installation
nf separate water meters for individual units. The City Engineer reports that
in Vallee D'Or, a townhouse complex located southeast of Winnetka Avenue North
and Highway 55, combined sanitary sewer service lines have resulted in disputes
over responsibility for plugging of lines and over payment of the cost of
clearing lines. City staff experience has been that residents expect City
4 resolution of this type of dispute or problem.
III
I
I
Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 3, 1986
Page 2
� The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Sovde, submitted the attached letter stating
intent to divide utility bills equally between owners of the two units. It
would be preferable to install separate water meters if feasible. If this is
not possible, provision for shared payment should be included in a joint
maintenance agreement required as part of the PUD General Plan of Development,
the second stage of the PUD approval process. Also required in the joint
maintenance agreement would be provisions for accomplishing maintenance and
repair of water and sanitary sewer lines. Planning staff feels that any
provisions made for future shared maintenance of utility service connection
lines should be entirely satisfactory to the City Engineer and City Attorney and
should alleviate concerns that problems might become City problems.
Division of the two living units includes an additional irregularity in the
case of the duplex at 285-287 Yosemite. The division wall is in a separate
location on each of the two levels within the building. The applicants propose
to handle this by dividing the lot at the location of the separation wall on the
upper level and providing an easement over the portion of drive and garage on
the lower level located on the southerly lot but included in the northerly
unit. Easements are also required to give the owner of the southerly unit
access for maintenance of the service connections located on the northerly lot.
Planning staff expects additional requests in the future for division of exist-
ing duplexes without separate utility connections. Recognizing that separate
ownership units are more easily marketed depending on market conditions and
� that ownership units may have advantages to surrounding neighborhoods in terms
of stability, Planning staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend
City Council approval of the requested division of an existing duplex provisional
upon conclusion of owner agreements which satisfy the City Engineer and City
Attorney as to future maintenance of shared utility connections. Recommended
conditions of approval for the Preliminary Design Plan of PUD #54, Sovde
Addition, which proposes zero lot line division of an existing duplex located
at 285-287 Yosemite Avenue North, are as follows:
1. The plat name shall include "PUD #54".
2. The final plat shall include drainage and utility easements along property
lines as required by the City Subdivision Regulations.
3. An appropriate garage and driveway easement over Lot 2 shall be provided to
Lot 1 by separate instrument.
4. Easements for access to water and sanitary sewer connection lines on Lot 1
shall be provided to Lot 2 by separate instrument.
5. Separate water meters shall be installed for the two individual ownership
units. ,
6. Fire separation wall between the two units shall extend to the roof.
�
Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 3, 1986
Page 3
• 7. The maintenance agreement submitted i
w th the PUD General Plan of
Development shall include provisions for payment of utility bills and for
maintenance of shared utility connection lines and shall meet the approval
of the City Attorney and approval of the City Engineer.
8. The proponent shall submit documentation required for title examination by
the City Attorney with the PUD General Plan of Development and shall pay
the cost of the title examination by the City Attorney as required in
the City Subdivision Regulations.
Attachments:
1. Site Location Map
2. Proposed Plat (Full sized plan sheet enclosed separately)
3. Sketch of Water and Sewer Gonnections
4. August 26, 1986 Letter from Russell A. and Doris L. Sovde
•
•
, ��� . .-� , IOe.S_�IOD I u� '4 d iL� ^4'^ \ �
ti. n �` � �
� o � � � �. � � � � � J a � . � I
_ '' - ,� .� ° � o� '..°. � v,�n• ,� � i
. 9 . � � ,' _ v: _ y I
� 7
.
�JZS� � ^ he-+ _ '. . ►iGr�h- y1; Nt•�r-� �b� •.. ... QO,��.L�SOJ1� ..
: - ay� - -- - -- Q' 9.4 Sa�+r,J N7pqE �+ ,��„� L�Z 5� � ; I... i39.G� .. � ��� . .....
♦ � m � � :��'' ``d • I
.h ti .,+, '�/ ,, -,^�'�
� '� � c n � O - •h� o °y�Q � � .5,' � �p� N^o ; � •
7� �� �_ - -
Q' ` M 4 �� _ �.`\� rti�t.' u . �e20 730 0^' a.� � C
� � � c` .'BO ��I. .�_�o_ie � '�O Z.o�' s6 ' � D' � 5'99!�ly
r'77 z4�M � ac� o' A�y .oh i�ii�.. � -- ��r."�.�� �JQ��7-"i..l.� �
77 3 �41 96 �76 76 �� h o � ��. ' � ° '
� p N • i1; N O �� . , y'� .��``..r. b iC: I:C -' D "�1 ,� 3
� _ l' _ I. 1 ,
� °'`� • '�q �K h � o e �� . '•�,� �O`� �/5 225 1� 1�o Q v
4 m� : N/ n�i . W !le�}' � o�L��S �,;°��: .'' � �;n �.. � o mv� ''�.: O �
'S� �'.�-, M D�•' � M � .t y t� N � �Iw �� viOV ^ '_I I �a y I �
7
' �0 6o M � �? Q ' �y ��� � ¢ o I r5� 92Dk. � • •
5pl IB9� 9,o ���� � ii31" � � Ii8.39 +oG ioo .g.'� '� � O
rt�4763 •:3»' . -- � -- ���.2�. I85'14 • 2i9.39 � �\
3��, i2,; aoY • `� M � � • o''° � `9� ' Z
t � >�..z ' o , aP O o=? �5
v�0,�0 _- �;' ! � �i � ; ' (V r' W • �,;' ° � a �rrw��'O�o p.�`o. j,`' S' �
r ' h "
A
r � � 0 ' • ---� a�2�.P�^ ,�°n r' � '� e� ��� -
� rzsoz , '�6 i s v ��_ ;',p' � ,
� 3 � 60� o � .; � qp � � �� � .
