The URL can be used to link to this page

05-09-83 PC Agenda , _ ._ ... .. -._ .. . . - -�' T-.. .. . . . _..' .. �� ` GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION �j (Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road) '� May 9, 1983 7:00 P.M. � � AGENDA i 1 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 25, 1983 � i { 1 . SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT i � APPLICANT: Steve Meyer and Henry Meyer I LOCATION: 8000 Olson Memorial Highway REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Class II Restaurant I in a Commercial Zoning District i ,� III . INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT � APPLICANT: Amoco Oil Company LOCATION: 900 Memdelssohn Avenue North ' REQUEST: Preliminary Plat Approval for "Standard � Oil 3rd Addition" � IU. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITtONAL USE PERMIT ', I APPLICANT: Medicine Lake Lines ; LOCATION: " 9125 lOth Avenue North `! REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Bus Storage � Yard in an industrial Zoning District � V. REVIEW OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ; i � :i VI . DISCUSSION OF ACCESSORY APARTMENTS il i i I VII . DISCUSSION OF 1984 OPERATING BUDGET � I ��I VIII . REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MAY 3� 1983 ' � I i , IX. REPORT ON PACAC MEETING - APRIL 26, 1983 ; i � . � I _ ; � � i ; �_ ___ - _ ----------�-�.�<� .,. �--- J MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN YALLEY � P LANNING COMMISSION � April 25, 1983 A regular meeting of the Planning Comnission was held in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. C hairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. T hose present were Comnissioners Forster, Leppik, Polachek, Prazak, Singer, Thompson and Tubman. Also present was Alda Peikert, Assistant Planner. I . Approval of Minutes - April 11, 1983 I t was moved by Co►rani ssi oner Forster, seconded by Comni ssi oner Si nger and c arried unanimously to approve the minutes of the April 11, 1983 Planning Comnission meeting as recorded. II. Set Date for Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat APPLICANT: Amoco Oil Company L OCATION: 900 Mendelssohn Avenue North REQUEST: Preliminary Plat Approval for "Standard 0 i 1 3rd Addi ti on" � C hairman Thompson introduced this agenda item. It was moved by Comnissioner Tubman, seconded by Comnissioner Polachek and c arried unanimously to set an informal public hearing date of May 9, 1983 for consideration of the Preliminary Plat of "Standard Oil 3rd Addition", which p roposes division of the 12 acre Standard Oil site located at 900 Mendelssohn Avenue North into two lots each 6 acres in size. III. Set Date for Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: Me dicine Lake Lines L OCATION: 835 Decatur Avenue North REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Outside Bus Storage in the Industrial Zoning District. Chairman Thompson introduced this agenda item. It was moved by Comnissioner Leppik, seconded by Comnissioner Singer and c arried unanimously to set an informal public hearing date of May 9, 1983 for consideration of the Conditional Use Permit requested by Medicine Lake Bus Lines for outside storage of buses on a six acre parcel of land which Medicine Lake Bus Lines proposes to purchase f rom Standard Oil and add to its site � located at 835 Decatur Avenue North in the Industrial Zoning District. Planning Correnission Minutes A pril 25, 1983 ' Page 2 � � '' IV. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning APPLICANT: David A. Reinke L OCATION: 9025 - 23rd Avenue North REQUEST: Change Zoning from Residential (Single Family) to Two Fami ly (R-2) Resi denti al Zoni ng Di stri ct C hairman Thompson introduced this agenda item and explained the Planning Comnission informal public hearing procedure for the benefit of residents attending the hearing. Chairman Thompson then asked for Planning Comnissioner questions of staff. Comnissioner Prazek asked whether there are any doubles other than those in Kings Valley in the neighborhood of the subject site. Staff confirmed that there are no other doubl'es in the immediate vicinity of the sub�ect site. Comnissioner Thompson recognized the proponent, Mr. David Reinke, and asked whether he wished to add any information. Mr. Reinke stated that he did not h ave any i nformati on to add. C hairman Thompson opened the informal public hearing for public input. � M r. Tom Zins, 8925 - 23rd Avenue North, stated that there is a rationale for establishing zoning and that reasons for establishing single family residen- tial zoning include preservation of the ambience of a neighborhood, control of p opulation density in an area and maintenance of property values. Mr. Zins offered his opinion that an exception should not be made for the subject lot located within an establ,ished single family residential neighborhood. Mr. Zins continued with the 'observation that good planning makes use of buffers between single family residential development and main arterials in the manner in which Kings Valley provides a buffer between County Road 18 and the ad,ja- c ent single family residential neighborhood. Mr. Zins observed that there is a definite division between the single family r�sidential neighborhood and Kings Valley formed by a creek between the two areas and reinforced by the f act that the road does not run through between the two areas. Mr. Zins concluded that there should be good reason for a rezoning and that he sees no good rationale for a change to R-2 in the case of the subject lot. Mr. Zins a dded that the rezoning would add traffic to a street alreac4y busier than he likes due to the location of the park at the end of the street. He also cautioned that rezoning of the subject lot could set a precedent for conver- sion of other homes in the area to two family dwellings. M r. Paul Anderson, 2233 Ensign Avenue North, expressed concern over lack of information on the type of structure to be built on the subject lot. Mr. Anderson stated that he �is not against the proposed rezoning to R-2 but is concerned over potential', drainage problems resulting f rom development of the p roperty. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the subject property is low and that � Planni ng Comni ssion Mi nutes April 25, 1983 Rage 3 � there is a high water table problem in the area. Mr. Anderson speculated that development of the subject lot would necessitate raising the ground level and that alteration of the lot could cause water problems for adjacent homeowners. M r. Richard Larsen, 9036 Elgin Place, stated that his lot abuts the southern p roperty �ine of the subject lot. Mr. Larsen stated that the water table in the area has risen sinc2 he constructed his home in 1969 due to subsequent development of surroundjng properties. According to Mr. Larsen, tests taken a t the time of construction of his home confirmed no water to a depth of six f eet. Presently the wa�er table is one foot below the slab of his home. Mr. Larsen asked whether neighbors would have any input concerning the type of building to be constructed on the subject lot. Staff stated that following rezoning a developer may construct any building which conforms with the restrictions for the zoning district, including setback requirer�nts and height limitations. Neighbors have no input at the time the building permit is issued. Staff pointed out that even when a developer submits a construc- tion plan with a rezoning application, the owner or subsequent owner is not � bound to that specific plan following the rezoning. Mr. Larsen indicated agreement with clarification offered by Co mnissioners that his concern over water problems would be the same under either Residential or R-2 zoning and that he questions whether the lot should be developed under either zoning classification. � Comnissioner Polachek noted that the Planning Comnission may recomnend appro- val of the proposed rezoning and at the same time request that the City Engineer inspect the property to determine whether development could take place without causing water problems for neighboring homeowners. Comnissioner P o�achek further pointed out that it is accepted that a developer is respon- sible when land alterations create problems for ad,jacent property owners. M r. Larsen asked whether the proponent, Mr. Reinke, would be able to obtain a tax abatement if it were determined that his property is unbuildable. It was confirmed that application for an abatement would be appropriate in such a case. M r. Stan Hansen, 9050 Elgin Place, stated that he has no problem with the pro- posed construction of a double unit. He stated that his concerns are that the s tructure conform in appearance to other residences in the area and that potential water problems are recognized and considered. M r. Dave McCunn, 8930 - ',23rd Avenue North, stated that he has lived at his current address in the neighborhood since 1961. Mr. McCunn stated that once a p roperty i s rezoned the 'nei ghborhood resi dents rr�st 1 i ve wi th any probl ems created by the rezoning and he feels that any breaking of the single family residential precedent far the neighborhood must be done very carefully. Mr. McCunn pointed out that 'there are a number of four and five bedroom colonial s tyle homes in the neighborhood, including his own home, and that families in these homes are reaching the age where children will be leaving. He specu- lated that future requests for conversion of these homes to two family � Planning Comni ssion Mi nutes April 25, 1983 Page 4 � dwel l i ngs coul d fol l ow a fi rst break i n precedent resul ti ng f rom rezoni ng of the subject lot to R-2. C hairman Thompson closed the informal public hearing. Comni-ssioner Singer stated that he wished to note for the information of resi- dents present for the informal public hearing that a later topic of discussion on the Planning Commission agenda would be the question of utilization of underoccupied single family homes. In response to an informal question from the audience concerning the placement of restrictions on the sale of the subject lot, Comnissioner Polachek explained that the only possibility for restriction would be by means of a restrictive covenant placed on the lot by the current owner. Co mnissioner Polachek noted that restriction by the City would approach censorship and that such restric- tion would not be within the purview of the Planning Comnission. Commissioner Tubman observed that a builder intends his development to be marketable and that it is unlikely a developer would build something bizarre or divergent from the surrounding neighborhood. Comni ssi oner Leppi k stated for the i nformati on of resi dents attendi ng the informal public hearing that the City of Golden Valley does not at this time � have an ordinance provision for conversion of single family homes and that without a change in the City code ar�y requests for conversion would be turned down. Comnissioner Leppik asked the proponent whether he has attempted to sell the subject lot as a single family home site. Mr. Reinke replied that he placed the lot on the market as a potential double unit site. Comnissioner Tubman asked whether there are any other vacant potential double unit lots in the area. Co mnissioner Prazak confirmed that there are no other available lots in the neighborhood, and Commissioner Tubman concluded that the lack of other potential double unit sites eliminates the precedent question. C hairman Thompson stated that