The URL can be used to link to this page

11-01-22 City Council Agenda REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council meetings are being conducted in a hybrid format with in-person and remote options for attending, participating, and commenting. The public can make statements in this meeting during public comment sections, including the public forum beginning at 6:20 pm. Remote Attendance/Comment Options: Members of the public may attend this meeting by watching on cable channel 16, streaming on CCXmedia.org, streaming via Webex or by calling 1- 415-655-0001 and entering access code 2453 079 8833. Members of the public wishing to address the Council remotely have two options: • Via web stream - Stream via Webex and use the ‘raise hand’ feature during public comment sections. • Via phone - Call 1-415-655-0001 and enter meeting code 2453 079 8833. Press *3 to raise your hand during public comment sections. 1. Call to Order A. Pledge of Allegiance and Land Acknowledgement Pages B. Roll Call 2. Additions and Corrections to Agenda 3. Consent Agenda Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items unless a Council Member so requests in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A. Approval of Check Register 3 B. Boards, Commissions, Task Forces 1. Approve Appointment to Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission 2. Accept Resignation from the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Commission 3. Accept Resignation from the Human Services Commission 4 5 6 C. Bids, Quotes, and Contracts: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 22-097 Approving a 10-Year Commitment for LOGIS ERP and Utility Billing Software 7-8 November 1, 2022 – 6:30 pm Council Chambers Hybrid Meeting City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting November 1, 2022 – 6:30 pm 2 2.Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Joint Powers Agreement with Hennepin County regarding 911 Embedded Social Worker Program 9-11 D.Grants and Donations: 1.Adopt Resolution No. 22-098 Accepting the Donation for the Medley Park Community Garden from Hennepin County and the Active Living Equipment Fund Grant 12-13 E.Adopt Resolution No. 22-099 Waiving the Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments 2022-1 Sanitary Sewer Repairs 14-16 F.Adopt Resolution No. 22-100 to Approve Local Housing Incentives Account (LHIA) Affordable Homeownership Pilot Application to the Metropolitan Council for the Home Ownership Program for Equity (HOPE) 17-20 G.Approve a One-Year Extension of Zoning Code Variance for 1109 Winnetka Avenue North 21-25 4.Public Hearing A.Amending the Zoning Code in Order to establish Regulations Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units, Ordinance No. 745 and Resolution No. 22-101 26-83 5.Old Business 6.New Business A.First Consideration to Approve Ordinance No. 746 Establishing a 2023 Master Fee Schedule 84-113 B. C. D. First Consideration to Approve Ordinance No. 747 Eliminating Licensing for Amusement Devices Review of Council Calendar Mayor and Council Communications 114-115 116 1.Other Committee/Meeting updates 7.Adjournment Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 1, 2022 Agenda Item 3. A. Approval of City Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley. Financial Or Budget Considerations The check register has a general ledger code as to where the claim is charged. At the end of the register is a total amount paid by fund. Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. Supporting Documents Document is located on city website at the following location: http://weblink.ci.golden-valley.mn.us/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=927129&dbid=0&repo=GoldenValley The check register(s) for approval: • 10-14-22 Check Register Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 1, 2022 Agenda Item 3. B. 1. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Appointment Prepared By Tara Olmo, Assistant to the City Manager´s Office Summary During the special meeting held Tuesday, November 1, 2022, Council conducted interviews to appoint applicants to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. Council will discuss and consider appointing. Financial Or Budget Considerations Not applicable Recommended Action Motion to appoint applicant(s) to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 2, 2022 Agenda Item 3. B. 2. Accept Resignation from the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Commission Prepared By Tara Olmo, Assistant to the City Manager´s Office Summary Commissioner Melissa Johnson has submitted their resignation from the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Commission. Financial Or Budget Considerations Not applicable Recommended Action Motion to accept the resignation of Melissa Johnson from the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Commission. Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 1, 2022 Agenda Item 3. B. 3. Accept Resignation from the Human Services Commission Prepared By Tara Olmo, Assistant to the City Manager´s Office Summary Mary McCormick has submitted their resignation from the Human Services Commission Financial Or Budget Considerations Not applicable Recommended Action Motion to accept the resignation of Mary McCormick from the Human Services Commission. Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 1, 2022 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. Adopt Resolution No. 22-097 Approving a 10-Year Commitment for the LOGIS (Local Government Information Services) ERP and Utility Billing Software Applications Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Resolution No. 22-097 will commit the City of Golden Valley to move forward with LOGIS, along with approximately 30 other cities, to invest in future support for the ERP (financial, payroll, human resources) and Utility Billing software. The current software is more than 20 years old with upgrades. Staff has been working with LOGIS and member cities to determine needs. From the needs, bids and demonstrations of systems were presented to the members. In order to move forward to commit to an agreement, LOGIS is requesting a 10-year commitment with a Resolution. Golden Valley is an original member of LOGIS for over 50 years. The City has seen many benefits such as purchasing software and employees that support the system along with user groups. Financial Or Budget Considerations Once the City starts the conversion to the new software, the city will be responsible for the implementation costs. In 2023 the city budgeted $200,000 for the utility billing system along with monthly support. Future budgets will include the implementation costs for the ERP at an estimated amount of $252,555. This may change if one or more of the existing cities leaves LOGIS as well as other cities joining LOGIS. Future costs will be included in upcoming budgets. Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution No. 22-097 Approving a 10-Year Commitment for the LOGIS ERP and Utility Billing Software Applications. Supporting Documents • Resolution No. 22-097 Approving a 10-Year Commitment for the LOGIS ERP and Utility Billing Software Applications. RESOLUTION NO. 22-097 RESOLUTION APPROVING A 10-YEAR COMMITMENT FOR THE LOGIS ERP AND UTILITY BILLING SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley is a member of the Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS) association; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley desires to remain in the LOGIS supported ERP (Financial, Payroll, and Human Resources) and utility billing software application systems; and WHEREAS, LOGIS has negotiated new long-term contracts with Oracle Corporation and Spypoint Solutions, Inc. to serve the ERP and utility billing needs of its membership; and WHEREAS, in recognition of the substantial investment and operational impact of implementing a new software system, the City of Golden Valley acknowledges the benefits of ensuring long-term financial and operational certainty; and WHEREAS, each member participant is asked to adopt a 10-year commitment to secure its ERP and utility billing software pricing and support through LOGIS. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Golden Valley that this Resolution affirms the long-term commitment to the LOGIS ERP and utility billing software applications and associated software support effective January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2032. _____________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Theresa Schyma, City Clerk Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 1, 2022 Agenda Item 3. C. 2. Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Joint Powers Agreement between Hennepin County and the City of Golden Valley regarding 911 Embedded Social Worker Program Prepared By Alice White, Assistant Police Chief Summary In May 2021, Hennepin County and the Golden Valley Police Department partnered to establish a program that provides a social worker employed by Hennepin County that will work with GVPD through Hennepin County 911 dispatch. The joint powers agreement was an effort to coordinate expertise and delivery of services to provide 911 dispatch services in a manner that most effectively and efficiently supports and protects the physical, mental, and behavioral health of individuals in Hennepin County. Agreement No. #A2010506 is set to expire December 31, 2022. Amendment No. 1 to the joint powers agreement between Hennepin County and the City of Golden Valley extends the expiration date to December 31, 2024. Financial Or Budget Considerations The cost of this program has been incorporated into the Proposed 2023 Budget. Recommended Action Motion to approve Amendment No. 1 to Joint Powers Agreement No. #A2010506 between Hennepin County and the City of Golden Valley regarding 911 embedded social worker program in the form approved by the City Attorney. Supporting Documents • Amendment No. 1 to the Joint Powers Agreement between Hennepin County and the City of Golden Valley regarding 911 embedded social worker program (2 pages) HC #A2010506 AMENDMENT #1 TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY This Joint Powers Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between the County of Hennepin, Minnesota (“COUNTY”) on behalf of its Human Services and Public Health Department (“HSPHD”) and on behalf of its Sheriff’s Office (“HCSO”), 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 and City of Golden Valley (“CITY”) on behalf of its Police Department, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 (“POLICE DEPARTMENT”) pursuant to the authority conferred upon them by Minn. Stat. § 471.59. COUNTY and CITY are also referred to herein as the “parties.” IT IS HEREBY AGREED that Agreement No. #A2010506 between the above-named parties, including any prior amendments, is hereby amended in accordance with the provisions set forth below. Clause 3, TERM OF AGREEMENT, shall be amended to read: 3. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT “The term of this Agreement shall be from June 1, 2021, through December 31, 2024, unless terminated earlier in accordance with the Default and Cancellation/Termination provision of this Agreement.” This amendment shall be effective December 31, 2022. Except as hereinabove amended, the terms, conditions and provisions of said Contract No. #A2010506 shall remain in full force and effect. (The remainder of this page intentionally left blank.) HC #A2010506 2 The parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions set forth in this Agreement. Reviewed for HSPHD by COUNTY OF HENNEPIN the County Attorney’s Office: STATE OF MINNESOTA By: ______________________________ Chair of Its County Board Date: ________________________ ATTEST: Deputy/Clerk of County Board Reviewed for HCSO by Date: the County Attorney’s Office: _______________________________ And: County Administrator Date: __________________________ Date: CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By: Shepard M. Harris, Mayor Date: November 1, 2022 By: Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager Date: November 1, 2022 Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 1, 2022 Agenda Item 3. D. 1. Adopt Resolution No. 22-098 Accepting a Donation for the Medley Park Community Garden from Hennepin County and the Active Living Equipment Fund Grant Prepared By Rick Birno, Director of Parks & Recreation Summary As adopted in the Donation/Gift Policy, a gift of real or personal property must be accepted by the City Council by Resolution and be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Council. All donations and grants must be acknowledged and accepted by motion with a simple majority. Financial Or Budget Considerations Donation will support Community Garden Projects in the Parks CIP. Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution No. 22-098 Accepting the Donation for the Medley Park Community Garden from Hennepin County and the Active Living Equipment Fund Grant Supporting Document • Resolution No. 22-098 Accepting the Donation for the Medley Park Community Garden from Hennepin County and the Active Living Equipment Fund Grant. RESOLUTION NO. 22-098 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE DONATION FOR THE MEDLEY PARK COMMUNITY GARDEN FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE ACTIVE LIVING EQUIPMENT FUND GRANT WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-20 on March 16, 2004, which established a policy for the receipt of gifts; and WHEREAS, the Resolution states that a gift of real or personal property must be accepted by the City Council by Resolution and be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Council. A cash donation must be acknowledged and accepted by motion with a simple majority. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council accept the following donations on behalf of its citizens: A donation of $4,901.80 from Hennepin County and the Active Living Equipment Fund grant for the addition of four raised aluminum garden containers at the new Golden Valley Community Garden at Medley Park. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 1st day of November 2022. _____________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Theresa Schyma, City Clerk Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 1, 2022 Agenda Item 3. E. Adopt Resolution No. 22-099 Waiving the Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments 2022-1 Sanitary Sewer Repairs Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Agreements have been signed with the property owners regarding total costs and waiving the public hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031. Adopting Resolution No. 22-099 allows the property owner to pay for their sanitary sewer repair over time with their property taxes. This work was done by the contractor for the 2022-1 PMP and was billed at the time of completion of the project. Terms are the same as the 2022 Project. Financial Or Budget Considerations The total assessment role is for $8,515. This cost was planned at the time of financing the 2022 PMP-1 project. Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution No. 22-099 Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031 and Ordering Certification of Special Assessments on Sanitary Sewer Repairs that Involve 2022-1 City Street Improvements. Supporting Documents • List of Sanitary Sewer Repairs Assessed in 2022-1 for 2022 PMP (1 page) • Resolution No. 22-099 Waving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031 and Ordering Certification of Special Assessments on Sanitary Sewer Repairs that Involve 2022 City Street Improvements (1 page) PID ADDRESS AMOUNT 30-118-21-42-0037 8555 DULUTH ST 8,515.00$ 8,515.00$ 2022 -1 PMP SANITARY SEWER REPAIRS RESOLUTION NO. 22-099 RESOLUTION WAIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 429.031 AND ORDERING CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER REPAIRS THAT INVOLVE 2022-1 CITY STREET IMPROVEMENTS Project Years Interest Rate First Year Levy Total Assessed 2022-1 PMP Sanitary Sewer Repairs 10 4% 2022 $8515.00 1. Each individual address (lots) will be assessed the full value of the signed contract with the homeowner for the various sanitary sewer repair(s). 2. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper assessments for each of said property respectively together with interest at the rate of four (4) percent per annum accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assessment not prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of 10 years, as indicated in each case. 3. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the period of January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023, will be payable with general taxes for the year of 2022, collectible in 2023, and one of each of the remaining installments, together with one year’s interest on that and all other unpaid installments, will be paid with general taxes for each consecutive year thereafter unless the entire assessment is paid in full by November 14, 2022. 4. The owner may pay off the assessment in full after November 14, 2022, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. 5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner provided by law. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 1st day of November 2022. _________________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________ Theresa Schyma, City Clerk Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting November 1, 2022 Agenda Item 3. F. Adopt Resolution No. 22-100 to Approve Local Housing Incentives Account (LHIA) Affordable Homeownership Pilot Application to the Metropolitan Council for the Home Ownership Program for Equity (HOPE) Prepared By Cherie Shoquist, Housing and Economic Development Manager Summary Staff requests approval of an application to the Metropolitan Council LHIA Affordable Homeownership Pilot to provide development financing and construction cost funding for HOPE homes. The LHIA Affordable Homeownership Pilot will provide grants to support affordable homeownership development, including acquisition and rehabilitation, for projects that best meet the following two priorities: • Racial Equity Priority: create homeownership opportunities for Black, Indigenous, and other ethnic or racial groups that own homes at disproportionately lower rates than white households in the region; and • Geographic Choice Priority: create affordable homeownership opportunities in parts of the region where it is most challenging. The pilot requires a dollar-for-dollar local match. The value of the land write down of the three City owned vacant lots is estimated at $225,000 - $400,000 per lot. The lots approved for development in the first year of HOPE include 1605 Douglas Drive, 208 Meander Road, and 4707 Circle Down. The pilot also requires the project serve households earning 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) or less, provide a minimum affordability term of 15 years, and first-time homebuyer participation in Home Stretch or a similar homeowner education program. Background The City Council approved the Public Land Disposition Ordinance on December 21, 2021. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority received and filed the City property inventory and recommendations on March 15, 2022. Four properties were identified as available land for development of affordable homeownership. The properties the HRA identified to move forward with single family or duplex development are: 2415 Douglas Drive, 1605 Douglas Drive, 208 Meander Road, and 4707 Circle Down. An information and engagement meeting with potential developers and other stakeholders was held on May Executive Summary City Council Meeting City of Golden Valley November1, 2022 2 31, 2022. The HRA approved the Home Ownership Program for Equity (HOPE) Guidelines and Request for Qualifications (RFQ) on June 21, 2022. The RFQ was released on June 22, 2022 and an information session was held with interested developers on June 29, 2022. Qualifications were due on July 22, 2022. The HRA discussed the qualified developers at the August 10, 2022 Work Session and approved them at the August 16, 2022 Special Meeting. The qualified developers include Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity for 1605 Douglas Drive, Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation for 208 Meander Road and 4707 Circle Down, and Homes Within Reach in partnership with both developers. Financial Or Budget Considerations Not applicable at this time. An administrative fee may be considered in the future if on-going monitoring and reporting needs are required. Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No. 22-100 Approving the Local Housing Incentives Account (LHIA) Affordable Homeownership Pilot Application to the Metropolitan Council for the Home Ownership Program for Equity (HOPE). Supporting Documents •Resolution No. 22-100 Approving the Local Housing Incentives Account (LHIA) Affordable Homeownership Pilot Application to the Metropolitan Council for the Home Ownership Program for Equity (HOPE). RESOLUTION NO. 22-100 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT (LHIA) AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP PILOT APPLICATION TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR THE HOME OWNERSHIP PROGRAM FOR EQUITY (HOPE) WHEREAS, the City has elected to participate in the Local Housing Incentives program established by the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (LCA) as well as partnered with the Metropolitan Council to establish a set of goals for affordable and lifecycle housing; and WHEREAS, the City established the Home Ownership Program for Equity to make City owned lots available for affordable and equitable homeownership development; and WHEREAS, HOPE prioritizes organizations that have demonstrated success in building relationships of trust with Black, Indigenous and people of color and in serving first generation homebuyers and other underrepresented homebuyers; and WHEREAS, systemic racism in housing occurs today – Black, Indigenous, and other communities of color continue to face discrimination and lack of access to affordable housing and home ownership; and WHEREAS, the City has higher racial disparities in homeownership than the regional average; and WHEREAS, the share of single-family housing stock in the City (72 percent) and the share of owner-occupied housing stock (74 percent) is higher than the regional average; and WHEREAS, the City has an average home sale price ($566,347) higher than what is affordable to a household earning 80 percent of Area Median Income ($355,600); and WHEREAS, the affordable housing need in the 51 to 80 percent of Area Median Income level (116 units) is more than half of the total affordable housing need (222 units); and WHEREAS, the qualified developers have a demonstrated record of serving Black, Indigenous, and/or other households of color in homeownership at rates at 70-80 percent and are greater than the city and or region’s homeownership rates for those same groups; and WHEREAS, the qualified developers have a current waiting list consisting of 80 percent Black, Indigenous, or other households of color and are at levels that are greater to the city population; and WHEREAS, the project team includes a lender, realtor, or other homebuyer- facing team member that is reflective of the Black, Indigenous, or other households of color that have disparate homeownership rates in the region; and WHEREAS, the marketing efforts for sale of the homes affirmatively further fair housing; and WHEREAS, HOPE will provide affordable homeownership opportunity to homebuyers with incomes less that 80 percent of Area Median Income; and WHEREAS, HOPE homes will remain affordable upon resale for ninety-nine years; and WHEREAS, HOPE addresses a need specific to our community to provide affordable and equitable homeownership opportunity on City owned vacant lots; and WHEREAS, the LHIA Affordable Homeownership Pilot funding would assist in filling the development financing and construction costs gaps. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY that this Council supports the Local Housing Incentives Account Affordable Homeownership Pilot application to the Metropolitan Council for the Home Ownership Program for Equity. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 1st day of November 2022. ____________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________ Theresa Schyma, City Clerk Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 1, 2022 Agenda Item 3. G. Approve a One-Year Extension of Zoning Code Variance for 1109 Winnetka Avenue North Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Background At the October 22, 2019, meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board members approved a variance for the property at 1109 Winnetka Ave N to allow for the construction of a home/garage addition. The BZA granted a variance from Section 113-88, Subd. (f)(1)(c)(2) Side Yard Setback, to allow the home/garage addition to be 7.17 feet off of the required 12.5 feet to a distance of 5.3 feet at its closes point to the side yard (south) property line. According to the Zoning Code, a building permit must be applied for within one year of the date of the final notice of variance approval. The applicant, Mike Olson, requested a one-year extension in November of 2020 and in November of 2021. These extensions were granted by the City Council. The applicant is now requesting a third one-year extension which would extend the time available to apply for a building permit to October 21, 2023. Staff supports this extension, but has warned the homeowner that no further extensions would likely be approved. Recommendation Motion to approve a one-year extension for an approved Zoning Code variance for 1109 Winnetka Avenue North to October 21, 2023. Attachments - Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Dated October 22, 2019 (3 pages) - Notice of Final Order (1 Page) CityofGoldenValley BZARegularMeeting October22,2019–7pm 2 roadwasnotcreatedbytheapplicantwhichiswhatiscreatingthefrontyardissue,andsurrounding propertieshaveprivacyfencessoafenceonthispropertywouldnotalterthecharacterofthe neighborhood. Campbellstatedthatstaffisrecommendingapprovaloftherequesttoallowforanincreaseinthe maximumfenceheightallowedattherearofthelotfrom4ft.to6ft. BlumaskedifthereareanysimilarscenarioslikethisintheCity.NelsonsaidtheBoardhasbeentough onfencevariancesinthepast.ShenotedthatvarianceshavebeengrantedalongtheHighway55 frontageroad. BrockPeterson,applicant,saidthepropertyalongWayzataBlvd.reallyactslikearearyard. Nelsonopenedthepublichearing.Seeingandhearingnoonewishingtocomment,Nelsonclosedthe publichearing. MOTIONmadebyOrenstein,secondedbyPerichtoapprovethevariancerequestfor2ft.ofadditional heightthanallowedinafrontyardtoallowfora6ͲfoottallfencealongWayzataBlvdandthemotion carried4to0. 1109WinnetkaAvenueNorth TrishaFryandMikeOlson,Applicants Request:WaiverfromSection113Ͳ88,SingleFamilyResidential,Subd.(f)(1)(c)(2)HeightRequirements x 7.17ft.offoftherequired12.5ft.toadistanceof5.33ft.atitsclosestpointtothesideyard(south) propertyline. Purpose:Toallowforagarageaddition. Campbellreferredtoalocationmapofthepropertyandexplainedtheapplicant’srequestforavariance of7.17ft.offtherequired12.5ft.toadistanceof5.33feetatitsclosestpointtothesideyard(south) propertylineinordertoconverttheexistingbreezewayspacetolivablespaceandtoaddasecond garagestall. CampbellexplainedthatZoningCoderequiredlotshavingawidthgreaterthan65ft.andlessthan100 ft.thesidesetbacksforanyportionofastructure15ft.orlessinheightshallbe12.5ft. Campbellstatedthestaffanalysisisthatatwostallgarageisareasonableuseandisthenormformost newlyconstructedhome.Thelocationoftheadditionwouldputitbehindthefrontplaneofthehouse andpreservetheexistingfrontfacade.ThelotissomewhatundersizedcomparedtocurrentRͲ1 requirementsandthelocationofanemergencyexitinhibitssomedevelopmenttotherear.Headded xxx CityofGoldenValley BZARegularMeeting October22,2019–7pm 3 thatmanysurroundingandnearbypropertieshavegaragesforoneortwocarstothisproposalwould notimpacttheessentialcharacteroftheneighborhood. Campbellstatedthatstaffisrecommendingapprovaloftherequestedvariance. Orensteinaskedaboutthesetbackrequirementonthenorthsideofthepropertyandiftherewouldbe anychangesonthenorthside.Campbellsaidthesetbackonthenorthsideisalso12.5ft.andthere wouldbenochangesmadetothatsideoftheproperty. Nelsonaskedifthenewdrivewaywouldmeettherequiredsetback.Campbellsaidyes,thedriveway wouldbe3ft.fromthesideyardpropertylineasrequired. Blumsaidhehasquestionsaboutthefeasibilityofotheroptions.Heaskedaboutthesizeofthecurrent garageandtheproposednewgarage.Campbellsaidthecurrentgarageisapproximately11.5ft.widex 21ft.deepandtheproposednewgaragewouldbe20.5ft.widex26ft.deep.Henotedthattheexisting breezewayisproposedtobeusedforakitchenremodel.Blumaskedaboutthelengthofthebreezeway. Campbellsaiditis10.4ft.long.Zimmermanaddedthattheproposednewgaragewouldbe approximately8ft.widerthantheexistinggarage.Blumsaidhethinksthebreezewaycouldbeusedfor additionalgaragespace.Campbellsaidthebreezewayandgaragewillbothneedfoundationworktodo anytypeofaddition.Blumaskedifthereisanythingtotherearofthecurrentgarageandbreezeway thatwouldpreventanadditiontotherearoftheproperty.Campbellsaidthereisanexistingdeckinthe rearyard.Blumaskedabouttherearyardsetback.Campbellsaidtherearyardsetbackis25ft.Blumsaid itseemslikethereisnothingtopreventtheapplicantfrombuildingatandemtwostallgaragetotherear oftheexistingstructure. MikeOlson,applicant,statedthattheywanttomakethehomemoreusableandhaveenoughspacefor twocarsinthegarage. Nelsonaskedifthereisanegresswindowbehindthehouse.TrishaFry,applicantsaidyes,thereisa smallgalleykitchenthattheywouldliketoexpandintothebreezewayspaceandthatthereisanegress windowunderthekitchen. Nelsonopenedthepublichearing.SeeingandhearingnoonewishingtocommentNelsonclosedthe publichearing. Blumsaidhethinksthevariancerequestissubstantialandsaidtherewouldbenodifficultyin constructingatandemgaragewithoutavariance.Hesaidthereismorethanenoughroombetweenthe existinghouseandgarageforagarageadditionifthebreezewaywasusedforgaragespace.Headded thatisdifferentfromothergaragevarianceshe’sseenbecauseinthosecasesthegaragewasattached tothehouseandinthiscasethereareatleasttwootheroptionsthatcouldbeusedbytheapplicantto buildatwostallgarage. CityofGoldenValley BZARegularMeeting October22,2019–7pm 4 NelsonsaidinordertoallowpeopleatwostallgaragetheBoardhasgrantedvariancesinthepastthat areclosertothesideyardpropertylinethanwhatiscurrentlybeingrequested.Shesaidshe understandsBlum’sconcernaboutusingthebreezewayforadditionalgaragespacebuttoheratandem garageisnotverydesirableoruseful. Blumaskedifatandemgarage,despitebeingundesirable,constitutesthelevelofhardshipthatis requiredwhenapprovingvariances.Nelsonsaidshethinksitwould. OrensteinagreedtheBoardhasahistoryofapprovingvariancesinordertoallowasecondgaragestall. Hesaidheunderstandsthisisasubstantialvariancerequestbuthewouldbesupportiveofit.Blumsaid therearewaystheapplicantcanbuildasecondgaragestallwithoutneedingavariance. Nelsonaskedtheapplicantstoexplainthesquarefootageofthehomeandtheirplansforthebreezeway space.Frysaidthereisapproximately1,300squarefeetandusingthebreezewaywouldgivethemabout 170squarefeetofadditionalspace.Shestatedthattheexistingkitchenisatiny,galleystylekitchenand itisdifficultfortwopeopletobeinitatthesametime.Olsonaddedthattheywouldalsolikethe additionallivingandentertainingspace.Frysaidtheywouldbewillingtousesomeofthebreezeway spaceinordertohaveasidebysidegarage,buttheyhavedifferentworkschedulessoatandemgarage wouldbedifficultforthem. Perichsaidhethinkstheproposalisreasonableandnotedthata20footwidegarageisreallythebare minimumsizeforatwostallgarage.Hesaidtheproposalwon’taltertheessentialcharacterofthe neighborhoodsohewouldvoteinfavorofthevarianceasrequested. Nelsonsaidshethinksatwostallgaragewillimprovethepropertyandsheisinfavorofthevariance requestasproposed. MOTIONmadebyNelson,secondedbyPerichtoapprovethevariancerequestfor7.17ft.offofthe required12.5ft.toadistanceof5.33ft.atitsclosestpointtothesideyard(south)propertylinetoallow forahome/garageaddition.Themotioncarried3to1.Blumvotedno. Golden Valley Council Meeting November 1, 2022 Agenda Item 4. A. Ordinance No. 745 – Amending the Zoning Code in Order to establish Regulations Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units, Resolution No. 22-101 Prepared By Myles Campbell, Planner Summary In 2021, the City Council directed Planning Commission and staff to examine and research Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). After presenting their findings to Council, the Planning Commission was directed as part of their 2022 workplan to draft an ordinance regulating where and in what from these ADUs could be built. This executive summary will provide background on the ordinance draft recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, cover a suggested area of revision regarding the purpose statement for the ADU ordinance, and then also cover the other related feedback received from Commissioners, members of the public, and City Equity staff. Ordinance Review A full copy of the draft ordinance is attached with this executive summary for review. To briefly summarize the most significant items included: •ADUs would be allowed in R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, when associated with an existing or proposed single-family home (no duplexes or rowhome properties) •ADUs would be permitted via an administrative approval, to allow staff to review plans for conformity with the code, and to track approved ADUs over time •ADUs would be restricted in size to 35% of the home’s livable sq.ft. or 950 sq.ft., whichever is less, and on the low end cannot be less than 250 sq.ft. •Attached and Internal ADUs would be allowed on any lot so long as they met the same setbacks, height, impervious surface, and other restrictions applicable to the single-family home •Detached ADUs