CY�;o - �- "'�'o, a } .0
;a�.e9 0 ��8 �, a v1 � ;� _ Y,� ' •ao N : °Z • ��, v o • � y O� ,o, y'' ti :I �v
Vv, • qi- .° / � � u-�'
0 4 0� A � ,• �2soc . O --'i8.1°- iz3.Z" ,� �° .; � �° i I �
►� r v. : ` " � . � � � 130 3 193.'.B .f, M.9o.0 M J ¢
: � '� � rn o , y� _ � • , [4�
o�o ITI�� qg 9.'��o° , �D � 4. N� - i O� � � h � � Oti' �,�� � j •
m � ,a �. - `, • " � o `t:�` N
�96of 9i =t� 1?90 h � '+��Q N `Q�.t_ �'=b� v L9/-273 � LL'
���+�, J Q .5. iY3.�; (Y�.�_ p__ ti N c •
.�jLLM \ � v. N ` 'r � Z ' � ,�: °� �,
�: f3C 127J � � _ o � � e
� �� �.�9 4�P.��'�' , 0 0 3' o O 'o `�1' No� h ' � a u � r�Z � ti,��'.
"�o r � : ry _ � - � � "S'.�' Nor+h �.o � I ,yM`-
' ti - O � O u�i �� � "` G � . �t o`�_ . I �
5�i'la ��� a, � ,w� I 0 � � a' 118. 2 113.Z' 4 0 - �� RiN C�_ ' ' Ne �; ' ��. ''
, ��G �. -.1r�c � �r h r°, o �4'.o°i3'oE. . - � +,g�� � - -bf E9_ � _�or� oti
594. � i0lO! � ' A'OiC�C{. �
ioo - �c� - �- p6oy� •_ �_ �o tio CK`' "' L'�L ,,\0 M,9o.ok �
��.J.7� . �4°ZO� P2 � �'��• '�` � o- ^�Q, d. �b,�' F'a� �L �0.•.0 �p`p'
� � .� 15 .33 ` N �E•59o3�'S4'E 0 k
q�.t5 0
� � � h � " 414 2••�� :e '���,� pb' .. IG2�� •O�O d
�0� w - �ie v �� o •R.'193:3 2.,3_ �o �+` N I t,
�0� 4.:c Q3t ; T J. ��b 3S � ;3 ��� Z.'T•�J.�' �� � �.
� � c1•"l�oi Z •' Z ° #17
3 s o � �:� � ' ,3 F LOT 5 s y�{��t
, ioo � wo T� � � . =� � ...�.�.�E-_ PART � -__".� '�►�ir �
;�e;�� .����:� ��e�o� o Q .. �5 L� 6 ---� tn d�
� � � "'�.�''y C,.6� r;�.�3 ' PAAT 0�-••d2�... SPi 4n ,..
Q . 4zo.-i . .cei :ia•.�_ o-a.
, oa o•_ IDJ io1.1 9 . - -
o� +^,-5(-�,�,��-- -- -- - - -- - _tL2.d CiTY O� tDEN' �73'8 '
rnt pe�- - - r t�1 ..,P �•'3 �r_ °A� _,,:- ..... : .,... • -
�e -,� of_- ��E - � VOLIEY < 0 +�I
.�5 /$� fe•' �' z".3 �'� ro _ 05.� �4o rpq i <:
5Be ;��� o � � .�1. o. R��B�.� ?.�t d'
a� _
_ _ __- -- v �ti�`��� ! 20S � � �3°q s � 6.B .S.• �
� � 'e,i - 45., 10.�6 - , I
/i E
(;g25:�_ �ti1.,ti'.�?�'�"'�' ?es� ;��� "__, �� j z,z:;z� , �,-s
�- - o o �d ME
N o ,,� s,z .-
N • o '
N � %44.5 'a s' e e w 5
Ot-, �a ��n �*�c,�; �Z�o!^ u.S�
`V �� � I
� � � 16
211.6 Z a • � �S6s, y °9 . �' •e ��
�Q N N �/ � O `b � N.
e � "�� � �pP � �� ,�
O � �' N �.y � N r�`'� y \6' «
�+ � "+ ��, y� ,9\�,
� _II&-- �~y O � fA
i16.i5 =NO �fQ r�
� ,�P�� �� o
° TRA� � '� _ - ,° �\° `/'� e
� �o.- - • GJ N °� � � ;
P
,� 188.5 : � °�� °9 i.