in his opinion Kings Valley is not close enough to the subject lot to be relevant to the proposed rezoning. Chairman Thompson pointed out that Kings Valley is separated f rom the single family residential neighborhood and that 23rd Avenue North does not go through to Kings Valley. CHairman Thompson stated that he is not prone to allow construction of one duplex in a single family residential neighborhood and that he prefers to maintain the integrity of the single family residential neighborhood. Comnissioner Leppik moved that the Planning Comnission recomnend that the City Council deny the request received f rom Mr. David Reinke for rezoning of his vacant lot located at 9025 - 23rd Avenue North from the Residential (Single Family) to the Two Family (R-2) Residential Zoning District to allow construc- tion of a duplex based on the premise that there should be a compelling reason � Planning Co�nission Minutes Apri 1 25, 1983 P age 5 � f or a rezoni ng and based on the fact that there i s no comp el l i ng reason for the proposed rezoning. Comnissioner Leppik added that if the lot proves to be u nmarketabl e as a si ngl e fami ly home si te, the rezoni ng request coul d be reconsidered. Comni�ssioner Prazak seconded the motion and stated that he supports the motion f or denial because the proposed rezoning would be an isolated incidence of rezoning within an area consistently single family. Comnissioner Singer stated that he sees a compelling reason for a recorrmen- dation of approval of the proposed rezoning in view of the need to fully uti- lize the limited amount of remaining vacant land within the City of Golden V alley. Comnissioner Singer offered a substitute motion that the Planing Correnission recommend City Council approval of the rezoning requested by Mr. David Reinke of his vacant lot located at 9025 - 23rd Avenue North from the Residential (Single Family) to the Two Family (R-2) Residential Zoning District to allow construction of a duplex with the stipulation that the owner, Mr. Reinke, place on the lot a restrictive covenant requiring construc- tion of a building comp atible with the surrounding neighborhood. Comnissioner Tubman stated that she concurred with Comnissioner Singer's , recommendation for approval of the proposed rezoning due to the fact that the rezoning would have a minimal impact on the neighborhood but that she had a � p roblem with the stipulation of a restrictive covenant. Correnissioner Forster seconded the substitute motion stating that he concurred with Comnissioner Singer's stated reason for supporting approval of the pro- posed rezoning but that at the same time he questioned stipulation of a restrictive covenant. Following Co►►�nnissioner and staff discussion concerning legality and advisabi- lity of requiring a restrictive covenant, a vote was taken on the substitute motion. The motion did not carry, with Commissioner Singer voting in favor and Correnissioners Forster, Leppik, Polachek, Praaak, Thompson and Tubman voting against the motion. C hairman Thompson asked for further discussion on the original motion recom- mending City Council denial of the rezoning based on lack of a compelling reason for rezoning. Comnissioner Prazak �oted that the rezoning request could be resubmitted if there should be evidence in the future of a compelling reason for the rezoning. Comnissioner Tubman stated that based on concern for maxirr�m utilization of the little buildab°le land remaining in Golden Valley and based on the minimal impact the proposed rezoning would have on the surrounding area, she favored approval of the rezoning request. � . Planning Comnission Minutes April 25, 1983 P age 6 � � Comnissioner Forster stated that he agreed with the points made by Comnissioner Tubman. Commissioner Forster pointed out that there could be no expansion of the double unit concept to other sites in the area unless there is a major change in the City Zoning Ordinance. Co mnissioner Forster concluded that he was against the recommendation for denial. A vote was taken and the motion failed on a vote of three to four. Those voting in favor of the motion were Conenissioners Leppik, Prazak and Thompson, and those voting against the motion were Corranissioners Forster, Polachek, Singer and Tubman. Comnissioner Polachek stated his support for approval of the proposed rezoning without stipulation of a restrictive covenant based on his feeling that the p roposed duplex would be a suitable transition between Kings Valley and the single family residential neighborhood and based on the fact that the proposed density would be no more than that results f rom the location of single family homes on lots half the size of the subject lot or smaller. I t was moved by Co�ni ssi oner Pol achek and seconded by Comni ssi oner Tubman to recorrunend City Council approval of the request received from Mr. David Reinke f or rezoning of his vacant lot located at 9025 - 23rd Avenue North from the Residential (Single Family) to the Two Family (R-2) Residential Zoning District to allow construction of a duplex. A vote was taken and the motion � carried by a vote of four to three. Those voting in favor of the motion were Comnissioners Forster, Polachek, Singer and Tubman, and those voting against the motion were Commissioners Leppik, Prazak and Thompson. V. Review of Capital Improvement Program C hairman Thompson introduced this agenda item and asked whether Corr�nissioners had comments on the Capital Improvements Program. It was determined that Comnissioners had questions concerning street projects in particular which require answers from the Director of Public Works. It was moved by Comnissioner Polachek, seconded by Comnissioner Singer and carried unanimously to defer consideration of the Capital Improvements Program until the next Planning Commission meeting and to ask the Director of Public W orks to provide the Planning Co►ranission with an overview and answer questions. VI. Recommendation of Implementation of the City Housing Policy Chairman Thompson introduced this agenda item and invited com�nents on the "Recommendation to the City Council for Implementation of Housing Policy" pre- pared by Chairman Thompson on behalf of the Planning Comnission. Comnissioner Singer stated that he felt the recommendation had been prepared by the person best qualified for the job, namely Chairman Thompson. . P 1 anni ng Corrani ssi on Mi nutes April 25, 1983 � Page 7 � I t was moved by Comni ssi oner Si nger, seconded by Comni ssi oner Prazak and carried unanimously to forward the "Recommendation to the City Council on Implementation of Housing Policy" as written to the City Council as the Planning Commission recommendation. Chairman Thompson stated that he would p repare a cover letter to go with the recommendation to the Council. VII. Discussion of Accessory Apartments C hairman Thompson introduced this agenda item and invited discussion. Several Planning Cormnissioners expressed desire for legal advice as to what restric- tions may legally and appropriately be placed on the addition of accessory apartments to single family residences. Co mnissioner Tubman offered for the next meeting materials received at the American Planning Association (APA) Conference in Seattle listing possible restrictions and the risks involved with each. Comnissioner Leppik stated that she has handouts received at the APA Conference concerning methods for approaching the community on provision f or accessory apartments. It was agreed to defer discussion of accessory apartments until the next Planning Comnission meeting and to distribute APA Conference materials on this subject. VIII. Report on City Council Meeting - April 19, 1983 Comnissioner Singer provided the Planning Comnission with a report on the • April 19, 1983 City Council Meeting. IX. Report on HRA Meeting - April 12, 1983 C hairman Thompson provided the Planning Corrunission with a report on the April 12, 1983 meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). X. Report on BZA Meeting - April 12, 1983 Co�nissioner Polachek provided the Planning Corronission with a report on the April 12, 1983 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Comnissioner P olachek reported that Hopkins Independent School District No. 270 revised the P reliminary Plat for "Meadowbrook School Addition" to enlarge Lot 2, site of the former school administration building proposed for sale for office use. The revision eliminated the need for several variances, including the variance f or 1 ot si ze. A copy of the revi sed Prel i mi nary P1 at was di spl ayed, and � Planning Commissioners expressed no objections to the revision. XI. Report on PACAC Meetings - April 5� and 12, 1983 Comnissioner Prazak, who represents the City of Golden Valley on the Urban Hennepin County Corrranunity Development Block Grant (CDBG) Planning Area Citizen Advisory Comnittee (PACAC) for Planning Area One, provided the Planning Comnission with a report on the PACAC meetings of April 5 and 12, 1983. Comnissioner P razak reported that the PACAC reviewed the CDBG Program propo- sals for nine communities including that of Golden Valley and that the PACAC � would prepare its recommendations at a meeting scheduled for April 26, 1983. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1983 P age 8 � � Comnissioner Prazak further informed the Cormnission that CDBG funds in the amount of approximately $200,000 will be available for reallocation and that guidelines for competition for these funds will be prepared and distributed. Corrrnissioner Prazak reported that in addition, funds for jobs will be available through the block grant process and that he volunteered to serve on a n advisory committee which will prepare recommendations to Hennepin County on dispersal of job funds. b XII. Discussion of 1984 Operating Budget Chairman Thompson reported that he received from the City Mayor a letter requesting suggestions for the 1984 Operating Budget of the City. Chairman Thompson asked whether Planning Comnissioners have any ideas to contribute. It was decided that the matter would be held over to the next Planning Comnission meeting to allow time for Planning Corr�nnissioners to give the question consideration. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M. � Respectful ly submi tted, D avid hompson, Chairman Margaret Leppik, Secretary � • T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 4, 1983 FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASS.ISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT � FOR CLASS II RESTAURANT AT 8000 OLSON MEMORIAL H�GHWAY IN A COMMERCIAL ZONI.NG DISTRICT Mr. Steve Meyer and Mr. Henry Meyer request a Conditional Use Permit to allow operation of a barbecued rib, chicken and beef take out restaurant in the Golden Valley Shopping Center located northwest of the intersection of Highway 55 and Winnetka Avenue North in a Commercial Zoning District. The take out barbecue operation is proposed for a cu�rently vacant space located to the rear of the central mall within the shopping center. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission set an informal public hearing date of May 23, 1983 for consideration of the Conditional Use Permit apptication received from Mr. Steve Meyer and Mr. Henry Meyer for operation of a Class II restaurant at 8000 Olson Memorial Highway within a Cor�nercial Zoning District. • AP:kjm . � T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 4, 1983 FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: INFORMAL .PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "STANDARD OIL 3RD ADDITON" Amoco Oil Company requests Preliminary Plat approval for "Standard Oil 3rd Addition", which proposes division of the 12 acre Standard Oil site located at 900 Mendelssohn Avenue North in an industrial Zoning District into two lots each 6 acres in size. The purpose of the proposed plat is to allow Amoco Oil Company to selltfie easterly six acre lot to Medicine Lake Bus Lines for use as a bus storage yard. Lot 1 of the proposed plat is the site of the existing Standard Oil building. The proposed new lot line is an adequate distance from the existing building but cuts a biacktop area behind the building shown as truck trailer parking area. The requ�red parking setback from a rear property line in the Industrial Zoning District is 10 feet. Plans for grading and reuse of Lot 2, proposed for sale to Medicine Lake Bus Ltnes, indicate proper setback on Lot 2, but a finished site plan for Lot 1 is not provided. The proponent should be aware that a 10 foot landscaped yard is required between the new lot line and parking area. • Lot 2 of the proposed plat is currently vacant property, part of which serves as storm water ponding area for the surrounding vicinity. Adequate provision for storm drainage and storm water holding area is crucial in preparation of the subjeet proposed plat. The preliminary grading plan provides storm water ponding based on City storage capacity requirements and acceptable to the City Engineer. However, area storm drainage involves the Northwestern Bell Telephone Company site immediately to the south on Mendelssohn t�venue, and the City Engtneer has not yet recetved verification of coordination required between consulting engineers worktng for Standard Oil and for Northwestern Bell . The City Engineer suggests that t6e City Council not set a hearing date. for considerati:on of the preliminary plat untit documentation of coordination between Standard 0il and Northwestern Bell on storm drainage is provided to the City Engi:neering DepartmentA Staff suggests that the Plenning Commission recommend City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat of "Standard Oil 3rd Additton", which proposes division of the Standard Oil site located at 900 Mendelssohn Avenue North. Staff will not place s�tting of a hearing date on the City Council agenda until the City Engineer is satisfied with coordination between Standard Oil and Northwestern Bell on storm drain�ge plans. AP:kjm Attachments: 1 . Site location map 2. Preliminary plat 3. Preliminary Grading Plan • �� Z ,�/ • °�° • • N h N Od8-01B 2 d�L—OSL fEl—OFL � � 70 iS bLS Fb' I£ b b'9LZ 09 66'6bE . ' I ao 0 � � SF6 'oN •3nd y` " anle�3o ; � q ,�� i '09b � BO'0 4 lCEFZ �LZ'9t Z'$S£ • � tF8 /OL WIj � i ? . � o • a�v 0 Q N N M a � (v �, I N ry Z� �+ - v, � I � � • , � �W � _�'c�'€�—— — °cz_��J——— o N ►..� =" I I `n , °c � 'J � m N N �r � w . — N � o. o � `D � � 0�? pp 2 N � N I W 0 � �`O Y 9F[ N � I � °c� J � /9L£9 ;� °Q y/�o�y o� � � Z Z o�- � � m U � I z Q '� N tj W °p � '–L N O� I � � �ti�p'� M90L L6'9LF !l'££b M�.OS�0/oJN I�"40£ - •Gy' £f N ... ��,'�' W – �Bt £6Z/'Oh'S�b Le'91t f aLt m �.V b� � '3 •. I/'9Bf' � • � M�OoON N Q ��o `7 •.F' I 's. O � �� „6 op �.. � F� /� � Z '� , , -n / � 6 Sd 960V'�i.0 � . s,s -? �, c� � /�- � �, f � � � s'�.�i � u� �� b � I � "t0 ' `..- /% _/� i 4 e�. � �,�.y j� r.� ��a v ° "'�'�°�� %1 N �w"'!i • � .� �V G� V� �i� s � � H �� o � � � � � � • a d. � P-, ^ , � � � � a Z � N _ ; pw�Bb,D.x N V� �, � I p• oe� ° I �..-►+�' 0 s�. � � ,/, O � I .�-� �o •a n/ • I ,a� `° «' o . � °� � � a •Q a 0� � � �� I ��, I y N N{ � � W � � 1 � ^ „ � I - ` �1 0 1� � v ' I �� ' n W I m� � O rn h � � o0 6�t � � p=_.. � v, i o ' a. h d�.v W oor � o� '`; J — if aZOS r � � oj9�; a6 Of 5f� � ,� � o � � a.o �, sr,lbZ05 J m �° V� ��V op O N � � N � � � Z �o � � t N O p � C� ti � �N M N O ' M N ��"` o - � W W N� p Z os T OyT- — `" h 3 . v6:p�' N N' �r I � � I V� ^ : �J F6 .,6s�g�^ 1 N �.r p� � �r �► �� 8•� a. -^' Z � o J �'_ 3�J �t3 . o .V ��o d ��1) , o, rr�� N$, e N�3 � ��Z � ��5� , �� N � 'Z ( • � r ♦ 4.r . s �4 � J a ' � � � . 0�'� "^ �d '�'L as Cil 4ZC 029 •"O �• i � 00 a��i—� • OL tOd : � y,h . ��° :: �rs;��p��a;e, uf�oN o •�° °I' Q v°� i, '►y� '.�r 1_� �1 tt M�"f ALS �� .. 3 --�-M oti.+ ,otv 1.Ir� •:7 • 006.. '�fi92 .... °• co uE� . �v i W �� z � � $ �w '� �� Z �Q� �� Z� a ec a � � I ��ha% '�1'dl c''i1.S I'"1C]NI �Z s �,��bn� ��rv�a-�o� ° � �� I , �� ------------------ ---;-- ` -u- }-� , f------s i�vzu _ � i.yzl- . OWOjQz � w voa i � � � � I }(`�-�QJ�nX�� 1 � �w �' 'J�VD � � �� . , �(l��/ Z i O ' r� � y? � S � Z i � I W a v � ' �r�. Q 1 i � i � \ � � '; � 1�l ; J � � � ' . � ; $ z � � � ' � ' � g ; . cl� 1 � � i ' i \ > � � � � � s \�� Q ; °� ; � � � � � , � � � � ' � � , ; , - � r-� , ' � , t , = , , ; ... ; ;' � � � " � � / t v I m � - j O-` --------�----=w=--f-� � ` �� ----- � � � � �i 3 t� � � t ,i k' � r--------�----------� - 1 � ' , � � _n m.�— . � � W . ' . � � > sl " .f~j � � � . , � � ' � ' � � � i � , � � � 2 " ' � ��:- � � � '�� ' � ' � � 9� � � � � � I --- � � � ' W �� ; ; �iz � �� N�Z � • 1 i , w� � et� . �� ; a 3 i � d ' ' O� ' � � � � �� i Z � I � � �� 3 J � i � Z Cp I �0 i � � � � � ' 1 I � ' � ' � ' i i � --� i i � I i i ' ' � i i I � i � J I i J I f, � '� � J I ! c" ' � � '� � � � , ��. � � � � . =��n8� � ; ; � � '�.l.i� g a � � �" Ca�vo� s ;3 J�1N1'107 - 8 „a C'ty0?J -- -__ �� --9I•i[L 7.00.0O.00N� �- Iilf10WI.1d 30 J�ll'7 • I ��dd� 11��1'dJlc�1.S1'1CiNl `°�m1 �� Hn. � �.,d�,r�i� �� i i� �t `t� ;a� : ' / i � m.orm � . _ � .m°°'Da s'�,°i" t �°°. ✓ 1 __________ _____ _ ______— —__—_ ' � i �6 8 17V��.1J. ') 1'�'7, — _ 1 -�� ' ' .u��.. __ '_� � O q� I ��g�''= 1 � F � - i � ' , � s�� °`��f ut . � � � � W \ \ 1 ' 1 8 1� ' �� C F� � + � � �� y \ \ � ' �� '� � - W � � , � � . \ \ f ' �� v � ` � � � � � � �� , � . � � s � a� � \ „ ' � , � • � � ' � � o�� s ; � ,,/ =. p- - � � 1 •.-.;� g W . Z ' � " - -=--� � t � � , � � ' ; ,= I" � i F -7 __�: � •� ' �� =�— -' � m � � � - , / / � /' i' : / �� I. . S �� itt� ' �' ' � � �� a� � � �, a� ; � � - � � � � ��''b•� ` '► I - �04r - I a oon i � •�',d,�, � �� '�� I�� ? � � � � � s� F � � t�- , �. � , ��, � � , � � � �. ' %� � 2. � �', �� y ? � � � _ , , , , , � ' � ,i a � ' � �' a i.� --- 5 ` s � � . � � . '� � � ; .� k� �. , ; . . � o� ; o� , �� , . � , $ , � ,� ,� � , � '� . � ' � ' . � � � -� �,�;� ;' � � , . , i J I E• � � � �b � � I \ �'�'e',J° —� \°��l ; I d � � I �~ \ � . ,�. I ; I °'''k.�„• „ � - _ �� I • � �0 1.a.n • , °`��a.." , o��) y 81 ��....s � � ad021 ;4 __ "_ __91•KC 7.00.W.0011^ �" Nlt'10W1�1d �O A117 . . T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 4, 1983 FROM: ALDA.��PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: INFORMAL PUBL.IC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MEDICINE LAKE BUS LINES BUS STORAGE YARD AT 9125 IOTH AVENUE NORTH IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT Medicine Lake Bus LPnes located at 835 Decatur Avenue North requests a Conditional Use Permit for establishment of a bus storage yard on a 6 acre parcel of land which Medicine Lake Bus Lines proposes to purchase from Standard Oil . The Conditional Use Permit application is submitted fn conjunction with a Preliminary Plat request received from Amoco Oil Company proposing division of the Standard Oil site located at 900 Mendelssohn Avenue North to allow sale of a lot fronting on JOth Avenue North to Medicine Lake Bus Lines. The site of the proposed Medicine Lake Lines bus storage yard is separated from the existing Medicine Lake Bus Lines facility at 835 Decatur Avenue North by a 20 foot wide strip of land owned by the City of Golden Valley. Medicine Lake Lines requests that the City of Golden Valley either deed the strip of land to Medicine Lake Lines to provide contiguous parcels or give Medicine Lake Lines an easement to allow bus access across the strip from the current Medicine Lake Lines site to the proposed bus storage yard. The City acquired the stfip of land from the State for a specified-- • purpose and may not sell it to another party. The only way to transfer the strip to Medicine Lake Lines would be to return it to the State, after which the State could sell the property to anyone, not necessarily Medicine Lake Lines. The preferable solution is City granting of an access easement over the strip of land, and approval of a Conditional Use Permit based on the proposed site plan should be conditional upon negotiation of such` an easement. The proposed bus storage yard is allowed only as a Conditional Use in the Industrial Zoning District in which the subject site is located. Section 7.03 6. of the City Zoning Code lists "off s.treet parking lots for adjacent Commercial or Industrial uses" as a Conditional Use. The proposed bus parking lot is on a separate parcel not immediately adjacent to or combined with the existing Medicine Lake Bus Lines site and therefore falls into the parking lot use category. Section 20.03 G. in the Conditional Uses Chapter of the City Zoning Ordinance stipulates that the Planning Commission shall make findings and recommendations to the City Council based on ten considerations, not necessarily given equal weight, when reviewing a Conditional Use Permit request. Review of the subject request for a Conditional Use Permit with respect to each of the ten factors listed by Ordinance follows: • • RE: Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for Medicine Lake Bus Lines Bus Storage yard at 9125 lOth Ave. N. in an Industrial Zoning District �4ay 4, 1983 Page 2 l . Demonstrated need for the proposed use. Medicine Lake Bus Lines provides the only bus service to downtown Golden Valley and to many parts of the City. Medicine Lake Lines has expressed willingness to expand service as required, such as with redevelopment of the Valley Square Central Business District. Medicine Lake Bus Lines provides an essential service to the community. 2. Consistency with th� Comprehensive Plan of the City. Long term land use designated for the subject site on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is Industrial . The proposed use is consistent with Industrial use and zoning. 3• Effect upon property values in the neighboring area. Adjacent properties are all in Industriat or Light Industrial use or are zoned for Industrial or Light Industrial use. Neighboring property values will not be affected by the proposed Industrial use. 4. Effect of any anticipated traffic generation upon the current traffic flow • and congestion in the area. There is currently no traffic congestion problem in the area of the subject site. Expansion of the existing Medicine Lake Bus Lines operation in the area is not expected to cause any traffic congestion problems. The proposed bus storage facility provides Medicine Lake Lines with an access point off of lOth Avenue North in addition to existing access off of Decatur Avenue North allowing for use of alternate points of entry into traffic. 5. Effect of any increases in population and density upon surrounding tand uses. The proposed use adds no population. 6. Increase in noise levels to be caused by the proposed use. The existing Medicine Lake Bus Lines operation causes no noise problems, and expansion of the operation is not expected to increase noise levels. 