would be allowed only on lots over 10,000 sq.ft. and for those that could not meet principal structure setbacks, a conditional use permit would be required o These would also be restricted to side and rear yards, with minimum side and rear setbacks of 10 feet and a 12 foot maximum wall height Additional items such as definitions and regulations regarding design, building permitting, parking, owner occupancy, and other requirements are included in the attached ordinance for review. Overall, the Planning Commission felt this ordinance struck a somewhat cautious approach to initially allowing ADUs, but one which still left a lot of flexibility for the individual property owners. Commissioners who were initially unenthusiastic about ADUs felt the ordinance effectively mitigated impacts on adjacent properties, and thus were comfortable supporting the ordinance. Other Commissioners felt this was a step in the right direction to allow ADUs, even if they would’ve liked to see the ordinance have fewer restrictions on the use. One area where comments remained from the Commission and our Equity staff was with respect to the purpose statement. This had initially been based on the same element from the Minnetonka ADU code, and further revised following Commissioner feedback. Planning Commissioners wanted to further see if the purpose statement could be more transparent about the increase in housing density by allowing ADUs in single-family neighborhoods, and Equity staff wanted to clarify the language around “protects existing residential neighborhoods” to be more focused on immediate neighbor impacts. In addition, Equity staff pointed out that the language describing who would be allowed to use ADUs created a sense of exclusivity. First, it was a limited list of user types and one which may not reflect the variety of ADU uses in reality. Second, it listed certain groups of occupants as being acceptable and left other groups of potential occupants out. Third, the language around live-in employees mirrored some language from racially restrictive covenants in Golden Valley, in which exemptions to racial covenants were allowed for “domestic servants.” (“No persons of any race other than the Caucasian race shall use or occupy any building or any lot, except that this covenant shall not prevent occupancy by domestic servants of a different race domiciled with an owner or tenant.” Covenant in Spring Green Neighborhood dated 19__). Staff does not the purpose statement to be viewed as endorsing occupancy by some groups of people to the exclusion of others. Given this feedback from Planning Commission and the City’s Equity staff, the revised language below is proposed for consideration by the Council: (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to allow for and regulate the location, placement, design, and use of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) that broadens the range of housing options available in the city in a manner that protects existing residential neighborhoods mitigates impacts on surrounding properties while allowing additional living unit housing unit density beyond a single-family home. Accessory Dwelling Units shall be allowed for the following purposes, among others: (1) Enjoyment of the benefits of rental income, decreased housekeeping responsibilities or the companionship of tenants by persons residing in houses which are too large for their present needs; (2) Provision of housing which allows privacy and independence for aging family members; (3) Provision of housing for live-in employees, such as nannies. Planning Commissioners also had questions on variance requests and what could be eligible under the ADU code for that type of variance from the language of the Ordinance. Given that these new and amended code sections fall under City zoning code they are eligible for variances, although Minnesota statute differentiates between “use” and “area” variances. Area variances, or variances having to do with the building or physical aspects of the development, are allowed by law. Some examples of area variances include: parking, height, setbacks, etc. Use variances are not allowed under Minnesota law. City Code defines use as “the purpose or activity for which the land, structure, or building thereon is designated, arranged, or intended, or for which it is occupied, utilized, or maintained, and shall include the performance of such activity as defined by the performance standards of [the zoning chapter].” It’s important to note that while ADUs would be eligible for area variances, the normal variance approval process through the Board of Zoning Appeals would apply. Public Comment & Golden Valley Speaks Given the broad applicability of the ADU ordinance to single-family properties throughout the city, some additional measures were taken to increase outreach on the topic: ADU engagement such as the survey over the summer and accompanying City News article, a post card notice on the public hearings that went out to all single-family properties, and finally the roll out of Golden Valley Speaks just in time for the Planning Commission public hearing. People Speaks is a for-profit software company that designs “asynchronous meeting” websites that allow members of the public to watch and comment on public hearing topics from meetings or on long-range projects. As the first community in Minnesota to implement the tool, Golden Valley received a free one-year trial to have a website built and used for Planning Commission. The timing worked out that the site could be live for the ADU public hearing and as a result the City received over 30 comments from the site in advance of the public hearing. Not only did this increase access to providing feedback on the proposal, but Commissioners noted it also streamlined the in- person public hearing, with only a handful of comments received that night. Commissioners also found the tool relatively easy to use once they had accounts set up, and liked using it to review the agenda items. Comments received through Golden valley Speaks and in-person were mixed between those supportive of the proposal and those opposed to it. A full copy of written comments is included with this summary as an attachment, as well as minutes from the meeting to reflect the comments that night. Generally, staff feels the ordinance as proposed addresses most of the concerns raised by residents. Short-term Rentals One concern from residents that was then highlighted by the Planning Commission was the question raised of whether ADUs could be used as short-term rentals. Currently the City’s rental licensing ordinance does not differentiate between short and long-term rentals. Regulations specifically for short-term rentals were discussed last by City Council in 2017 in the lead up to the Superbowl held in Minneapolis. At the time, no amendments to rental licensing or other actions were taken by the City Council; Golden Valley did not seem to have a great enough number of short-term rentals to justify adding short-term rental requirements. The staff time involved with enforcement of a prohibition or expanded licensing would be significant. A copy of the staff memo from the June 13, 2017, Council Manager Meeting is attached. As rental licensing falls outside the zoning code, Planning Commission did not feel it in their purview to heavily discuss the topic, but wished to include in their overall ADU recommendation to Council a request for the Council to consider if the status of short-term rentals in Golden Valley should be revisited. If Council feels this approach makes sense, staff could be directed to begin an examination of how the short-term rental market has changed since 2017 and if any cities have taken new steps in regulating them. Equity Considerations Staff reviewed the proposed ordinance with the City’s Equity staff. As discussed above, changes were suggested in light of the City’s history of racially restrictive covenants and in keeping with the City’s participation in the Just Deeds Coalition. Discussions with Equity staff prompted additional consideration of the owner-occupancy requirement. Requiring the property owner to live on-site restricts someone from renting both the principal structure and the ADU simultaneously. In addition to placing a restriction on the use of property, this requirement could perpetuate harmful narratives about renters. Specifically, that renters have a greater negative impact on surrounding properties, such as through noise, maintenance, and other violations. The City already has a rental licensing ordinance which would be in effect for ADU rentals, and which would also apply to the primary structure if both units were allowed to be rented. Owner Occupancy requirements are common in most of the ADU regulations for suburban communities in the Twin Cities metro, hence its initial inclusion in the ordinance, although this is not universal. Crystal is an example of a community that allows ADUs but does not include an owner occupancy requirement. Crystal staff shared that of the 9 ADUs built since the code was adopted in 2018, only one property was ever in a situation where both properties were rented simultaneously, and in that case, it was only for a 10-month period while the property was being sold. Staff is raising this question to Council of whether the owner occupancy requirement should remain for now or whether it should be eliminated. It is also not uncommon to see ADU codes revised after their adoption, so if retained, this would not restrict this or a future Council from removing the requirement if it was found to be unnecessary or if it was reducing demand for ADUs. Financial Or Budget Considerations No significant considerations. If a fee is established for ADU applications it would be to cover staff time costs for review, and in theory properties adding an ADU would increase their property value and consequently the property tax collected. Recommended Action •Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 745 – Amending the Zoning Code in Order to establish Regulations Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units •Motion to approve Resolution No. 22-101 authorizing summary publication of Ordinance No. 745 Supporting Documents •Ordinance No. 745 – Amending the 2022 Master Fee Schedule for the Addition of a Grant Administration Fee (4 pages) •Resolution No. 22-101 authorizing summary publication of Ordinance No. 745 (1 page) •Memo to the Planning Commission dated October 10, 2022 (4 pages) •Minutes from Golden Valley Planning Commission dated October 10, 2022 (4 pages) •Golden Valley Speaks Comments on ADUs (9 pages) •Community Input Report (30 pages) •Staff Memo on Short-term Rentals, June 13, 2017 (2 pages) ORDINANCE NO. 745 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending Chapter 113 Zoning in Order to Establish Regulations Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units Associated with a Single-Family Home The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Section 113-87. Table 87-1 Residential Land Uses is amended to read as follows and reformatting following rows accordingly Low to Moderate Density Housing Single-family dwellings* P P X X Two-family dwellings X P P X Rowhouses with up to four attached units X P X X Townhouses X X P X *Accessory dwelling units are allowed as an accessory use to