�- r ti hy �
h � .�� � . ^b �l0 � ;
� � N Q �d: :'�•`� a •'�•h � ��'.�� � ��j$ �o
� - � �y '� +~ :
� ^ d I
O n ~ � J �� � � N o: ~\�
0
�� C �c OSEM17E1�E• 5.z •'.os "� ' :�a z,f '� • N� _ D
� i �.. 18s-ze? y "�0• Z5�-_ J �- ^
� 4e' ii� 0 9 6�. t5 �0 22 . 8 , :?s� ,
I � V 4b � �p5 ' ,R.531 55 205 � 5� 90 J i
' I �y ' °� ' p� ,�,�� .3`���� 0'10'09 ZD. �J`.2� �� �S 1
I w � ' .. s �55 5s)'34a �o� 38 S�`9 '
. . . . .� - - f • • .
. ; • _ • : . �
,,. + ' �
. � � , " �.���,��_=._-_:_._--�-�.. .
� � ,�`. • , i • .
, . ` ' ' � t':' ,:A4 �- � < q .
wt
� - 1 ,� �. • '` 4 �
i _. �-� �� � : .
. � ____.�._ _
. . �
. - - � :n
� _ � � __
�
_ .�___
, ,
; :
;
;
ja i , "
; � �
' , ' ' ��. �i
. - ' . � ; Z
. y, � . . . � �
` �=��3� : Q-
- , ��;°_ . '.� ' �
+ ��
. 4 �� ��'
; - . �:�
. , . ��
. � i �; •
- ! ♦,i
� ' 4�
�
• ! '
� ��
� � � � ' -
; ` i
I `
� ��� .�
~' . S `y' -
' ' ='` :
! _ t`: .
I �..
. ..�,
;
. . ! . �►
1 L;,
�
I �y
' . - � ,
. � �
�
� �
(
i
1
i
. �
. �
�
f
i
. 1_______..f ----- - ------�----- --- ,
•
August 26, 1986
Golden Valley Planning Department
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN. 55427
Ref. : PUD 54 (Zero lot-line division of property at
285 - 287 Yosemite Avenue, Golden Valley)
The sewer and water utility service billing will be divided
• equally by the owners of said property.
;, _=A �l� ���.,�'
Russell A. Sovde
���� �
Doris L. Sovde
•
September 3, 1986
• T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission
FROM: Alda Peikert, City Planner
SUBJECT: Year 2010 Planning
Discussion topics for the next Year 2010 planning session include the following:
1. Selection of issues for discussion at the Centennial Town Meeting
2. Continuation of Year 2010 planning item reviews
3. Methods of prioritizing Year 2010 planning items
Discussion Issues for Centennial Town Meetin
Attached is a report prepared by Commissioner McAleese on the first meeting of
the Centennial Town Meeting Committee. Commissioner McAleese solicits Planning
Commissioner assistance with assignments for the next Committee meeting includ-
ing collection of historical photographs and identification of issues for
discussion at the town meeting.
Continuation of Year 2010 Planning Item Reviews
Attached are an updated Year 2010 planning item list and updated Year 2010
• planning item review sheets. All planning items for which review sheets have
been prepared are marked with an asterisk on the planning item list. Planning
item review sheets include comments added by Planning Commissioners other than
the originators. Planning item review sheets are dated, and dates will be
changed when comments are added for clear identification of the latest version
of each sheet. Planning Commissioners are invited to add planning items to the
list, to submit review sheets on items not yet reviewed, and to submit additional
comments on review sheets already submitted. Planning staff will continue to
update the list and review sheets with new submittals.
Ideas for Prioritizing of Year 2010 Planning Items
Commissioner McAleese suggested at the last Planning Commission meeting that
Commissioners consider methods for prioritizing Year 2010 planning items. As
an example, Commissioner McAleese offered the idea of assigning each Commissioner
100 priority points to be allocated to planning items as each Commissioner
chooses.
Attachments:
1. September 2, 1986 Memorandum from Kevin McAleese
2. Year 2010 Planning Item List
3. Year 2010 Planning Item Review Sheets (18 Sheets)
�
� Toa Planninq Commission and Staff
Froma Kevin McAleese
Datea September 2, 1966
R�a Gentennial Town Meeting
7he first me�ting of the Centennial Town Meeting Committee
was held on August 28. In addition to council members
Thompson and Hakken, the committee included one
representative from each city advisory commission �nd
�tanding committee, and the city manager. I have highlighted
below ao�e of the issues di�cuaaed and deciaiona made during
the m��ting.