7. Any odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibration to be caused by the proposed use. The existing Medic.ine Lake Bus Lines operation causes no problems associated with odors, dust, smoke, gas or vibration, and expansion of the operation is not expected to create such problems. • RE: Informal Public Hering - Conditional Use Permit for Medicine Lake Bus Lines • Bus Storage Yard at 9125 lOth Avenue North in an Industrial Zoning District May 4, 1983 Page 3 8. Any increase in flies, rats, or other animals or vermin in the area to be caused by the proposed use. The proposed use would not cause any increase in flies, rats or other animais or vermin in the area. 9• Visual appearance of any proposed structure or use. Section 7.08 of the Industrial Chapter of the City Zoning Ordinance requi�res screening of outside equipment storage to prevent visibility from the street and from adjacent properties. The Landscape Planting Ptan submitted by the proponent for screening ofi the proposed bus storage facility was reviewed by the consulting landscape architect retained by the City. The landscape architect states in his review that the facility is adequately screened by berming and plantings on the north along lOth Avenue and that a combination of trees and shrubs adequately screens the facility on the south. However, the widely spaced trees on the eastern and western perimeters provide only seasonal and less than g0 percent screening. The addition of vines on the perimeter fences on the east and west is suggested to strengthen screening. Approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit should be conditional upon installation of � landscaping according to the plan with the addition of vines on the eastern and western perimeter fences. The landscape architect compliments the landscaping treatment in general , and the proposed bus storage facility should have a pleasing visual appearance. 10. Any other effect upon the general public health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents. The proposed use will not have any other effect on the publi�c health, safety or welfare. Review of the proposed bus parking lot use in view of the ten factors stipulated by Ordinance for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit results in favorable findings and indicates a favorable recommendation. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the Conditonal Use Permit requested by Medicine Lake Bus Lines for a bus storage yard located at 9125 lOth Avenue North in an Industrial Zoning District subject to the following conditions: 1 . Conformance with the Site Plan Sheet No. 2 dated April 7, 1983 prepared by t4cCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. 2. Installation of landscaping in accordance with the Landscape Planting Plan Sheet No. 4 submitted by Roy A. Anderson, Wehrman Consultants Associated, Inc. , on April 13, T983, with the addition of vines on the eastern and western perimeter fences. • • RE: Informal Public Hearing - Conditionat Use Permit for Medicine �Lake Bus Lines Bus Storage Yard at 9125 lOth Avenue North in an lndustrial Zoning District May 4, 1983 Page 4 3. Provision of a landscape bond in the amount of $24,000 which shall run for two (2) full growing seasons and until released by the Golden Valley Inspection Department. The bond shall be executed and delivered to the Golden Valley Inspection Department prior to ini�iation of site work. 4. Protection of all green areas adjacent to parking and access areas by concrete curb. 5• Negotiation of an easement from the City of Golden Valley for access across Tract C of R.L.S. No. 1293• 6. Failure to comply with one or more of the conditions of approval shall be grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. AP:kjm Attachments: l . Site Location Map • 2. Site Plan 3• Grading Plan 4. Landscape Planting Plan s `' � z v� • � • � h N QZ8—OL9 Z 2rL�Orrl ffL-0£L � �7p iS�iLS Eb' !£ bb'8LZ 09 6S'6bE I � yl �N o ' � sF6 'oN �3nn 2iflld�3a , � 0 ,�O i �� $0'0 b EL'£Ft �LZ'9L � Z�ES� • p tFB /OL W�I • i ? • � N • a�� a N M �•N V I N N f ,�, . d � � � �. I � • _�c��-- - •�z�'�J--- Q N W I I N � � in � � � M N � 0�, tO I � s, W ;� N � N � � � 0 N W 2 IW O N W b a SFL I N J N � l9L£9 ;� � °Q W W 4{�o�y v� :� 2 Z Z �D IN 1--1 F�1 Q� i H J � N I W� " � U g m N � � I � ✓ ;A'L,�p''n �"'`,.90L L6"9LB lI'££b M��OS�O/oJM ly'1►0£ - - •GS' £E N O ' � „� _ � ce s:[ ► � , � M,OIOM � ••• �1'l�' . m �Bt F6Zl'oh'S a [btt co 9 V si f/ 9BS , o N � � . � O -� '�' �n� -,41 $' j-9i- � y. � 7 w F�Sd �61�m '�I � . /z ; . ^ a r96�� •o� ~ � .� � �• '�- � � c,s• �� s- ° � ss -,-� > � �,m e • i o�-a a „� N N ;4 � �Q a o �av � d .� Q\+ � i� i � :n ' OL o W o�, o � . o � ; Z � � � �� .� � — � � N _ � p�gb,��1 0 � I s m m � F � � .s� ,3`��0 •`O � • o i N p ` 'ro b � Q •� o- a � �O ` ' I p� O � I 16, F- � i �N U ._ t � �• N w Q � W ;� ca � � i V �,u „ � ti '' ' o.� ,o : I O �° � � °^° � m� `' o0 6�F j ooa-- � o , a � O ooC � a �`. � i,�lOS �� , � oJ'�:. 6 of 5£� � o � n; ti!�fS,1eZ05 0° � �� o �� N N _ o � � a � n a N I � p O � �� m � � O F M � OcT � � '�►�"" ° W Na osT—oyl- — `" h 6 r"d• : • � ( �O M � e6-7..6 �N� W .., ^ "`� � F6 p S4B.•p � � � ° o � �i � v� .a '� �- q 0 �. � � O `'�3��1) ,�ib� P"°r ' °� ° .t� �N � • � ;`°J! �r O ��.vN � u.2 � I •3 ; �/ - . '�6 aC d� � Z . I Z , 000�o a�- �� J '�'L�S� or Ci[ 4TE o29 .,o�, • � �,k . ol�:_�jts:��Q�--��Jl�tio u+�oN o •�o q 0 ' O['IO0' � i �►� `' � '�J1 � o�r ��'fats 1�7.71�IIV -- .f '--- M..Ob.i ,0 N � .;qy . 00 6.• ��4�1Z .... _. to uE� . V � � -= ' � __ � , , �:;. . � / � ' n7 , � �\\\ / / ,..� ,�'" `-j • '� �'�-' �r�.. � / . � � � � . � �_ � �� \�� \��\ �_�� ____----_____-- � � _____—-- ,, -AvE----------- NO . . h b Q`. __-, e 20.5 �IFA 7A.5 \ �s�\\ ��_--------------'-- _ �_ �� __/R ZS.� 1 I I � g-7.0 37A r—� I I �—��_ �� I 1 '/ I +� i 4 i � ae ' r ' , I , , � p � 4 � I� 6AT6 N bAT6 J � � !o'NtL�i{GL7AIN L1NK O � N � WI�,6 W/1'SARB. �ld '� �� I N R�20.0 � � li � — — � a0 e0 CTYP.) � , I � I I � � � I LET (TYP)LT � • I I N , Q i � 4 � Q � � � � � ;�, � I �� ' � 3't. Slo.O '1.5 s(o.0 37. 37. Sfi.� .S 10.0 � PON� i L___ N.V�IL.-8a10.0 N.V�tL-89�.°� I � I �r'r= — — voaM — _ Q STrr�� ` p CTYP� . � _ � �O �I � N r �I ' � I� � -,_ __�- � � -_ - -----Se—�---� i i ______ . . �� • t �1C+� VF►`� � � � �m ' ' V► r 7 � �`��r �e,�� t'_�'.�C%n�:7 r'•,�� 3 .�'��! 1�„ � �� i �ti. S . a ��'�a°> �'�� t.a�, / � � �'ad a� � . N d a �� — _ . � ` �_°° _ _ � , �,�� = s �-,s„� �-� e �� 0 0 � — � 3' O t+in � 1`��l ''-: �/t 3� � � �__�y'�=�a�=c-a= aamaaaa af aa.�sa �' _� � ��, ` � � �� ' ' �� . � �� °::: � � Y :.a � � � � ;. o � �;�, , r�� Z ,� \� oyo f � L . ' � \ � � � �� I � �, r \ i � � I g I oz� _ -- , e �ti%a � � � � , W � ,,�� a ` I ,. \ � �0 � � I °s Y N C � J Q � I � , N � � . I �� b I � � V ° �� o o ; � � ?'�� ,J I I V � / � �� r I l � � �; . a. / -- � , i �— � I �Itl J � � ` II O �� (/�� . - - ! � � I � � � � �- --- � � r . � � _ �, �� Z , d � I �� - � I � / a � � �3 , �,I � �,d � I `z� -, �b �� `- �� --ee— � g Z68 �b� "'��A °� L�J �` � �� ---�-1�— tV�f 1 I i � � � �s � � ~ �;ti�, . �� . 1 � �n • �< � j � � � � � � - , � � � � � .� z z • � a � � � � � � � . . �. I � ,. - -- > . . � �j ''„f} `l��;.�t. S��i{ ,i,.� '" � ;`7�� 0 11�.�!i`'/,//��+1-'1�"•.�-�. . � ��J 1 �Y�, ,� �,' I •� V .�/�I � I � i . - ,i l __ .J �� f ` , � �:. •-a-.ai=-�� ...�_+.-�e�.� . 1 -- ' ' • � . • � ` � � 1 � � . . • 3 �i ± 1.�_ _.�__��_�,__________'. _'___ _�_'_____� 'L !�y' ' 1--�--�--- ^ _ � J �r V � ��` �' __�_.. - - — ' � ---=�-. �' T:_.� .�_7=•- -T - -- � J � i ^ W � � OL � � � v � � � j - � bi� �"� � � ." ; j!` / � � MY � . �+ � � _I., , � � j / � —� 3 �j � � - . / . ' � � I � � � � • , ; , ; /113,i� , I i v# h� � 1 • i i . I� �� o�,s�'? � � j O ; . � ` , . .. . f �—�� '�� I� 1 r � `.,\ \ \ \ �,` �\ �\ �\ � �� '•� � \ � i � � �. } . O � ; �,,` i �', � '`. . �\�`� �i.� I � : � u � � I i � j � '` . , '� `', ',_ . _T•1 , \ . !� I u 3 � :�_�. }.=-�t--- 1—y� n � i� � ° �� I °! �e ., . . . �"�','�.`_Q,_.._.s�}� \ �' �`� ; ' tJ� v � �-- 9 � �( 4i'` . •` � � • 'i \.;` �� v jl i� I; • ��, i1 � — � � '�C� ` , . . . . . . i ,\ �\: \� e � � ' ;I �� ., � � �;; . � ; ;�1. ' ; � � .�i ; �, • � st. � � , �� G� • : i , i• j � � � o; W� ; �'= � h .�,• . - , , . • • � . , . ; ; � .� � � ti 1 . � . � n - � ��, . . . . �� h �� i ii �� , �, ;! �' `� � ` ,o� �{ ► �. y; � � '� p I " ;� � :,r? � °' �L � j�-- n_ �-t I ' -��a+a--� -- ,y..__�_-.:,� - � .� � � , � � � � r d � �,�.�,.�,�.�.�.a.�-� ..�__;_.--��e=,..,-Y---�-°� u� ! i v �_� J 1 9 � Y`� '� . , �— � � �� _ ; ��'i4i � . ' � . '..` .` ..; �� 'I ; �i � � �..- ^ � OO — `�,� •. . . , . '•\ . ` � ii � � � �' �n `, / ` - � , , ii � ; � � J' _ fi I �� .. �. �d1 i ' � : . - • 'i . p i �,�, '�.�/� �� . � , ,' , i i�, .li ^ � a..1 � . �. , • 0 v . r. ; - • . � s� .. � � ;..-. ,� r � � � � ,� '� � � , , / . I , / � � .1 � j .� I • ' ; ." . H' IZ/f� / / i, ' j• � � � ��,1, ' I' � �I � N � f'r'/ � �� ! ' ' ! ' " ,f' , f, i,t. � � �1 1 � il � v. ' . y /� � "_ __'+ �__ �, I� / '_'=._.i�_ �'_�d 4�`i�� i • � �' �/� "D��J' _�: � . � � ., ` � — _ � ��a� —--__--' ' --- -__ — -- �•� i� � � � % , !� ; I - ; ; i4 �as _. . . . , � _—.1 o � � . . � . Z �b , �:�J � . ,� � ' O J� ' . .. ' �I . � . . . �. ' ' !- �� I �i � !, ' � . , a Z�� . � '' u � � - ' �� `� -- -- � -- __ _ - '� r � _ L_ _�. .. . .. . _ _ _ _ � — ��. • �;; � - - _- ----�--- - - -•-- •- �� - -•" ,- � . . , . . � � . I, 1 ; : ' � . • °. I� �. � 4 � �. _;,.:.. r I , � • � i . . . V . .'. . �� . � : N � � � � , � . . � � . . �> .. . v . • , . . . .'y,s S . "� . . . � � . v . � � . . � � � � � . I . �� . = � . . . _. . . . � , � � . .. : .� . . � . . . . � . _ . �Q. . • T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 4, 1983 FROM: ALDA .PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: REVIEW OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Attached is a copy of the City of Golden Valley Capital Improvement Program for the period 1983 through 1987 as submitted to the City Council at the May 3, 1983 City Council meeting. The material includes an introductory listing of projects with brief explanations of each. The City Council solicits Planning Commission comments on the State Aid Street Fund. The remainder of the Capital Improvement Program is referred to the Planning Commission for information. City Director of Public Works Lowell Odland will be present at the May 9, 1983 Planning Commission meeting to provide an overview of the Capital Improvement Program and to answer questions. AP:kjm . � BUILDING FUND 1983 • Upper Remodeling and Engergy Improvements: Humidifers and continuation of 1982 pro3ect Public Safety Remodeling: Campletion of 1982 project *Public Safety Lower Remodeling: Folding door, carpet, �emergency operating center *Emergency Generator, Civic Center: Hookup generator needed from Public Safety building to electric system Emergency Generator, Maintenance Shop: Provide emergency lights and power for equipment Park Shelter Roofs: Completing project started in 1982 Park Shelter Energy Improvement: Completing pro3ect started in 1982 **Maintenance Shop Roof: Reroof and add insulation - roof on building is original 1940's *Civic Center Lower Level Remodeling: Provide counter in Public Works, enlarge office area *Street Garage Roof Repair: Repair of roof flashings and roof area around mechanical equipment 1984 Garage Storage: Replace 3 old garages used for storage, provide inside storage for administration cars Park Shelter Energy Improvements: Insulation of storage area, etc., mechanical equipment efficiency **Park Shop Outside Improvement: Blacktop and fencing of storage areas � *Park Shelter Interiors: lighting, floors 1985 Park Garage Doors: Insulated doors on park garage for energy conservation Parking Improvements: Replace bituminous curb on north side of Civic Center