a single-family dwelling in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. These units are subject to either administrative or conditional review, as regulated in Sec. 113-151 of City Code. Section 2. City Code Section 113-88, Subdivision (d)(3) is amended to read as follows and items in this subdivision renumbered accordingly: 3. Accessory Dwelling Units associated with a single-family home, as regulated by Section 113-159 and with either administrative approval or a conditional use permit. Section 3. City Code Section 113-89, Subdivision (d)(3) is amended to read as follows and items in this subdivision renumbered accordingly: 3. Accessory Dwelling Units associated with a single-family home, as regulated by Section 113-159 and with either administrative approval or a conditional use permit. Section 4. City Code Section 113-159, is established to read as follows: Sec. 113-159. – Accessory Dwelling Units (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to allow for and regulate the location, placement, design, and use of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) in a manner that protects existing residential neighborhoods while allowing additional living unit density. Accessory Dwelling Units shall be allowed for the following purposes, among others: Ordinance No. 745 -2-November 1, 2022 (1)Enjoyment of the benefits of rental income, decreased housekeeping responsibilities or the companionship of tenants by persons residing in houses which are too large for their present needs; (2)Provision of housing which allows privacy and independence for aging family members; (3)Provision of housing for live-in employees, such as nannies. (b)Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: (1)Accessory Dwelling Unit - A smaller, independent residential dwelling unit located on the same lot as a stand-alone single-family home. (2)Living Space - the area within a house which is suitable for human habitation including suitable finished basement areas but excluding garages, services areas and unfinished portions of the building. (3)Owner - the person who holds fee title or is a bona fide purchaser under a contract for deed of the property. (4)Attached ADU – An accessory dwelling unit which involves an addition to the principal structure of a lot to allow for the new secondary unit. (5)Internal ADU – An accessory dwelling unit in which a portion of the existing principal structure is converted for use as a new secondary unit. (6)Detached ADU – An accessory dwelling unit which is stand-alone from the principal structure, or which is incorporated into an existing stand-alone accessory structure. (c)General Regulations. Accessory dwelling units shall not be created or used except in conformity with the following requirements: (1)Accessory dwelling units shall only be allowed on lots zoned for R-1 or R-2 zoning and which have a single-family home present. (2)There shall be no more than one accessory dwelling unit allowed per lot. (3)The owner must have permanent residence established at the property and reside in either the principal or accessory dwelling. (4)A minimum of one additional off-street parking space shall be provided for the accessory dwelling unit in addition to those required for the principal dwelling. The creation of the accessory dwelling unit by conversion of garage space shall not reduce the home’s provided off-street parking below the minimum requirements listed in Section 113-151 of zoning code. (5)Utility connections for the accessory dwelling unit shall be provided from the existing principal structure so long as adequate capacity exists or can be provided. (6)all other provisions of zoning code relating to single-family dwelling units shall be met, unless specifically amended by this code section. (7)Administration and Establishment i.Establishment of an accessory dwelling unit shall require an administrative review by City Staff in addition to any required permits relating to construction. ii.no accessory dwelling unit shall be created except in compliance with all applicable building, housing, electrical, plumbing, heating and related codes of the city; Ordinance No. 745 -3- November 1, 2022 iii. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be leased or rented without first receiving a rental license from the City as regulated under Chapter 16, Article III of City Code. iv. The accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold independently of the principal residential dwelling and may not be a separate tax parcel. (d) Attached and Internal ADUs. Accessory dwelling units incorporated with the principal dwelling shall be subject to the following requirements. (1) Size Restrictions i. The floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall be no more than 35 percent of the home’s gross living area, or 950 square feet, whichever is less. In the case of internal accessory dwelling units, the area being converted for use shall be included in this calculation of gross living area. ii. The accessory dwelling unit shall have a minimum floor area of 250 square feet. (2) Design Guidelines i. Exterior changes to the home shall not substantially alter the single- family character of the structure. ii. Entrance to the accessory dwelling unit shall face either the side or rear yard. (e) Detached ADUs. Stand-alone accessory dwelling units shall be subject to the following requirements. (1) Approval i. A detached accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted only via a conditional use permit, as defined in Sec. 113-30, unless the accessory dwelling unit is shown to meet the same side and rear setbacks as required of the principal structure, in which case ADU administrative approval is still required. (2) Location Restrictions i. Detached accessory structures shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback than the principal structure. ii. A minimum lot size of 10,000 sq.ft. is required to establish a detached accessory dwelling unit. iii. Detached accessory dwelling units shall be located no less than ten feet from a side or rear lot line. iv. Detached accessory dwelling units shall be located no less than ten feet from the principal structure. (3) Size Restrictions i. The floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall be no more than 35 percent of the home’s gross living area, or 950 square feet, whichever is less. ii. The accessory dwelling unit shall have a minimum floor area of 250 square feet. iii. Detached accessory dwelling units shall be restricted to a maximum height of 12 feet, as measured from the floor to the top horizontal Ordinance No. 745 -4- November 1, 2022 component of a frame building to which the rafters are fastened (known as the "top plate"). iv. The floor area of a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not count towards the maximum area limitation for accessory structures in the R-1 or R-2 zoning districts. (4) Design Guidelines i. The detached accessory dwelling unit shall be designed and use materials which complement and match the existing principal dwelling. ii. Rooftop decks are not permitted in conjunction with a detached accessory dwelling unit. iii. Windowed dormers shall not face towards adjacent properties to the side or rear. Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 1st day of November 2022. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/ Theresa J. Schyma Theresa J. Schyma, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 22-101 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 745 WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendment of the Golden Valley City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of the publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION ORDINANCE NO. 745 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending Chapter 113 Zoning in Order to Establish Regulations Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units Associated with a Single-Family Home This is a summary of the provisions of Ordinance No. 745 which has been approved for publication by the City Council. At the November 1, 2022, City Council meeting, the Golden Valley City Council enacted Ordinance No. 745 amending the Zoning Code to allow for accessory dwelling units. The full ordinance is available to the public at the City Clerk’s Office, 7800 Golden Valley Road during normal business hours and online at www.goldenvalleymn.gov/code/. Passed by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota on November 1, 2022. _____________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Theresa Schyma, City Clerk Date: October 10, 2022 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Myles Campbell, Planner Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units – Informal Public Hearing Summary The City Council has directed Planning Commission to examine new zoning regulations to allow for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) within the R-1 and R-2 residential zoning districts. Tonight’s meeting is an informal public hearing on the topic, prior to a recommendation being made to City Council on action to be taken. This memo will provide a quick description of ADUs and City Goals for members of the public who haven’t followed the topic as closely, a high level summary of the proposed ordinance amending zoning code, which is attached, then will provide some information on the online comment platform Golden Valley Speaks, and finally will provide the Planning Commission with its options on how to proceed with the ordinance amendment along with staff’s recommended action. ADU Background Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) refers to a secondary housing unit or apartment that exists on the same property as a single-family residence, either attached or detached from the primary residence. These dwellings are commonly used for housing an adult child, aging parent(s), or for property owners to make supplemental income by renting out the unit. In nearly all cases, the ADU is a dwelling that is smaller than the principal home, differentiating this housing type from a true duplex or twin home. In terms of ADUs in Golden Valley, the first mention of the housing type in a planning document, was as an objective in the housing chapter of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This document would have been in the drafting process right around the time when other communities in the Twin Cities region were adopting their own ADU ordinances. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan has a larger goal of “Expand The Variety Of Housing Options: Expand the variety of housing types and designs to allow all people a housing choice for all life stages and all economic means” and within this goal was an objective to “Research opportunities to allow accessory dwelling units for multi- generational living opportunities.” 