The date of th� Town meeting was changed from Octob�r ib to
Thu�sday, �ovember i3. �Th3s change must be approved by the
Council, but it seems likely they will do so. ) Two reasons
for this changea i) MNDOT will be doing some work in Ortober
on the I-394 (Hwy 1�I interchange at Glenwood Parkway, so
access to the Prudential �uilding will be difficultp and 2>
the original date was too close to permit �easonabl�
planning for the meeting.
The meeting will �r►� be televised live over the cable
system. The event will be videotaped, and an edited version
of that video will be broadcast at a later date. The
� pr3ncipal reason for this decis3on is that the city staff
members who have been planning the town meeting assumed the
use of a taped broadcast. No arrangements have been made to
seture the mobile TV studio for s live brosdcast� or to
t�ain a sufficient number of t�chnical support types. While
the change in the town meeting date might permit theae
activities, the overwhelming majority of the organiaing
committee supported the idea of a taped (and heavily edited)
broadcast.
Prior to the town meeting, the City wiil meil to all
household� (and include as an insert of th�e GV Post) a flyer
informing people about the meetfng. Exact content� of the
flyer have not been determined, but it wfil include a form
for 2010 topics. Forms will also be available at the door
the n3ght of the meeting.
The format for the meeting has not been chosen. Total length
for the m�eting and recept3on is assumed to be 2.� hours
(7a40-9:3a) . The meetfng wiii open with a �hort slide
presentation including some hiatorical phatos. Second item
appears to be "H�r�'� �here we �r� now and her�'s the near
future. " �The �ear future would discuss items currently
planned„ such as the new pool* and Town Square. ) The
remainder of the meeting will emphasiae �010.
a
In addition to th� flyers to be mailed to all households,
• the committee hopes to encourage the local media �esp. GV
Post, Mpls Star & Tribune, and KARE) to give the meeting
free publ3city. It was suggest�d that we attempt to get
talent from KARE to sarve as moderator of the town meeting.
Becaus� the meeting will not be broadcast live, the�� will
be no phone bank. The taped broadcast, howeverA wili
encourage citiz�n input to th� 2410 process. (If the
broadcast times are controilable, it would be possible to
have people call a phone number included in the tape. )
Each member of the organizing committee waa given two action
itemsa
o Identify � issues worth diacusBing during the town
meeting. (These could be � of our 2410 ideas, o�
��neral pianning i�sues Buch a� the handling of the
I-394, Hwy 55, and Hwy 169 (100) corridors. )
o Locate historical photos of Gold�n Valley.
If you can help with these items, please let me know. The
next meeting of the organ3xational committee is S�ptemb�r
10.
�
•
9-3-86
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
BRAINSTORMING SESSION
� GOLDEN VALLEY IN 2010
July 14, 1986
A. Identity
*A1. Create Golden Valley identity
A2. Corporate and business identities say Golden Valley
*A3. Golden Valley school system within city limits
*A4. "Valleydale"
B. Beautification
*B1. Encourage city-wide beautification
*62. Underground utilities, i.e. power, telephone
63. Benches, flowerbeds and landscaping, especially Valley Square and creek
B4. Beautification of Bass�tt Creek
C. Land Use I
*Cl. Blending of uses vs: s�paration of uses
C2. Low city-scape profile.
C3. Well planned I-394 '
C4. Buy gasoline, get car repaired and get dry cleaning done
*C5. Preserve existing undeveloped open space (quantity) (zero balance)
� D. Housing
*Dl. Minimum of 10% of homes on the market made available to first time
homeowners
*D2. Neighborhood scale daycare
D3. Accessory housing (inter-generational )
D4. Maintain quality of housing stock
D5. Approved list of contractors, subcontractors
*D6. Neighborhood scale congregate elderly housing
E. Recreation
*E1. Full and balanced range of activities (outdoor pool , community center,
movie theater, etc. )
*E2. Safe pedestrian network and bikeways .