with concrete . Civic Center Lawn Sprinkler; Provide lawn sprinklers to entire Civic Center area. Now have many small areas across drives etc. , must haul and move hoses regularly. Park Shelter Interior: Continuation of 1984 program *Recreation Equipment Storage: Provide storage areas for recreational groups such as Soccer Association, Football Association, Hockey Association - now storing in basement of Brookview 1986 Energy Improvements to Yarious City Buildings: Insulation of outside walls, insulation of Street Garage roof and office area etc. 1987 *Pa�rc Shelter Interiors: Toilet area planned replacement of fixtures *Brookview Interior: Redecorate upper area used by Parks and Recreation *Civic Center Cooling Replacement: Planned replacement of compressor and coils • * N ew i tem ** Included in previous CIP but not revised EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 1983 � *Replacement of Phone/Radio Recorder in Dispatching Office: l,ft cost paid by New Hope Administrative Cars: Programmed replacement of two administrative cars Park Tractor: Programmed replacement of 2nd mowing/sweeping tractor Dump Trucks: Programmed replacement of 2 trucks Park Mower: Replacement of Toro reel-type mower *Park Maintenance Vehicles: replacement of units in parks with small pickup and accessories *Radio Tone/Civil Defense Sirens: To equip to match County-wide program 1984 Administrative Car: Final scheduled replacement in current round Sweeper: Replace Street Department Wayne sweeper *7 Foot Snow Blower: Replace large PTO driven snow blower used for cleaning out hockey rinks 1985 Park Mower: Replacement of second Toro reel-type mower Loader: Replacement of Cat wheel loader in Street Department *Park Van: Replacement of 1976 3/4 ton van in Park Department 1986 • Dump Trucks: Scheduled replacement of two trucks Fire Pumper; Scheduled replacement of front line pumper 1987 *Administrative Cars: Replacement of lst car of new round of replacements (lst of 6 cars) *Sweeper: Replace Elgin sweeper in Street Department STATE AID STREET FUND The descriptions are self-explanatory. CITY WIQE STORM SEWER 1983 City Wide Storm Sewer Fund: Necessary preliminary work prior to embarking on pro3ect 1984 City Wide Storm Sewer Fund: ist year of construction pro�ect Public Works Reserve Fund: Repair funds advanced for Bassett Creek work � PARK FUND 1983 • **Open Space Management: Completion of Phase II, implement Phase III, revised plan **Playground Equiprr�nt: Installation of equipment purchased in 1982 and purchase and installation of additional replacement equipment Lighting Replacement: Lighting replacement Wesley Park hockey, and engieering costs to review a11 park lighting *Parking Lot Repair and Improvement: Improve and extend the current parking 1ot at Seeman Park (to be done in con�unction with area sewer project) and striping of lots repaired in 1982 **Trail Improvements: Entry signage Repair and Resurfacing of Tennis Courts, Hard Surface Areas and Park Walkways: Medley, Lions, Gearty Parks, Scheid (tennis courts, hard surface areas and walkways) and North and South Tyrol , Hampshire, Papoose, Yosemite (hard surface areas and walkways) Rotary Shelter: Completion of 1982 project Tree Planing Program: Reforestation of parks and open spaces, replenishment of tree nursery **Brookview Pond Erosion Study; Study of improvements necessary to curb current erosion Sand Yolleyball Courts: Install two courts, one each at Wesley and Hampshire Parks *Professional Services: Architect fees, consulting services and engineering services for 1983/84 project; mechanical , structural review of Broakview pool � 1984 **Playground Equipment Replacement: Continuance of equipment update program Hockey Lighting Replacement: Replacement of lighting poles and fixtures at Medley Hills Realignment of Softball Diamonds: Ad�ustment in the current alignment of diamonds to provide common foul lines. Pro3ect should be coordinated with installation of sprinkling system. Temporary lighting will be necessary at either Sandburg Junior High, Scheid, or Wesley to operate soccer and football programs. Trail Improvements: Installation of ammenities i.e. benches, ramps, interest points Repair and Resurfacing Tennis Courts, Hard Surface Areas and Park Walkways: Wildwood, Seeman, Brookview Tree Planting: Continuance of the park reforestation program � Automation of Park Sprinkling System: Efficiency improvement to athletic turf area at Lions Park *Professional Services: Architect fees, consulting services and engineering services for pro3ect *Park Entrance Signage: Identification signage of all regional and neighbor- hood parks similar to Brookview; and planning, construction and plantings, 3 year program *Neighborhood Park Revitalization: Turf, lighting and facilities improvement to smaller sites in park system i.e. complete reconstruction of hard surface face areas at Golden Oaks Park and reconfiguration of play area at • North and South Ty rol PARK FUND - CONTINUED 1985 � **Playground Apparatus and Equipment Replacement: Replacement of worn equipment and installation of one new ma3or apparatus at Brookview **Replacement of Lighting: Replacement of hockey lighting at Gearty, Lions, and Medley Parks; and Phase I of lighting improvements for tennis and hard surface areas **Trails Improvement: Construction of trail in Laurel Avenue Greenbelt; �onstruction of handicap trail surface at Mary Hills properties Repair and Resurfacing Tennis, Hard Surface Areas and Walkways: Resurfacing of Brookview tennis courts; tennis courts, hard surface, and walkway areas at Wesley and Glenview Terrace Tree Planting Program: Replacement of trees in park areas **Automation of Park Sprinkling System: Completion of installation of sprinkling system in athletic fields Professional Services: Architect fees, consulting and engineering services Park Signage: Standardizing signs within the parks, i.e. ball diamond numbering, tennis court regulations, and internal directional signs *Neighborhood Park Revitilization: Lakeview skating area regrading and redesign *New Vita Exercise Trail/General Mills Research Trail 1986 *Open Space Management: Pond, creek and open space cleanup to include removal of all heavy debris, storm damage, etc; plus Rice Lake bog walk replacement Playground Apparatus and Equipment: Replacement of worn equipment • Replacement of Lighting: Replacement of lighting at tennis, hard surface and walkways Trail Improvement: Construction of trail in Valley Square area Tree Nursery: Planting scheme for park entrance areas; and planting of berm � area around Lions Park parking lot Professional:Services: Planning funds for community center in Sandburg Junior High 1987-88 school year *North Tyrol Overvew: Install wood overview of natural area north end of open space area *Yita/Exercise Trail : Install new exercise trail stations for Senior Citizens at Brookview *Fencing Replacement: Replacement of fence fabric with barbed top with knuckled type of fence fabric at Schied Park and blacktop fabric replacement on ballfields 1987 *Lighting: Continuation of program *Walkways and Hard Surface Areas: Continuation of program *Parking Lot Curbing: Install curb and gutter in parking lots (3 year program) *Brookview Parki'ng Lot Seal Coat: Sea1 cotaing and striping of the main parking area at the Brookview Community Center *Autamation of Brookview Park Sprinkling System: Replace existing manual spri.nkling system in Brookview Park with automated system controlled in Park Shop *Metal Restoration: Painting of existing metal light standards, play apparatus • *Rehabilitation of Scenic Overviews: Repair or replacement of scenic overview Pennsylvania Woods, St. Croix Park and Brookview *Fencing Replacement: Replacement of backstops at following sites: Brookview; Lakeview, Gearty. North Tyrol, South Tyrol, Natchez and Lions - PUBLIC WORKS RESERVE 1983 • **Disposal Site: Continuation of Landscaping Hard Surface Storage Area installation City Share: Storm sewer, streets, annual provision non-assessable portion of construction projects Bassett Creek: Payment of final 20� of construction assessment **DeCola Ponds: Remedial work regarding flooding Street Signs: lst year of replacement program *Concrete Street Repair: Replacement, 3acking of concrete streets Sidewalks: Construction approved in Spring 1983 *Property Surveys: Surveys of Olson Highway and Bonnie Lane properties 1984 **Disposal Site: Continuation of pro�ect City Share: Storm sewer and streets, annual provision Street Signs: Continuation of 1983 pro�ect *Concrete Street Repair; Continuation of program. Street Replacement: Studies and preliminary work for annual street replacement program Sidewalks: Construction of additional sidewalks as determined in Spring 1984 1985 Street Replacement: lst year of pro3ect of replacing bituminous streets � 1986 Bassett Creek/Pennsylvania Bridge: Replacement of existing bridge with Bebo structure PUBLIC LAND FUND Laurel Greenbelt: 3 year planting program COMMUNITY CENTER FUND 1983 *Architectual Evaluation of Brookview *Replacement of Community Center Roof: stop water damage *Evaluation of Swim Pool Structure, Mechanical , etc. � ' � `�'j�j _ . .. 1 . �� ; 1 -� �� Capital Improvement Program (cipbu) b:cpbu �83.0 Building Fund year > 1983< ----1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 19a7 Bal Fwd - Last Year __448468__23267g__1g2012 156612 53443 56115 Sources of Funding ------------------------ Transfers General Fund 100000 125000 100000 100000 150000 125000 Revenue Sharing 1g2g2 Interest Income ___45043 11634 9601 7831 2672 2806 ---------------------------- Total Available ------"'-""-- __611793 369312 301612 264443 206115 183921 Projects: ---------------------------------------- Civ Ctr Upper Level Remoc]el & Energy Imp 94053 16000 P.S.Bldg Rerodelling 264789 20000 P.S.Bldg Lor�er Renodel 15000 Park Garage Doors 15000 �Civ Ctr Garage/Storage 100000 nerg Gen Civ Ctr 10000 raerg Gen traint Shop 20000 Park Shelter P.00fs 2619 40300 Aiaintenance Shop Doors 7324 Hiaintenance Sr,op Roof 40000 Fuel Pump Controls 3713 Civ Ctr Parlk Lot P.epair 8000 Civ Ctr Lawn Sprinkler 100000 Park Shelter Energy Ir�pr 5000 15000 blaint Shop Sewer Repair 6617 Park Shop Outside Irapr 20000 Various Energy irr,pr 150000 100000 Civ Ctr Lower Remodel 5000 Park Shelter Interiors 10000 18000 5000 Recreation Equip Storage 70000 Brookview Interior 10000 Street Gar Roof Repair 6000 Civ Ctr Cooling Replace 30000 ----------------------------------------- Total Pro 'ects -'-"" � 379115 177300 145000 211000 150000 145000 ------------------------ ------------------------ a ance Fwd-Next Year 232678 192012 156612 53443 56115 38921 � • capital equipment program (ciper) b:cper 83.2 eguipment replacement fund year > 1963< < ' 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 ---------------------------------- Bal Fwd - Last Year --'-'-"'----- 98838 219270 199034 220485 246509 308835 ------------------------------------------------ 5ources of Funding Transfers General Fund 42500 25000 25000 50000 50000 Cert Ind Sink Fund 39113 Revenue Sharing 37865 Sale of Cert Inc3ebt 118500 100500 65000 165000 185000 75000 Interest Incor�e 11839 10964 9952 11024 12325 15442 MN/DOT Share 911 Cost 4340 New Hope Sh Disp Ea,uip 61497 13000 Sale of Assets Replaced 8814 3300 --------------------------------------- otal Available __380�06__389534__298985__421509__493835__449277 ro�ects: ------ 911-Dispatch System 123671 p Recorder/Logger 26000 ninistrative Cars 14475 16000 6500 Park Tractors 23390 25000 9000 Durnp Trucks 70000 Park l�iowers 85000 