2 In 2021, the City Council added ADU research to the Planning Commission Work Plan, and two discussions with Planning Commission were held over that summer. Planning Commission’s research and comments were forwarded to the Council at a November Work Session. Coming out of that work session, the Council felt comfortable pursuing an ADU ordinance, and asked Planning Commission to begin drafting suitable language to regulate the new housing type. They also requested the additional focus be put on detached ADUs, and whether they were a fit for Golden Valley and through what regulations. Additionally requested was a process to engage the residential population of the City on this zoning change. Through 2022, Planning Commission has held a number of meetings on the topic, and provided comments on two previous draft code language documents. Over the month of June, an online survey was conducted on the topic, and as will be discussed later in this memo, an opportunity to comment outside of the informal public meeting has also been provided. Proposed Code Changes Golden Valley’s ADU ordinance pulls from a handful of other suburban communities existing code language, such as Minnetonka, St. Louis Park, and Crystal. These code sections were used as a baseline, but have been modified following discussions with Commissioners and to fit Golden Valley’s pattern of development. For example, the Golden Valley Code for detached ADUs sets a stricter side setback of 10’ than most other communities, and calls for a conditional use permit review. The proposed code in its current form likely falls on the stricter overall end of the spectrum when examining ADU ordinances in comparable communities: stricter setbacks than most, a hard cap on height that prohibits 2-story detached ADUs, and keeping an owner-occupancy requirement, to give a few examples. Where the code is more permissive than some communities is in allowing detached ADUs. While the standards for such structures are made restrictive, they are allowed, compared with other communities that only allow internal-conversion and attached ADUs. In terms of broader content categories, Golden Valley’s ADU regulation sets standards on the location, size and appearance, and administration of ADUs. The first two categories here mostly focus on the physical form of the ADU, how tall it can be, or in what zoning districts they are allowed. Administration regulations are a little more of a catch all for aspects like utility connections, owner-occupancy, rental licensing, and restriction on subdivision of property. A copy of the draft ordinance is included for both Commissioners and the general public to review, along with the marked up language from the meeting of the Planning Commission on August 22. The ordinance reflects some minor changes following that meeting, primarily cleaning up the purpose statement of the new ADU section, and improved formatting for additional clarity. A copy of the ordinance, as with all attachments, has also been included online at the GV Speaks website. The amendment and new ordinance text will largely fall under a new section under Article IV. -Supplemental Regulations of the existing zoning code; it does require some more minor corrections to other sections of code. 3 • Sec. 113-87. - Summary Use Tables. o A note on ADUs is included in the residential land use table • Sec. 113-88. - Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. o Accessory Dwelling Units added to Subsec. (d) on Accessory Uses • Sec. 113-89. - Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District. o Accessory Dwelling Units added to Subsec. (d) on Accessory Uses The bulk of the code amendments would be added under Sec. 113-159, a new category devoted entirely to ADU regulations. The inclusion of ADUs in code impacts other sections outside of the zoning code as well, however staff does not at this time see a need to amend these other sections. An example would be the rental licensing standards that an ADU would need to meet in order to be leased or operated as a rental, or regulations on building construction called out in Chapter 103 of code. For now these are referenced in the ADU code as additional standards to be met in order to establish the ADU (or establish a rental via licensing). All ADUs, regardless if they are new build or a remodel, for a parent or a renter, will be required to first go through an administrative approval process with City staff. This would happen prior to any required building permitting. Requiring this approval has a number of benefits in staff’s eyes. • An application form can be an opportunity to reinforce design requirements with homeowners early in the process o This would also provide staff a checklist to work from in their review • A record of approved ADUs will allow for simplified code enforcement in the future as properties turn over to new owners, and new City staff are hired • Neighbors could be notified if an ADU application is approved, giving some advance announcement of construction impacts Administrative approval, while a step to be completed by the homeowner, does somewhat simplify things by not requiring Planning Commission or City Council review. This expedites the timing especially since public hearings can generally take around 2 months all told. The only case in which an ADU requires Council approval is for detached style ADUs that fail to meet the same setbacks of the principal structure. A conditional use permit (CUP) is required in this case, and the minimum setbacks of 10’ from the side and rear setbacks still need to be met. The Planning Commission then would have some additional control over these structures, and could establish related conditions on the use. While this split approval path is a bit more complex for homeowners to navigate, staff hopes that it may incentivize homeowners to select ADU locations more towards the interiors of their property that avoids the need for a CUP. 4 Golden Valley Speaks With the Accessory Dwelling Ordinance amendment, staff has made a new communication tool for Planning Commission items live and open to members of the public. This site is being provided a year-long free trial in Golden Valley, and for now will be focused on Planning Commission items. The Golden Valley Speaks website is able to host agenda materials in a format that is more user friendly for members of the public to review. Most importantly, and what drew staff to the platform initially was the robust commenting tools available, that allows residents to send public comment in advance of in-person meetings, without requiring staff time and energy to manage cataloging and organizing. Residents can either call or leave written comments on any items involving a public hearing, both internal applications like with ADUs, or external when staff receives a development application. Staff will be tasked with getting memos and meeting materials assembled a bit earlier in advance of the meeting than previously, but the benefit is increased engagement. Realistically, very few people who might otherwise have thoughts on an agenda topic can find time in their own schedules for a Monday night meeting that could take hours of their evening. With Golden Valley Speaks, the goal is to have comments open ten days in advance of the agenda item, and a pre- recorded copy of the presentation also available to react to. In addition, for external applications the applicant themselves are encouraged to upload any presentation materials in advance. This is a trial of the software, and for right now the intent is to have it in place for all Planning Commission public hearings for one year. Afterwards, Planning, Communications, and Finance staff plan to examine how well the tool functioned, if there was a noticeable increase in community engagement, and decide if it make sense to use long term. Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of zoning text amendments for Sec. 113-87 Summary Use Tables, Sec. 113-88 Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, Sec. 113-89 Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District, and Sec. 113-159 Accessory Dwelling Units, in order to allow for ADUs to be allowed in certain zoning districts. Attachments • Draft Ordinance (4 pages) • Approved Minutes from Planning Commission meeting dated August 22, 2022 (3 pages) • Draft Language Markup from August Meeting (4 pages) • Survey Report (30 pages) • Additional Public Comments received (1 page) REGULAR MEETING MINUTES This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for attending, participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public were able to monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable channel 16, by streaming it on CCXmedia.org, or by dialing in to the public call‐in line. 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chair Pockl. Roll Call Commissioners present: A. Brookins, E. Brenna, S. Ginis, A. Johnson, L. Pockl, C. Segelbaum, Commissioner absent: M. Ruby Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner Council Liaison: Denise La Mere‐Anderson 2. Land Acknowledgement 3. Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum, to approve the agenda of October 10, 2022. Motion carried. 4. Approval of Minutes MOTION made by Commissioner Ginis, seconded by Commissioner Brenna, to approve the meeting minutes of September 12, 2022. Motion carried with Brookins and Johnson abstaining. 5. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendments to allow for Accessory Dwelling Units Applicant: The City of Golden Valley Myles Campbell, Planner, started with a background of the entire ADU ordinance and provided a general overview of the presentation. 2018 ‐ ADUs were first identified in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan as an implementation item relating to a goal of the Housing Chapter. 2020 ‐ ADUs were identified in the City HRA’s 5‐year Strategic Plan as a tool to diversify housing options. 2021 – ADU research included on the Planning Commission's Annual Work Plan, two discussions were presented at Planning Commission and in November of 2021 the discussion was brought to a Council work session. October 10, 2022 – 6:30 pm Council Chambers Hybrid City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting October 10, 2022 – 6:30 pm 2 2022 – ADU ordinance discussions continued, following Council direction and from May‐June, a survey was hosted on the City webpage for feedback. There will be three main areas of focus for regulating ADUs: location, size and appearance, and administration. Staff elaborated on each area of focus for attached and detached ADUs. Staff reviewed the public comments and the new public comment process with asynchronous meeting software, Golden Valley Speaks. There were 35 comments related to this hearing so staff summarized the comments in support of ADUs and those not in support. The steps involved in establishing an ADU aim to strike a balance between leaving design flexibility mostly to the property owner, with specific restrictions and requirements to oversee the addition of a new housing type in Golden Valley. Recommendation Based on the body’s review of the topic, staff encourages Planning Commission to recommend the Council adopt the amended zoning code ordinance relating to the provision of Accessory Dwelling Units. Commissioner Segelbaum mentioned that many comments stated pros and cons to rentals, based on that he asked about City Code and rental licenses. Staff responded that rental licenses are issued by the Fire Department and discussed the life safety issues the department looks for. Staff went on to discuss the history of interest in Airbnb and other short‐term rentals. Commissioner Ginis mentioned density and ADUs as alternative housing choices and asked staff what Golden Valley may expect based on other suburbs for density. Staff responded that the trends show a slow adoption and comparative suburbs vary but are generally under 20 in total. The cost of a detached ADU is comparable to building a new home so an attached ADU is more reasonable. The conversation continued on to discuss regular accessory structures and variances, as well as what would qualify for variances with an ADU. Staff responded that the City does not allow variances for land use changes. Commissioner Brenna asked staff to confirm waste hauling will be reviewed and included. Staff stated in the affirmative that this will be reviewed and handled then discussed options for extra cans or sharing. All cans, regardless of amount, are subject to the screening/storage regulations. Commissioner Johnson asked what the benefit is for a homeowner to obtain an administrative approval and what inspections will occur. Staff will have a working list of all ADUs and a new homeowner may obtain a rentals license as the rental regulations are different for ADUs versus others. If a homeowner doesn’t register their ADU, the City has the power to issue citations and shut the rental down. Chair Pockl asked if there has been a pattern of property home values decreasing with ADUs. Staff didn’t have an area comparable to discuss but many of the coastal areas that have ADUs are thriving communities. Generally, the county assessor is reviewing land size, home sizes, access to amenities, and schools when assessing home values. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting October 10, 2022 – 6:30 pm 3 Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 7:22pm Ruth Paradise 8515 Duluth Street I’m in favor of these ADUs, I drove around to look at additions and they don’t seem as different aside from ADUs may be rented. There is a shortage of affordable housing, many cities are looking at ADUs but why are they called accessory dwelling units? ADUs are neither an accessory nor units, they’re necessary and a home. These homes can be for relatives or a renter while assuring the primary owner may have privacy. Single family homes are rented out in Golden Valley, and an ADU is a home and a person can rent a home, they are a necessity. I think Golden Valley should be a part of this solution. Jeff Hanes 1550 St Croix Circle I support ADUs for three reasons: The city will be competitive with other suburbs, it provides flexibility for the city and the resident/home owner, city staff has shown there are regulations and pieces in place to ensure the process is monitored. Mark Pirkl 1711 Quebec Ave N Made a suggestion to staff on PowerPoint formatting. Phillip Lund 7073 Winsdale Street I would like to commend the staff and City for addressing clinical issues that pertain to the ADU, I’m an architect and builder. I think the parameters are well done. Regarding density, it’s conceivable that four intersecting properties all erect a detached ADU and thus quadruple the density. This scenario won’t happen but is conceivable. Can you define a what makes an accessory structure an ADU. Does it need to have utilities, or a sidewalk; what makes a person have to apply for an ADU versus having a structure that someone lives in but uses the primary residence for utilities. There were no remote comments. Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 7:35pm. Staff discussed that early in the ordinance process the idea of limiting ADUs was mentioned however it was deemed discriminatory to residents who were later than their neighbors to add an ADU. The existing zoning code also defines a dwelling unit and how it differs from an accessory structure. The building and fire codes also have definitions and requirements for a dwelling unit. Commissioner Ginis voiced her support of ADUs adding that this will benefit Golden Valley and it provides housing choices for folks to care for other family members. Chair Pockl added the group and staff have been thoughtful with the process, pointing out that their role was not to decide if City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting October 10, 2022 – 6:30 pm 4 ADUs were to be allowed but how to regulate them if they were to be allowed. Pockl commended the group for the conversations, process, and considerations for all impacts. Pockl added it would behoove the City to stay aware of the number of comments regarding short term rentals. Commissioner Johnson added that he’d like a change the language in item A1 that states: more efficient utilization of the existing single‐family housing stock in the City. Johnson added he’d like to see it replaced with “a transition to multi‐family housing in the city” and would even like to make that recommendation. Staff pointed out an error in adding the full breadth of redlined language and the most up to date version reads: (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to allow for and regulate the location, placement, design, and use of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) in a manner that protects existing residential neighborhoods while allowing additional living unit density. Johnson added he wants the definition to be direct and doesn’t need to add something to change the intent of the code. This policy may change the land use in the R‐1 designation and added that being clear is important. Segelbaum noted this will increase density but isn’t sure this qualifies as a change in the land use designation. He added his support for this adoption with the note for Council to be aware of the short‐term rental concerns. MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Brenna, to recommend approval of zoning text amendments for Sec. 113‐87 Summary Use Tables, Sec. 113‐88 Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District, Sec. 113‐89 Moderate Density Residential (R‐2) Zoning District, and Sec. 113‐159 Accessory Dwelling Units, in order to allow for ADUs to be allowed in certain zoning districts. Commissioner Brookins added the notes to Council to review the short term rental language and to define what areas are able to receive variance requests. Motion carried. 6. Council Liaison Report Councilmember La Mere‐Anderson 7. Other Business Term limits on Boards and Commissions was discussed, a decision is tentatively scheduled for October City Council. 8. Adjournment MOTION by Commissioner Brenna to adjourn, seconded by Chair Pockl and approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:45pm. ________________________________ Andy Johnson, Secretary ________________________________ Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant Golden Valley Speaks Published Comments for October 10, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Zoning Text Amendments to Allow Accessory Dwelling Units After watching the recorded presentation about what the city is proposing regarding ADUs, I am in support of ADUs in Golden Valley. I am especially encouraged about the owner occupancy requirement. ADUs can facilitate multi-generational housing, which can be a positive for many families. And, requiring a permit for when there is a renter also safeguards against many of the concerns expressed in other public comments. I am hopeful this passes. October 9, 2022, 6:19 PM Jennifer Cleveland 505 Ardmore Drive Golden Valley, 55422 I do not support ADUs as currently defined. The current infrastructure is not designed to support additional density. Parking has not been adequately considered. The architecture of the neighborhoods is not being considered. I moved to this home two years ago specifically because of the larger lot and the style of homes in my neighborhood as well as the parks and wildlife. I paid a premium to be in a house in this neighborhood and would hate to see it become a location I no longer desire and decrease in value. I would not support rental of ADUs, especially short-term rentals. If the city wants to add density, there are plenty of locations already zoned for apartment/condos without destroying the single-family home neighborhoods. Adding a bunch of structures in people's backyards is NOT the solution to the need for housing. October 7, 2022, 4:20 PM Greg Goranson 1813 Spring Valley Rd Golden Valley, 55422 I think it may be a good idea. Much better idea than the PUD in my backyard. I think it would encourage families to stay together and care for each other. October 7, 2022, 11:14 AM Carolyn Anderson 3142 Quail Av N Golden Valley, 55422 I do not support ADUs being allowed as a rental property. I would support ADUs for family members if they would not interfere with my view, peace and quiet of my neighborhood, and property value. I left downtown living because I desired the peace and quiet my GV neighborhood has to offer. I purchased my home because it has a large peaceful and private lot with beautiful wildlife viewing that the creek and the park behind me has to offer. I have invested in my property and my investment has brought a higher property value and taxes. If my neighbor built an ADU I would expect my property value to decrease because of the loss of the qualities my lot offers and the loss of those attributes that led me to purchase a home in GV. Will my property taxes decrease with the loss of quality? Because the city currently struggles to enforce the existing statutes, ie. garbage container locations, street parking, building permits, etc. I am skeptical they could enforce ADUs statutes even with additional personnel. I don't think the city should broad brush ADU statutes of small vs. large lots. For example, my lot has a sanitary sewer line ROW running along the creek corridor. The city has to access and repair this line along the back of the homes in my neighborhood often because of shoreline erosion. There is also a 30 foot buffer zone along the creek. Adding impervious surface through ADUs would increase erosion and burden on the creek and sanitary sewer. My lot quickly drops off to a 25% slope, can someone build a 12 foot tall one level structure on this topography? We often have power outages because our electric lines run along the wooded creek corridor that is subject to trees falling on lines. How will these accessory buildings be powered? Can the already fragile electrical lines support an increase in usage? Will the ADU next to me be allowed to have a stinky loud generator to use during powered outages? I would recommend adding additional criteria that would address issues such as burden to utilities, an increase in impervious surface, increase in storm water runoff, property value loss, topography, decrease in wildlife habitat, increase in traffic and parking, loss of peace, privacy, and views. Please proceed with caution and a full assessment of the impacts that ADUs will have on all areas of our community and carefully weigh the pros and cons and find viable and enforcable solutions to the challenges that ADUs will bring. October 7, 2022, 10:43 AM Veronika Phillips 3910 Bassett Creek Drive Golden Valley, 55422 I have been a Golden Valley resident for over 20 years. I have 3 disabled young adults. An ADU is the only and best option for my family. Homes for the aging and disabled are over capacity, lack sufficient staffing and in many cases aren’t available or suitable. Denying the right and access to ADUs in our community is another barrier we shouldn’t have to face and endure. ADUs would support our community which