E3. Public access to Sweeney Lake and Twin Lake
E4. Horse stable at Brookview with bridle paths
E5. Horse manure turned into energy, heat, electricity, fertilizer
(Relates to E4)
E6. Open season on geese at Brookview
E7. Give us Wirth Park back
E8. Sell Wirth Park for $
I
�
F. Transportation
*F1. Efficient, local public transit system intra-city and inter-city
� F2. No new major arteries and bridge across major arteries to maintain
neighborhood
F3. Improve north-south access
F4. Easing of traffic on Winnetka by relocation of Post Office and
McDonald's within Valley Square area
G. Utilities/Services
G1. Infrastructure (utilities, etc. ) well maintained
" G2. Improve quality of drinking water
G3. Curb and gutter on every street
G4. Handicap accessibility to all sidewalks and public buildings
*G5. Curb-side pickup of recyclables and hazardous waste (regular pickup)
G6. Snow removal by snow melt system
*G7. Localize social services
*G8. Day care facilities adequate to meet demand
H. Public Safety
H1. All houses covered by "Crime Watch"
H2. Investigate crimes and analyze - no plea bargains
H3. Establish criminal justice diversion system
*H4. Establish neighborhood dispute resolution system (mediation board)
H5. Eliminate or control hazardous wastes and subsequent dangers
*H6. Valley Square area amendable to pedestrian traffic through use of stop
� lights and zig-zagging streets to discourage through auto traffic,
sidewalks on all streets, walkways between shopping centers and major
free-standing stores, and access to linear shopping center stores from
two directions
I. Economy
I1. 35,000 jobs by Year 2000 �
I2. Reduce property taxes by 50% - 75%
J. City Government
J1. Double citizen participation in government and increase citizen access
J2. Annual town meetings
J3. Enhance neighborhood communication
*J4. City documents readable
K. Miscellaneous
K1. Continuing education facility
�
' ' 9/3/86
YEAR 2010 PLANNING ITEM REVIEW FORM
ITEM: A1. Create Golden Valley Identit
• ADVANTAGES:
Pride and civic interest
Promotes a positive business climate
Encourages participation in local planning and activities for age groups
DISADVANTAGES:
IMPLEMENTATION:
Media and PR efforts
Encourage clubs, senior, Park and Rec to actively participate in local events
and support local merchants
Mini-bus service in local area
Consolidation into GV school district
•
CONFLICTS:
Expensive, advertising budgets of local shops is small and in competition with
the Dales
People see it as a bedroom community
Residents generally don't take pride in GV
INFORMATION:
OTHER:
�
8/25/86
YEAR 2010 PLANNING ITEM REVIEW FORM
ITEM: A3. Golden Valley School System Within City Limits
� ADVANTAGES:
City identity - School identity
Sense of neighborhood
Not as far to go to/walk to/bike to/bus to
Positive relationship to A1, E1, K1
DTSADVANTAGES: �
Property taxes
Site for a school?/GV Lutheran College?
Takes students away from other school systems
Bond issue to build new school/s
IMPLEMENTATION:
Study undertaken by City to analyze population trends in GV that relate
to change in ages in the City
. Planning Commission considers issue in long range planning
CONFLICTS:
I2 Reduce property tax
C5 Preserve existing undeveloped open space
iNFORMATION:
OTHER:
�
. ` 8/25/86
YEAR 2010 PLANNING ITEM REVIEW FORM
ITEM: A4. °Valleydale"
• ADVANTAGES:
Jobs
Shopping Convenience
DISADVANTAGES:
Traffic volumes
Possible increase in crime
IMPLEMENTATION:
Consider major shopping area in I-394 plans
Valley Square �rea development
•
CONFLICTS:
INFORMATION:
Marketing information
OTHER:
�
9/3/86
YEAR 2010 PLANNING ITEM REVIEW FORM
ITEM: B1. Encoura e City-Wide Beautification
• ADVANTAGES:
Adds to community pride, both residential and business
Helps maintain property values
Makes City attractive to new businesses and residents
Encourage pride in community
Uisual impact
Aesthetically uplifting
DISADVANTAGES:
No single central organizing authority in place
Cost
Maintenance
IMPLEMENTATION:
May need multiple sponsors
Establish a time-limited task force or commission to develop, plan and
make recommendations
Contact civic organizations for both manpower and donations - planning City-wide
Encourage businesses with competition or contests for visual improvements
• Send letter of commendation from Council for noticeable improvements
Seminars on beautification projects and costs
CONFLICTS:
INFORMATION:
How has it been accomplished in other communities
Check with local garden clubs in Metro area
U of M Extension
OTHER:
�
• ' 8/25/86
YEAR 2010 PLANNING ITEM REVIEW FORM
ITEM: B2. Underground Utilities
� ADVANTAGES:
Aesthetically pleasing
Prevent accidents (auto collisions, kites in lines, etc.)
DISADVANTAGES:
More costly than above ground utilities?
Installation in developed areas disruptive (noise, etc. )
Legal status - will it be necessary to purchase new easement rights?
Constitutional taking problem
IMPLEMENTATION:
City ordinance requiring underground in new developments
City jawbones utilities to go underground
City ordinance requiring all utilities underground (probably phased schedule)
•
CONFLICTS:
D1 (additional cost of utilities may increase home prices too much)
Maybe I2
INFORMATION:
What is cost of installation
- above vs. underground
- current vs. new developments
Maintenance costs?
Legal status (see above)
OTHER:
�
. .