Sweepers 28000 35000 Loac3er • 65000 75000 Park Van 130000 Fire Pumper 10000 7ft Snowblower 1000D0 Park Maint Vehicles 5000 Radio Tone-C.D.Sirens g000 17500 ------------------------- �tal Projects �-----""'--"-------- __161536_ 190500 78500 175000 165000 84000 --------------------------------------- lancc Fwd-Next Year 219270 199034 Z20485 246509 308835 3�5277 _______________________________ ___________________ � . � . � Ca�ital Improvenent Program(cppk) b:cppk 83.0 Park Cap Improve�;ent Prog year > 1983< 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1967 . ------------------------------------------------ Bal Fwd - Last Year 184912 196685 30484 65008 85759 121047 ------------------------------------------------ Sources of Funding Tran�fers General Fund 75000 23000 125000 100000 120000 125000 1966 Park IIond Fund 27500 Share by Others 6665 Rotary Club 1500 Interest Incor�e 21827 9834 1524 3250 4288 6052 ------------------------------------------------ Total Available 289904 229519 157008 195759 210047 252099 ------------------------------------------------ Projects: Mary Hills Pk Stuc3y 1691 Seeman Pk 2348 Sandburg nallfields 29858 ° Open Space tianagenent 6210 69000 15000 15000 �layground Eguip 4958 7000 70Q0 9000 5000 ighting Replacenent 9308 11000 12000 15000 15000 15000 Realign Ballfielc3s 9000 Parking Rep & Improve 17770 13000 37000 Trails/Ylalkways 5000 6000 18000 10000 Resurf T.Cts & Hd Surf 34000 18000 25000 Rotary Shelter 19200 3035 Tree Plursury 5000 5000 4000 5000 Brookview Pond Erosion 5000 Volleyball Courts 1876 4000 Autor,iate Sprklr Syst 11000 7000 10000 15000 Mary Hills Pk 12000 Pk Drainage Ir�provenent 15000 Consulting Services 5000 5000 5000 5000 Pk Entrance Signs 8000 3000 Pleighborhooc] Pk Upgrade 15000 15000 12000 25000 Vita Exercise Trails 6000 7000 Fence �eplacenent 15000 16000 t;etal Restoration 10000 ------------------------------------------------ � Total Projects 93219 199035 92000 110000 89000 133000 ------------------------------------------------ Balance Fwd-Next Year 196685 30484 65008 85759 121047 119099 � . capital Improven,ent Program (cippw) b:cppw 83.0 Public Works �eserve Fund year > 1983< 1982 1963 1984 1985 1986 1987 ------------------------------------------------ �sal Fwd - Las� Year 794926 839019 640930 871726 900313 660328 ------------------------------------------------ Sources of Funding Transfers General Fund 150000 100000 125000 150000 100000 150000 Strm Swr. Fund Repayment 423750 C D B G 100000 Franchise Fee 500000 500000 500000 Aliscellaneous gpg Interest Income 52838 41951 32046 93586 45016 33016 ------------------------------------------------ Total Available 998673 1080970 1221726 1565313 1545328 1343345 ------------------------------------------------ Projects: Disposal Site 10181 20000 20000 City Share: Storm Sewer 22034 25000 65000 65000 65000 65000 Streets 34681 50000 50000 50000 50000 50000 �assett Creek 73750 eCola Ponds 90000 Street Signs 15000 15000 Concrete Street Repair 60000 50000 50000 50000 100000 Street Replacenent 50000 500000 500000 500000 Brialge-Creek/Pennsylv 220000 Sidewalks 100000 100000 Olson Hg��y Prop Purch 9275g Property Surveys 6290 ------------------------------------------------ Total Projects 1�9654 440040 350000 665000 885000 715000 ------------------------------------------------ Balance Fwc]-Next Year 839019 640930 871726 900313 660328 628345 ________________________________________________ • �ital Improvement Program (cipsa) b:cpsa 83.0 te Aid Street �Fund year > 1983< 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Bal Fwd - Last Year 1231044 1574560 1442140 517247 770109 957615 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 5ources of Funding Gas Tax Allotment 436071 468852 450000 480000 480000 4a0000 H�tA Repayment 755117 Interest Income 60232 78728 72107 25862 38505 47881 �otal Available i 1727347 2122140 1964247 1023109 1288615 2240613 ?rojects: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ State Aic7 Maintenance 15599 50000 50000 50000 50000 50000 Florida P� of 12 101315 Th55 Traf� Sig Revision 8845 Sandburg/Nevada 200000 Duluth-Flag/18 � 140000 -TH100 150000 Olympia-W'tka/Pa. 152000 �. -Jersey/Douglas � 100000 -Douglas Trf Sia 100000 � Railroad X-ing Repair 22883 40000 40000 2ane/TH55 Frontage 280000 �one-TH12/Betty Crocker 260000 109000 Z'bncrete Repair 100000 18/Plymouth Trf Sig 75000 Douglas/GV Rd Trf Sig _ 100000 T.H.55 Frontage Eval. T.H.100/Glenwooa 15000 Hillsboro/70 Trf Sig � � 100000 Nevada/70 Trf Sig 100000 Laurel- Pennsy/Louisiana 165000 Xenia/Colorado 210000 Colorado/Florida 103000 Florida/Hampshire 72000 Hampshire/Louisiana 145000 P.hode Islanc] Av 4145 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ otal Projects 152787 680000 1447000 253000 331000 295000 alance F'wd-Next Year 1574560 1442140 517247 770109 957615 1945613 . a=n=o� oa=aaa �aoaoa a=cnac n=oa=� ancaca � . • � - Capital Improvernent Program(CPSS) b:cpss 83.0 'ity Wide S.S. Fund year > 1983< � 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ - al Fwd - Last Year -53556 -189054 -229054 0 0 0 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- ources of Funding Bonds-G.O.& Assmt 1675000 1750000 500000 Less: Capitalized Int and Financing Cost -157969 -145438 -46125 Interest Income 0 0 0 0 0 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ �tal Available -53556 -189054 1487977 1604562 453875 0 rojects: �� - ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ South Fork St Sewer 7261 10000 Gen City-Wide Program 8646 25000 1064227 1604562 453875 Bassett Cr R-O-W 32799 5000 Floxida S. St Sewer 867g2 Repay Pub Wks Res Advance 423750 • ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 135498 40000 1487977 1604562 453875 0 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ �lance Fwd-Next Year -189054 -229054 0 0 0 0 aaa=aa ao=aaa a=eoaa aa�n=a a��=aa 000==a � ' • . . . s apital Improvement Program(CPPL) brcppl 83.0 ublic Land Fund year > 1983< � 1982 1983 1964 1985 1986 1987 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ al Fwd - Last Year 37446 43363 25531 4808 15048 15600 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ources of Financing Contributions in Lieu of Land 5000 Transfers from Gen Fund 25000 Interest Income 4117 2166 1277 240 752 790 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ otal Available 46563 45531 26808 30048 15800 16591 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ rojects: Laurel Greenbelt 3200 20000 22000 15000 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ • ____3200 20000 22000 15000 0 0 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ alance Fwd-Next Year 43363 25531 4808 15048 15800 16591 aa==aa aa=a== aa=aaa o===na aa=°== a===aa • C�pital I��provement Program (cpcc� . Conmunity Genter Fund yed1 � 1983� b.cpcc 83.0 ----19a2 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 ---------------------------•-�-------------- Ba1 Fwd - Last Yea�r 0 -1657 143 150 158 166 --------------------------------------------p---- Sources of Financing Transfers from Gen Fund 64500 Sale of Bonds Contributions Interest Income p � � 8 g , 8 ------------------------------------------------ Total Available 0 62643 150 158 166 174 ----------------------------------------- Projectsr . """'-' Conm Ctr Evaluation 1857 50'00 Roof Replace�ent 52500 Pool Evaluation 5000 ------------------------------------------ 1857 62500 0 0 0 0 B�nce Fwc3-Next Year ====1657=====143====-150- ---------------------- 158 166 174 ____________________________ � ' . . apital Improvement Program b:cpgenfd eneral Funa App,ropriations 1983 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 ------------------------------------------------ �uip. Replacement Fund 42500 25000 25000 50000 50000 lblic Works Reserve Fd 150000 100000 125000 150000 100000 150000 �ilding Fund 100000 125000 100000 100000 150000 125000 ►rk Cap. Improve. Fund 75000 23000 125000 100000 120000 125000 �blic Land Funa 25000 ►mm. Center Fund 64500 ------------------------------------------------ 'otal Appropriations 325000 355000 375000 400000 4200Q0 450000 a=oaa==aa==acaooaaa=aa=aaa==aa=aa=na=a==c=aoaoaa � � . • T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 4, 1983 FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF ACCESSORY APARTMENTS Discussion of accessory apartments was deferred from the April 25, 1983 Planning Commission meeting to the May 9, 1983 Planning Commission meeting to allow distri- bution of materials obtained by Commissioners Leppik and Tubman at the National APA Conference in Seattte. Attached for background information for a discussion of accessory apartments is a paper received by both Commissioner Leppik and Commissioner Tubman at separate sessions on the subject at the APA Conference. The handout stresses the importance of providing clearly stated objectives for regulation of accessory apartments. The paper offers a planning model for first identifying needs and goals before considering specific regulations and also provides a list of possibte restrictions and standards with discussion of legal issues involved in the use of each. Distributed separately along with agenda materials is a draft report on Accessory Housing prepared by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) Housing Committee for publication in the near future. This report again emphasizes the need for inclusion of a statement of objectives in regulations dealing with � accessory apartments. The AMM Housing Committee Report includes as an attachment a report prepared by the Westchester County Planning Department, New York, from which the AMM Report draws some of its material . . The staff report on Accessory Apartments for the April 25, 1983 Planning Commission meeting informed Commissioners that the Minnesota Hpusing Finance Agency (MHFA) is working on an accessory apartment demonstration program and recently hired a new staff person to coordinate the program. As an update on that program, the new staff person reports that MHFA is currently working on regulations for the program and that it will probably be six months before the loan program actually begins operation. However, MHFA will be looking for commitments within the�next three to ' four rr�nths from communities interested in participating in the program. MHFA is contemplating both a program with an income limitation for homeowners receiving low interest loans and a separate program with no income limitations for recipient homeowners who agree to rent accessory apartments to persons qualifying under the Seetion 8 Rental Subsidy Program. AP:kjm Attachments: 1 . Accessory Apartments by Dwight H. Merriam 2, Draft AMM Housing Committee Report on Accessory Housing with attached Guide to Accessory Apartment Regulations: Meeting Smaller Household Needs � (Enclosed separately) � ACCESSORY APARTMENTS � � by Dwight H. Merriam Robinson, Robinson � Cole Hartford, Connecticut 'Increased Need and Demand 'Planning for Accessory for Small , Rental Units Apartments - 'Regulatory Strategies 'Constitutional Issues • INTRODUCTION A remarkable demographic change occurred during the decade from 1970 to 1980 - the average household size decreased from 3. 11 to 2.75 persons per household. "1980 Census Finds Sharp . Decline in Size of American Households" , N. Y. Times, 5/26/81 , p. l . Not much you say? This decrease in household size coupled with the increase in population of 11% from 203 to 226.5 million persons, resulted in a 24% increase in the total number of � households. That is an increase fram 63.4 to 80.4 million households - 17 million new households in just 10 years. And the Population Reference Bureau anticipates a 21% further increase in the 1980' s, and a further decrease in average household size to 2.47 persons. "Population Bulletin" , Population Research Bureau, 6/82. ' , /' �+ � � L C�o —� e�`� ` 0 t�.