8/25/86
YEAR 2010 PLANNING ITEM REVIEW FORM
ITEM: C1. Blending of Uses vs. Separation of Uses
• ADVANTAGES:
Flexibility and variety
Shared parking
Convenience of different uses in one location
DISADVANTAGES:
More complicated traffic/parking situations requiring attention to traffic
patterns
Need for more careful planning and for buffering between uses in order to
avoid land use conflicts
IMPLEMENTATION:
Implementation in near and medium term
by means of Zoning Ordinance provision for mixed uses
by means of promotion of mixed use developments in redevelopment districts
and by means of encouragement of mixed use developments in freeway corridors
�
CONFLICTS:
INFORMATION:
Research of mixed use development planning and ordinance provisions
OTHER:
•
y , 8/25/86
YEAR 2010 PLANNING ITEM REVIEW FORM
ITEM: C5. Preserve Balance Between Undeveloped and Developed Land
Preserve Existing Undeveloped Open Space
• ADVANTAGES:
Maintains quality of life
Provides environmental diversity within community
Aesthetic
Access to nearby open spaces for recreation/solitude
Most open spaces now owned by City - no new purchases necessary
DISADVANTAGES:
Limits development opportunities
�imits flexibility in planning
Costly to keep land off tax roll
Reduces potential tax base
Reduces land available for housing
IMPLEMENTATION:
Establish as part of comprefiensive plan, land use policy
Broad city-wide standard (e.g. maintain overall 15% of city as undeveloped
open space, unbuilt, with public access)
Need process for trading land (e.g. clear land now in use for access to
� undeveloped land)
Affirm City poliey to maintain all current parks and open spaces and possibly
buy additional (or acquire through land dedication)
CONFLICTS:
Conflicts with other goals such as increasing tax base, more low cost
housing, etc.
Development of property now in private ownership
Need for low/moderate income housing
INFORMATION:
Determine current percentage of open, undeveloped space
designated as open
undesignated, but currently undeveloped
Have other communities set similar standards, what has been their experience?
OTHER:
•
� � 8/25/86
YEAR 2010 PLANNING ITEM REVIEW FORM
ITEM: D1. 10% of Housing on Market Available to "New" Homeowners
. ADVANTAGES:
Facilitates flow of younger residents who can add vitality to community
By allowing natives of Golden Valley to buy their first home here, increases
community identity and spirit
Permits new buyers to achieve the "American Dream"
DISADVANTAGES:
Requires some form of interference with market forces or change in City zoning
attitudes
Some disadvantages seem alternative - specific (See attachment)
IMPLEMENTATION:
Alternatives:
No government action - let market forces function
Direct government subsidy
Reduce zoning code requirements to reduce cost of new housing
. Government/private partnership
CONFLICTS:
INFORMATION:
OTHER:
See attachments
.
Item D1 Implementation
�
�
ALTERNATIVE ia Take no action. Market f orces function '!
• unimpeded. 6overnment action limited to �awboning,
commending the actions of private developer-sa etc.
ADVANTAGESa
o IVo e�,pansion vf government power. Keeps government off
the backs and aut of the pockets of citi�ens.
o Avoids problem of unintended consequences. ,
DISADVANTAGES: I
o Market trends aperating in wrong direction. Price rises ,
tand current government policy) favar er.isting owner�s �
over new buyers. '
o Ma�or decline in market prices (which would make homes
affordable to first time buyers) probably requires
deterioration of existing homes. This would be bad for
the community generally, existing owners� and for the
buyers. !
IMRLEMENTATIONa 'I
o No actian required. i
COMFLICTSa Nane I
INFORMATION: None
�
-------------------------------------- I
ALTERNATIVE 2a Direct government subsidies available to new '�
huyers. ��,
�a) City pays direct cash subsidy to new hameowners: or I
2b> Other government unit pays subsidy; �r
LSubsidy might work like this: Government provides
�4c�,c]Ot7 subsi dy on �6t�,�3At� hom�. Covenants i n deed
prevent the home buyer from selling house in future for,l
more than �40,�� plus the increase in value o# the �
home abave #8�,t]t}U directly attributable to I
impravements made by the owner. That is, the awner I
cannot recover for an increase in value attributable !
solely to inflation� etc. 7
ADVANTAGES:
o Makes same homes available to new homeowners regardless
of marl�et trends.
o Assuming subsidy stays with the home tas in example) ,
ensures availability of low cost housing to future buyers'�,
� II
i
-1-
, , Item D1 Implementation
of same home. Avoids prablem of public owrtership tthe
"tragedy of the commons"> by placing �wner-'s capital at
� ris{;: pro�fit or loss an sale of house wauld be determined
by owne�'s treatment of house tand by market factors in
case of loss) .
DISADVANTAGESs
a Requires substantial investment by the gavernment.
(Requires robbi�g Reter to house Paul . )
o Increases government pawer.
o Subsidy may expose City to libility for in�uries on
property. Also„ Gity interest may be effected by fire
loss, etc.
IMPLEMENTATIONe
o City issues bonds to fund subsidies iLT) ; or
o City applies foF federal , state, county (private
in�titution?) funds iLT� ; and
o City establishes program for administering subsidies.
tLT)
CONFLICTSa I2
INFORMATiONa
o How large do subsidies need to be?
o Can City liability be controlled? Other legal issues'�
• OTHERa
o Consider possiblity of making the subsidy a low int�rest
mortgage instead of a lump sum grant. Fayments could be
delayed until new homeowner has established himself or
herself, and could af�ord monthly payment.
--------------------------------------------------------�---
ALTERNATIVE 3a Reduce zoning and building code
requirements.
ADVANTAGES�
o I�ermits developers to build lower �ost new housing.
tE.g. , lower lot si�e means less costly lots; eased
building code would allow use of less costly materials
and techniques. )
a Reduces government tinkering with market mechanism.
o No government ttaxpayer) money required.
DISADVANTAGESa
o Resulting housing would be smaller, cheaper, probably
less attractive than currently faund in the city.
o To the extent that existing requirements protect the
health and welf are of residents, this would �e a step
0
-�-
, , Item D1 Implementation
bac��ards.
o Cu�rent residents may ob;ect on standa�d �oning change
� grounds (reduction in price of their homes,
unsightliness, etc) .
o Change daesn't guarantee housing for target group.
iMPLEMENTATIOW=
o City reviews existing codes, reduces r�quirements ta
minimum campatible with general health and welfare of
cammunity. iNT)
CONFLICTS: None
INFORM�TIONa
a What are current requirements (including building code)?
Hoa► much can these be reduced?
o Can City act by itself or are some requirements imposed
by state'?'
OTHERa
o In lieu of changing requirements throughout City, it
might be feasible to esta6lish "code reduced"
redeyelopment districts, especially in the areas where
e:.i st i ng i�ousi ng stoc k: has deter i orated.
-----------------------------------------------------------
� ALTERNATIVE 4a Establish overnment! rivate
g p partnership.
For example, create a non-profit (quasi-public?? corporation
to establish a communit}+ land trust.
(I need to research this idea more thoroughly bef ore
continuing. )
�
-�-
� � 8/25/86
YEAR 2010 PLANNING ITEM REVIEW FORM
ITEM: D2. Nei hborhood �cale Da care
� ADVANTAGES:
Convenience for working parents
Children able to remain in own familiar neighborhoods with friends and able
to attend same schools with neighborhood children
Supports working parents
DISADVANTAGES:
Need for rehabilitation of existing residence or construction of new facility
IMPLEMENTATION:
Implementation over near and medium term
Requiring Zoning Ordinance provision for other than home daycare in Residential
Districts
With use of grant funds for establishment of demonstration projects
• CONFLICTS:
INFORMATION:
Information on grant programs
OTHER:
•
e s
8J25/86
YEAR 2010 PLANNING ITEM REVIEW FORM
ITEM: D6. Neighborhood Scale Congregate Elderly Housing
• ADVANTAGES:
Elderly unable/unwilling maintain own homes able stay in familiar neighborhoods
near friends/family
Elderly able maintain natural support systems established in own neighborhoods
Encouragement of elderly to move to congregate housing opening up neighborhood
housing for families
DISADVANTAGES:
Need for rehabilitation of existing residence or construction of new congregate
residence
IMPLEMENTATION:
• CONFLICTS:
INFORMATION:
Information on grant programs/other demonstration projects
OTHER:
•
4 �
8/25/86
YEAR 2010 PLANNING ITEM REVIEW FORM
ITEM: E1. Full and Balanced Ran e of Activities
• ADVANTAGES:
Gonvenience
Civic Pride
Quality of Life
DISADVANTAGES:
Bond Issues for Public Capital Improvements
Property Tax Hike?
IMPLEMENTATION:
GV Lutheran College site
Development of Valley Square potential
I-394 plans?
�
CONFLICTS:
Some conflicts with private enterprise
INFORMATION:
OTHER:
•
s I
9/3/86
YEAR 2010 PLANNING ITEM REVI�W FORM
. ITEM: E2. Safe Pedestrian Network and Bikeways and H6: Valley Square Traffic
ADVANT�GES:
Makes stores and offices more accessible to pedestrians
Makes walking safer (especially for elderly in nearby housing)
Reinforces "small town" atmosphere
Beautifies downtown area and makes Golden Valley more pleasant to live in
Reduces auto pollution by encouraging walking and biking
Healthful activities should be encouraged
Safety of participants
Encourage citizens to be active and give opportunity to mingle activities
DISADVANTAGES:
Cost
Inconvenience to motorists on Winnetka
Must be approved by County Department of Transportation
Finding the space
Bikes and people and skateboards and dogs don't mix
IMPLEMENTATION:
Redesign path of Winnetka during Valley Square Redevelopment
� Encourage local garden clubs to maintain beddings
Mark adequate crosswalks across Winnetka; mark bicycle lanes
Construct sidewalks on all new and redeveloped roads
Encourage strip shopping centers to remodel for two-sided access - possibly tax
incentives
Set up group or commission to look for places which would be safe for citizen
activities
Try a marked trail for joggers and walkers in several areas of City
Examine current bikeways and walkways
Paint lines on streets
CONFLICTS:
Safety on public roads
Intersections are dangerous
Major arteries to be crossed are difficult
Where do people want to walk, bike and jog?