�t� ,�-R-l�tlt,e+a� �u.��,�5, � [�SI�J� w �,,��r. �� V c,�►. (� �' u�1�-R7� " o c-C_.�� C C o�.cJ� 1� c�. .J�(QL C�� . i �`� � t � 1 . �JI.Qo� .31�s �cs...+�CSL. ��5- .�o�..�C.�T U.�:.d��. �S S i . � Who are these "new" households? Many include people from � the World War II "baby boom" , born between 1946 and 1955 , and now entering the housing market. Many are families with children maintained by one parent - a family type which increased 79% between 1970 and 1979, principally because of an increased divorce rate. The only family type to decrea°se numerically in the 1970 's, by one million, was that consisting of a married couple with children. "American Way of Housing Changing As Number and Cost of Units Increases" , N. Y. Times, 4/20/82, p. B6. The elderly, those over 65, now number 24 million. That age group is growing faster than any other age cohort. Many elderly live in one-person households which had the largest • numerical increase, 6.4 million, of any type of household during the 1970 ' s. The median age of women who maintain nonfamily households is over 64. "One-Parent Families Rose 79% in Decade, U.S. Report Indicates" , IV. Y. Times, 11/17/80, p.29. The facts compel but one conclusion - there is a great demand for smaller dwelling units, particularly for one and two person households without children. ' At the same time, housing production has been down for . several years because of high interest rates and decreased financial resources of home purchasers and renters. Many young households are forced to move in with relatives because of. • economic hard times and the lack of affordable housing. Between . the beginning of 1981 and March 1962, the number of homes or apartments with a second, related family sharing the unit increased from 1 .2 to 1 .9 million, the � first large increase since 1950. '�Married Couples Squeezing Into Parents ' Home" , N. Y. Times, 2/24/83� p. B1 . Twenty-eight percent of all households are "nonfamily" units of unrelated people living together. "Costs and Social Changes Promote Shared Living" , N. Y. Times, 7/28/81 , P. Al2. And finally, much of the existing housing stock has become functionally and economically obsolete because older houses are too large for most households and too expensive to heat and maintain. "Alternative Approaches to Housing Older Americans: Hearing before the Special Committee on Aging of the United States Senate" , 97th Cong. , 2nd Sess. • 55-58 (1982) (Statement of Dwight H. Merriam) [hereinafter cited as Hearing] . UNTYING THE GORDIAN KNOT Gordius, the King of Phrygia, tied a knot which could only be unt:ied by' the future ruler of Asia. Alexander the Great cut it with his sword. The housing problem, like the Gordian Knot, is intricate and seemingly insoluble in the short term. But accessory apartments, which carve up our housing stock to magically make two units out of one, offer a quick and inexpensive solution to a large part of the problem. � -3- An "accessory apartment" is a dwelling unit created within • an existing single family home or on the same lot. It is an independent unit, but it may share an entrance, yard and parking with the primary unit. Accessory apartments are sometimes called single-family conversions, mother-in-law apartments, mother-daughter, homes, secondary residences and, in Denmark, "kangaroo apartments" . Related, but different� forms o�f housing are "shared housing" - units with a common kitchen, and "granny flats" or "ECHO" (elderly cottage housing opportunities) housing - independent detached or semi-attached units usually placed in the rear yard of an existing dwelling. AI1 these forms of housing raise similar regulatory problems and legal issues . Apparently, there are many Alexanders the Great in the • world cutting up existing housing to create accessory apart- ments, often without the benefit of local regulatory authority. One estimate is that there may have been as many as 2.5 million conversions during the 1970' s. P. Hare, S. Connor and D. Merriam, "Accessory Apartments: Using Surplus Space in Single- Family Houses" (APA PAS Report 365 1981 ) [hereinafter cited as Hare] . Seventy-one percent of 186� towns responding to a survey sent to 600 communities in the New York City area reported illegal conversions, while only 10% had ordinances regulating conversions. "High Costs Said to Force Illegal House Conver- sions" � N. Y. Times, 1/18/81 , p. 30. Long Island, New York may •' . -4- have as many as 15,000 illegal conversions. Hare, p. 4. The • most important, immediate problem for land use planners is planning for conversions and regulating them. PLANNING FOR CONVERSIONS When regulations are based upon good data and a sound plan, they stand a much greater chance of being successfully defended. See, e.g. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S.Ct. 2646 (1978) [landmarks studied and identified before regulations adopted] ; Potomac Sand � Gravel Co. v. Governor of Maryland, 266 Md. 358, 293 A.2d 241 (Md. 1972) [state compiled evidence on biological importance of wetlands] ; and Golden v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo, 30 N.Y.2d 359, 285 N.E.2d 291 (N.Y. 197.1 ) [growth management regulations in • conformance with local comprehensive plan upheldJ . Also local � -resistance to accessory apartments can be considerable and must be overcome. The Tri-State (New York, New Jersey and Connecticut) Regional Planning Commission recently found that only 32 percent of the residents in affected communities think accessory apartments are desirable; 46 percent said they are undesirable. "Home Conversions Increasing Phenomenally" , New Haven (Conn. ) Register, 1/18/81 � p. F1 . Apparently, middle and lower middle class neighborhoods, where people have worked to achieve the status of single family homeownership, feel most threatened by conversions. Said one homeowner: "Apartments are a sign of deterioration. It takes the sparkle out of the • American Dream just knowing there are apartments on the block. " A Suburban Tempest: Neighbors Riled by In-House Apartrents" , IJ. Y. Times, 12/8/81 , p. B2. The lesson is simple - start with • planning, not regulation, in confronting the problem of accessory apartments. The rational planning model has five steps. See generally, Decision-Making in Urban Planninq (I. Robinson, ed. 1972) . Planning for accessory apartments includes: 1 . Goal Setting: Identify the problem and community goals ; determine who needs accessory apartments; and seek to discover concerns about adverse impacts on surrounding uses; determine location, type and size of units desired; translate goals into standards and criteria that can be measured, e.g. 50 new accessory apartments for the elderly in owner-occupied residences within three years. � 2. Plan Formulation: Prepare several alternatives for achieving agreed-upon goals; avoid the tunnel vision of looking only for answers in regulations and consider affirmative action such as constructing public housing or renting ECHO units at cost. ' 3. Plan Evaluation: Predict consequences �of the alterna- tives, remembering that doing nothing is an alternative that will likely result in more illegal conversions ; consider the legal consequences - for example, can you limit occupancy of . accessory apartments to the elderly or to families without children? . ' . -6- 4. Plan Implementation:. Draft regulations including de- • sign standards; seek changes in enabling legislation as required; develop non-regulatory techniques of implementation, such as tax abatements. 5. Plan Review and Feedback: Review the performance of the plan as implemented using the criteria established in the Plan Formulation Stage; revise the plan as required, modifying the regulations to improve goal accomplishment. Following these few simple steps, well-known to all students of planning, can produce substantial results. Regulatory strategies will work better and the defense of programs will be made easier and more certain to result in a favorable outcome for the local government. • REGULATORY STRATEGIES - THE "NELSON TOUCH" . Lord Nelson was the greatest naval commander in history. In 1779 at the unusually young age of 21 he was promoted to the rank of captain. His most important successes began in 1793 when war broke out between England and Revolutionary and � Napoleonic France. In 1794, during the battle to capture Corsica, Lord Nelson lost the sight of his right eye in the attack on Calvi. Lord Nelson' s ability to perceive and exploit boldy the immediate tactical possibilities as battles developed was extraordinary and came to be called "the 1Velson touch" . � . -7- Lord Nelson eventually retired, but was recalled to duty in 1801 when England sought to prevent the so-called "Armed Neutrality" � from closing the Baltic. Lord Nelson was second-in-command to a Admiral Parker, an officer of average ability. They attacked Copenhagen, after careful planning by Nelson, but Nelson was slowed by the powerful Danish defenses. Parker, apparently concerned with the possibility of failure, hoisted the recall flag thereby giving Lord Nelson the authority to withdraw. Lord Nelson, on being told of the recall signal , raised his long glass to his right eye, said "I see no signal" and went on to win the battle. There are times when planners must use "the Nelson touch" , size up the situation and act quickly and boldly to make best use of the tactical possibilities. There is little direct � guidance in the case law to help land use regulators through the uncharted waters of planning for accessory apartments. While there are legal and political risks in promoting accessory apartments, many public officials believe the time has come to turn a "blind eye" toward the uncertainties and to go forward with local programs . Unquestionably, there is a teradency to avoid the difficult problems of regulating accessory apartments. As one county zoning director has stated: "there are no easy answers, so we back-burner it. " " 'Accessory' Living Becoming Popular. " The (Balt. ) Sun, 8/29/82, p. F1 . However, acceptance of continued • � • -8- �Nillful violations is unac�e table because it P promotes poor • quality conversions. Hare, pp. 4-5. For existing illegal conversions an amnesty period is recommended during which owners are allowed to apply under the new r�gulations. Waivers of the standards may be required. The objective is to bring all conversions under regulation and then enforce the regulations against recalcitrants. One interesting technique to force compliance, used in Pittsburgh, is to require the seller of a converted house to provide the buyer with an occupancy permit. "City Hopes to Solve Mansion Cut-up Caper" , The Pittsburgh Press , S/29/82, p. . FORM OF REGULATION � Allowing conversions � as of right may work for some smaller communities, but it is generally not advisable because it allows little or no review at the time the unit is created and no periodic future review. Site plan approval is a better approach. The site plan can be as simple as a sketch drawn by the homeowner showing conformance with the requirements of the regulations. Perhaps the best technique is to allow conversions as a v special or conditional use. Often conditions can be imposed to protect surrounding uses from adverse effects. For example, additional screening of parking areas might be required. The � permit should be issued for a one or two year ter�, if the � jurisdiction allows such a restriction, to , enable periodic review by the local land use authority. The use of the floating zone or overlay zone could be helpful in increasing the flexibility of deciding where conversions will be allowed. Montgomery County, Maryland seems to use this techinque. Hare, p. 12. In addition, in most jurisdictions where rezonings are legislative, the local < government will gain some advantage in defending its decision in court. Conditional use or site plan approval should also generally be required for site specific reviews. SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS Many special standards are necessary to ensure quality � conversions, to protect surrounding uses, and to promote the acceptability of the regulations. A typical requirement, where an objective is to increase housing for the elderly or to help the elderly remain in their homes, is that the principal or accessory unit be occupied by an older person. Age is not a suspect classification and such a restriction would probably be uph�ld in most jurisdictions , if . .