INFORMATION:
Traffic and accident information along Winnetka
Park and Recreation Department, here and elsewhere - how they manage these
activities and encourage them
• OTHER:
i �
8/25/86
YEAR 2010 PLANNING ITEM REVIEW FORM
ITEM: F1. Efficient, Local Public Transit System Intra-City and Inter-Cit
� ADVANTAGES:
Better access to local services and businesses by non-driving public
Less dependence on cars
Less costly for low and moderate income people than taxis
DISADVANTAGES:
Cost
Low density of population makes routing difficult
IMPLEMENTATION:
Contract w9th existing private transportation
Campaign to run fleet of minivans from higher density housing areas to main
Golden Valley shopping areas - possibly 6 tours/day over 3 separate routes
P.R. campaign to gain public support
•
CONFLICTS:
INFORMATION:
OTHER:
Could be City owned and operated
•
� 9/3/86
YEAR 2010 PLANNING ITEM REVIEW FORM
ITEM: G5. Curb-Side Pickup of Recyclable & Hazardous Waste (Regular Pickup)
• ADUANTAGES:
Land-fill at a premium must recycle
Reuse whatever can be recycled
Safety
Make it easy for citizens to obey law
DISADVANTAGES:
Expensive and/or time-consuming
IMPLEMENTATION:
Try a pilot project in certain neighborhoods
Ask industry to be site for waste disposal (pesticides, paint products, etc. )
Publish availability of sites for leaf and grass disposal
Neighborhood composts
CONFLICTS:
• Lack of cooperation
Too busy - too lazy -- uninformed
INFORMATION:
Use newspaper, City mailings (water bills)
OTHER:
�
. �
8/25/86
YEAR 2010 PLANNING ITEM REVIEW FORM
ITEM: G7. Localize Social Services Provision
. ADVANTAGES:
Increases accessibility to citizens
DISADVANTAGES:
Cost to service providing agencies to decentralize
IMPLEMENTATION:
Would require influencing planning of many public and private agencies
CONFLICTS:
•
INFORMATION:
What is current utilization of various social services by GV citizens?
Is accessibility really an issue for GV?
OTHER:
Improved accessibility can be achieved through various means
1. Locate services in GV, in nearby suburbs
2. Improve transportation
3. Better information on availability of services
�
A ` 8/25/86
YEAR 2010 PLANNING ITEM REVIEW FORM
iTEM: G8. Daycare Facilities Adequate to Meet Demand
• ADVANTAGES:
Proximity to home
Sense of neighborhood/extended family
Less worry for parents and children
DISADVANTAGES:
Neighborhood opposition because of noise, traffic, health?
IMPLEMENTATION:
Help family daycare homes to meet strict building code requirements by
providing grants or considering other options to the problem that are just
as safe.
i
CONFLICTS:
INFORMATION:
OTHER:
•
, 4
8/25/86
YEAR 2010 PLANNING ITEM REVIEW FORM
ITEM: H4. Establish Neighborhood Dispute Resolution System
� ADVANTAGES:
Permit non-judicial but effective system for resolving disagreements between
neighbors, within families, etc.
No need for government to expand - government role is to inform citizens of
existing programs
DISADVANTAGES:
IMPLEMENTATION:
City Council members research existing mediation provides (st)
Council , staff, various citizen bodies inform disputants of the available
services (st)
Establish working relationship with providers
•
CONFLICTS: .
INFORMATION:
What services are available?
At what cost?
OTHER:
Note 1: A number of existing providers would also perform mediation for
criminal justice diversion (#3) if asked
Note 2: City might consider using mediation to resolve its disputes
�
� � 8/25/86
YEAR 2010 PLANNING ITEM REVIEW FORM
ITEM: J4. Make City Documents Readable
ADVANTAGES:
�
Make it easier for average citizen to understand City documents (ordinances,
etc. ) and deal with City (increase citizen access)
Restore sense of government of, by and for the people rather than government
vs. the people
DISADUANTAGES:
Increased legal fees - City Attorney would be required to spend more time
drafting instruments (no more formbooks) ; also, plain language documents may
be more subject to attack than standardized (blessed by the courts) legalese
Understandable documents more likely to inspire citizen reaction
IMPLEMENTATION:
(st) City mandates that all future versions of ordinances, resolutions,
regulations, be written in plain English
(st) City orders City Attorney to draft contracts, development agreements, etc.
in plainest feasible English (use of legalese left to attorney's
discretion)
City orders revision of existing ordinances, resolutions, regulations
• CONFLICTS:
I2 (potential increase in legal costs incompatible with reduction of tax
revenues)
INFORMATION:
OTHER:
Note: Rationale for permitting attorney discretion in drafting contracts, etc.
is that these are generally between legally sophisticated parties (indeed,
generally represented by attorneys) and the use of legal jargon does not
represent as great an impediment to understanding as in the case of an ordinance
intended to govern the conduct of average citizens.
Nifty Idea: As continuation of GV Centennial or in celebration of 200th
birthday of U.S. Constitution, City appoints citizen commission to review GV
City Code, update for coherence and readability. Project might ask for student
participation, etc.
�},