�f^easonably related to effecting a legitimate governmental objective. • Taxpayers Association of Weymouth Tounship, Inc. v. Weymouth Township, 71 N.J. 249� 364 A.2d 1016 (1976) . Again, the need for defensible data, clearly stated objectives and a carefully drawn plan �s apparent. � • ' -10- . Some local governments, such as Sharon and Sherborn, Masachusetts, and Fairfax County, Virginia, require that the � occupant of the accessor a Y partment be related by blood or marriage to the occupant of the principal unit. Hare, pp, 13-14. The defensibility of this type of restriction is difficult to assess. The U. S. Supreme Court has not given clear guidance. Villa e of Belle Terre v Borass, 416 U.S. 1 , 94 S. Ct. 1494, (1974) [restrictive definiton of '�family�� upheld as promoting family values] ; Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 97 S.Ct. 1932 (1977) [restrictive definition of "family�� struck down on statutory grounds] . Two recent state court decisions portend judicial intolerance, at least in state courts, of restrictive definitions. State v. Baker, 81 N.J. 99, 405 A.2d 368 (1979) ; Adamson v. City of Santa Barbara, 164 � Ca1 .Rptr. 539, 27 Ca1.3d 123 , 610 P.2d 436 (1980) . The enforcement of such restrictions is difficult and the "public good" achieved is hard to discern. In Village of Des Plaines v Trottner, 34 I11 .2d 43 2, 216 N.E. 2d 116 (1966) , the Illinois State : Supreme Court struck down a restrictive definition of family on statutory grounds as penetrating too deeply into the internal composition of a single household. While not directly . on point where two units are created from one, the decision's import is that zoning can regulate uses , not users. Generally, consanquinity and affinity restrictions should be avoided. - � . . -11- Regulations sometimes require occupancy of the principal or I• accessory unit by the property owner. The objective is to promote adequate oversight of the more intensive land use and, in some instances, to achieve consistency with the stated purpose of helping an elderly homeowner to stay on in a home which �is too large and expensive to maintain without help. Occupancy restrictions are probably defensible in most �jurisdic- tions if consistent with stated objectives. Problems arise with the temporary� but long term, absence of the owner who vacations or needs medical care. Regulations should address this eventuality, perhaps even allowing leasing of the owner' s unit under such circumstances . Barrier-free design is not widely discussed in the � literature and may work at cross-purposes with the objective of promoting inexpensive and unobtrusive conversions . Neverthe- less, regulators should forthrightly address the issue in planning for accessory apartments. Subsidies, low interest loans, direct grants� tax relief, and federal tax benefits may ' be used to promote barrier-free design. Hare, p.6. _�:-- (Z •� Design standards are essential for quality conversions and for� public acceptance of accesscrry apartments. Regulations . should seek to preserve the neighborhood's single family appearance .by reducing the visibility of second entrances, screening off-street parking and limiting expansion of the existing residence. Minimum and maximum floor areas for the � • _, �_ � accessory apartment are ofte� required. A minimum of 450 square � feet and a maximum of 750 square feet, for example, is required in Guilford, Connecticut, a town of 17 , 000 which has received an average of one accessory apartment applicatiori each month. "In-Law Apartment Solves a Problem for Young and Old" , New Haven (Conn. ) Register, 4/10/83 , p. F1 . Portland, Oregon limits the area of the accessory unit to 25% of the principal unit and requires a minimum total house floor area of 2,000 square feet (Zoning Code §33 .22. 235 Type 7) . Regulations have been enacted requiring larger lot sizes for converted houses , but this may unnecessarily preclude conversion of older homes on lots which are nonconforming in area or were laid out to just meet the minimum. • Health concerns can limit conversions where subsurface ✓ sewage disposal is used. All applications should demonstrate that the soils can safely accept additional effluent. An adequate water supply is obviously a prerequisite. A "harmony with the surrounding neighborhood" provision is someti�nes included, though the problems inherent in this criterion are well known by all who have ever tried to apply it. ✓Because one objective of accessory apartments is to permit . conversion of older homes without creating new duplexes, conversions may be restricted to houses older than some number s � � -13- of years or built before a given year. There are, however, some • proponents of new "convertible" single family, homes and local governments may wish to permit such conversions with limita- tions. Hare, p.8. . SETTING LIMITS Sometimes, communities considering accessory apartment regulations will be concerned with preventing "too many" conversions. The techniques available can be drawn from other land use problems� such as growth management and adult enter- tainment uses. The simplest and surest approach is to limit c�nversions to a small area of larger, older homes close to transportation and municipal services. A permit quota may work in some jurisdic- • tions, as may a cap on the total number of conversions. Belvedere, California, reportedly has "capped" accessory apart- ments at 50 units. Hare, p. 13. A separation or distancing requirement, while it may be appropriate for liquor stores and pornographic bookstores, does not seem to further any objective of conversion programs. See gen�rally Rathkopf, The Law of Zo�ing and Planning, Chap. 17B (Supp. 1983) for a definitive discussion of zoning for sex businesses and other entertainment. . � � -74_ - � CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES . . There have been cases in which property owners have found themselves in trouble for creating second dwelling units in single family zones when the local regulations did not permit accessory apartments. Brady v. Superior Court, 200 Ca1 .App.2d 69 , 19 Ca1 .Rptr. 242 (1962) [two students � including son, could not jointly use and occupy premises which include a separate cabin] ; see also, West Chester v. Lal , 35 Pa.Cmnwlth. 620, 387 A.2d 929 (1978) [creation of a basement apartment held to violate zoning code] . Express enabling legislation, such as Section 65852. 1 of the California Government Code, can overcome most concerns about the local authority to permit accessory apartments. Section 65852. 1 provides: • Notwithstanding Section 65906, any city, including a charter city, county� or city and county may issue a zoning variance, special use permit, or conditional use permit for a dwelling unit to be constructed� or attached to, a pri- mary residence on a parcel zoned for a single- family residence, if the dwelling unit is in- tended for the sole occupancy of one adult or two adult persons who are 60 years of age or over, and the area of floor space of the dwell- ing unit does not exceed 640 square feet. " However, it is unlikely that accessory apartment regulations will be struck down� even without express enabling legislation, � if they are carefully drafted. The principal constitutional issue is that of substantive due process - does the regulation reasonably effect a legitimate governmental objective. Courts will probably uphold age � � -15- restrictions , but may disfavor consanguinity and affinity requirements. Owner-occupancy requirements will survive judi- • cial review in many states where the local governing authority can demonstrate consistency with properly adopted goals. Design standards, dimensional requirements , and health and safety� requirements are unquestionalb,ly defensible. Problems will be encountered in some states with architectural review requirements , except for minor provisions , such as the location of second entrances. Limitations on conversions, if artfully done, will not suffer the difficulties encountered with growth management programs. In New York, at least, local conversion regulations have been upheld. In Ilasi v. City of Long Beach, 38 N.Y.2d 383, 379 N.Y.S.2d 831 , 342 N.E.2d 594 ( 1976) , New York' s highest state • court approved a city' s legalization of premises converted up to a particular date. And in Sherman v. Frazer, 84 A.D.2d 401 , 446 N.Y.S.2d 372 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982) , a middle-level state appellate court upheld a town statute creating a Two-Family Review Board empowered to review special permit applications by owners of illegally converted houses and by those who intend to create accessory apartments. �he decision includes some interesting data and details the provisions of Babylon' s accessory apartment ordinance. �. • -16- . • . ' COP]CLUSIONS • The time has come for more ambitious and directed efforts to regulate and promote conversions. Good planning is essen- tial , not only to increase community acceptance, but to ensure successful defense of accessory apartment programs in court. • • � � T0: GOLDEN VALLEY �LANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 4, 1983 FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF 1984 OPERATING BUDGET Chairman Thompson reported at the April 25, 1q83 Planning Commission meeting that he received a letter from Mayor Thorsen soliciting suggestions for the 1984 Operating Budget of the City. The matter was held over to the May 9, 1983 Planning Commission meeting to allow Planning Commissioners time to give the question consideration. The Mayor asks all City Commissions each year for ideas and suggestions for incorporation into the City Operating Budget. Suggestions may be for programs observed in other communities, for expansion of �x�.sting programs into new areas or for the curtailment or elimination of current programs. The City Council refers suggestions to staff for investigation and expansion before they are considered for inclusion in the budget. The request for ideas is for general or broad suggestions for City programs rather than for a detailed review of the current budget. Examples given to provide an idea of what the Council is seeking are City involvement in day care or City operation of a senior citizen transportation system. . . AP:kjm •