would benefit from permit fees and higher property taxes. With available, accessible and affordable housing in crisis ADUs would allow us the opportunity to remain positive, contributing members of this city. October 6, 2022, 11:03 AM Julie Billups 2031 Winnetka Avenue North Golden Valley, 55427 I do not support ADUs in Golden Valley. My concern is that it will turn Golden Valley into a junky looking city. Unfortunately when reading through the materials, it appears that the council and the planning commission have already made up their minds and we will have them anyway. My past experience with “listening” sessions seems to always point to the same result: they go ahead with their plan and tell the public that the majority of the population is in favor. Since we’re getting stuck with them anyway, there need to be stricter limitations than the ones proposed. ADUs should not be built for the sole purpose of creating income. Only additional family members should be allowed to live in them. If a garage is converted to an ADU, another garage of equal size needs to replace it. Neighborhood approval needs to be required for all ADUs October 5, 2022, 3:30 PM John Breczinski 2205 Zealand Ave. North Golden Valley, 55427 Horrible idea. This would totally degrade the community. Where do extra cars and trash containers all go. Many homes don't currently follow guidelines about trash can storage.. Out on side of yard and not as ornamentation in front yards. I don't enjoy looking at garbage cans. This would exacerbate all. Safety issues as well. Possible strangers constantly changing. This is a residential community. Not rental property. This has increased crime written all over it.. I am totally opposed to this degradational move. October 5, 2022, 1:16 PM Cheryl Stock 8540 Patsy Ln Golden Valley, 55427 Worst idea I have heard. Leave the single family housing the way it is. If you need help I am sure most homes have an extra bedroom that someone could stay in to help you. Two different dwellings on 1 property is a ridiculous idea. Where would it be built, in my back yard? I'm sure my neighbors would love that. October 5, 2022, 11:42 AM Charles Arthur Ryan 1319 Winnetka Ave N Golden Valley, 55427 Dear Mayor and Council Members: For additional back ground, I should add that my wife and I have been residents of Golden Valley for 38 years. Our view is that the top priority of you folks is to represent/protect the best interest of the residents who elected you and who pay the taxes. So the simple questions becomes; what impact will allowing ADUs have on property values? If there is ANY CHANCE AT ALL that crowding housing lots with ADUs and further congesting the streets with cars will have a negative impact on property values.....then the answer is DON'T DO IT. Phil Zins October 5, 2022, 10:56 AM Phil Zins 2165 Zealand Avenue N Golden Valley, 55427-3346 We are NOT in favor of ADU's in Golden Valley and would not appreciate additional cars parked on residential streets. Many Golden Valley streets do not have sidewalks and this could be dangerous with additional traffic for both children and adults. October 5, 2022, 9:48 AM Kathryn and Thomas Skalitzky 120 Dakota Ave S Golden Valley, 55416 I support approving ADUs. I do think a prohibition on short term rentals should be explicitly called out. October 4, 2022, 11:52 AM Michael Dillon 1659 St Croix Circle Golden Valley, 55422 I support ADU's in Golden Valley. October 4, 2022, 11:18 AM Kathy Burt 4747 Culver Road Golden Valley, 55422 Based on my involvement in development of ADU regulations in Plymouth, I have the following comments. *Identify which lots would be eligible, such as limiting ADUs to subdivisions approved after a specified date and that include a specified number of single family lots. *Adding conditions such as limiting a lot to no more than one ADU, complying with the same minimum setback requirements for the living portion of the subject lot and not allowing separate ownership is also important. October 4, 2022, 8:13 AM Barbara Thomson 4620 Roanoke Road Golden Valley, 55422 I'm OK with approving ADUs. October 4, 2022, 7:10 AM Howard Wyn Schwartz 7400 Winnetka Heights Drive Golden Valley, 55427 I am not in favor of ADUs within Golden Valley. In concept they are a good idea, especially for aging family members or younger members of the family looking for their own space. Reality will be much different; investors will buy up single family homes within GV to add ADUs for double rental income properties with twice the issues and traffic. Homeowners with ADUs will not use them for long term rental units for family, instead they will use them for VRBOs/AirB&Bs which will maximize revenue. Again this will bring additional traffic and issues to neighborhoods. Should current neighborhood homeowners lose property value, deal with increased traffic, noise and potential for increased issues just so investors can get rich? Thanks October 3, 2022, 7:29 PM Banny Allison 2510 Lamplighter Ln Golden Valley, 55422 I support ADUs in Golden Valley. October 3, 2022, 11:42 AM Karen Evans 4901 Triton Drive Golden Valley, 55422 Hello, I do not want ADUs approved in the City. The increased size and appearance of a housing structure and increased traffic in the community where ADUs would be permitted would contribute to decreased values of neighboring houses as most wanting to live in neighborhoods with larger lots and less density would not find communities with multiple PDUs appealing. October 1, 2022, 1:01 PM Mark Maida 637 Turnpike Rd. Golden Valley, 55416 I support ADUs for family use with restrictions on short-term rentals. There are people who need a place for family members who require additional support, and this is a really good opportunity for families to provide care. If you haven't cared for a family member, please know it can be very hard financially and emotionally, and having options "closer to home" is a life-saver. October 1, 2022, 7:08 AM Susan Ramlet 1300 UNITY AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY, 55422 This is a much needed and wonderful amendment to the zoning code. We are fully in favor. This option allows families to make so many more options to support their family, aging parents, special needs adult children, and additional income with renters without leaving their home and Golden Valley. September 30, 2022, 8:57 AM Pamela Fincher 1117 Winnetka Ave N Minneapolis, 55427 I love the idea. There are so many increasing reasons for a need from increase in multi generational living to housing shortages to cost to own a home. I think this it is the home owners right to use their property to fit their needs. September 29, 2022, 5:37 PM Erin Radermacher 1209 Pennsylvania Ave N GOLDEN VALLEY, 55427 we have lived in Golden Valley for 50 years and want to age in place and I think the idea of accessory, the units are really just best thing that we've heard of in a long time. I know on both coasts I've had them for years. Saint Louis Park is had it Minneapolis has a Brooklyn Center. and finally Golden Valley has decided to make hopefully this reality. I think perhaps it will take some time to determine what the Planning Commission has to offer but let's hope that it can be expedited as soon as possible because of the neighborhood that I live in was trees and close to the city and a wonderful neighborhood. we'd like to remain in our neighborhood as long as we can so let's make this dream a reality thank you very much. September 29, 2022, 4:31 PM Judy Roger 2940 Cherokee Place Golden Valley Golden Valley, 55422 I do NOT support this. September 29, 2022, 4:30 PM Callie Brandt 2200 Xylon Ave n Golden valley, 55427 Against ADUs. Will become short term rentals, regardless of law because there are no resources to enforce. Noise issues, parking congestion, eye-sores on lots. Moved to Golden Valley for less density, quality of life, peace and quiet. Aging parents and adult children can happily live in an addition to the home where a backyard is not fully eaten by a 2nd home. Go survey Minneapolis neighbors of people that built ADUs and hear their feedback to get genuine quality-of-life impact. Thank you. September 29, 2022, 12:10 PM Edward Alch 609 Westwood Drive South Golden Valley, 55416-3350 Having the ability to have an ADU on our larger lots in the City is awesome. Please approve this text amendment. September 29, 2022, 11:52 AM jill suzanne jones 2945 Perry Ave N Golden Valley, 55422 I support allowing ADU's in Golden Valley but would restrict their use as VRBO's and similar rentals. This is a forward-thinking approach to allow residents to age in place. September 29, 2022, 9:04 AM Michael Burakowski 2408 Kewanee Way Golden Valley, 55422 I think ADUs, assuming that they are not motor homes or trailers parked on property, are beneficial to housing density and availability. Concerns that I have: - Current enforcement of housing and property care violations are not happening regularly. I would encourage the city to put more resources into their zoning and property management personnel. September 29, 2022, 8:40 AM Nora Tycast 232 KENTUCKY AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY, 55427 I support zoning to allow ADUs in Golden Valley. I want to add, however, that I would like to see Golden Valley also set policy around limits in selling current single homes to “flippers” and private corporations who buy up homes, pushing out potential regular home owners. I share this because the problem of affordable housing has partly been caused by corporate ownership, resulting in the need for ADUs. With the current national trend of 25% of single family homes now owned by corporations, regular citizens who would be a part of real community building are being squeezed out of home ownership. And affordable housing for first-time home owners is almost impossible. I have watched basic, 1960s ramblers in Golden Valley increase in cost by up to $200,000 in just the past couple of years—many shown on the market in the $400,000- 500,000 price range. This outpaces by far the income of most young people and families who would wish to settle in Golden Valley. Ironically, it also outpaces the buying power of older homeowners who wish to “downsize” to a smaller home in Golden Valley. I would like to see our city work with realtors on giving priority to buyers who intend to actually live in the city for a certain period of time. This would result in more affordable housing for all and a more secure and stronger community. So, yes to ADUs. But also please consider policies around housing prices and home ownership by regular people. September 29, 2022, 5:34 AM Janice M. Thurn 8105 Wynnwood Road Golden Valley, 55427 I fully support ADUs for all the reasons noted! Excited golden valley is considering this. September 28, 2022, 8:29 PM Amy Barnstorff 1619 Constance Dr e Golden valley, 55422 I have a sister with a high functioning disability - she would love if we were able to have an ADU so she can have some independence while having care and assistance very close by! I truly see no downside to ADUs. September 28, 2022, 7:01 PM Jennifer Anklan Larson 2660 Regent Ave N Golden Valley, 55422 We have lived in GV for 36 years and what keeps us here is our spacious, quiet, tree covered neighborhood and wonderful neighbors. I do not object to an addition/ADU for a family member, but adding rentals/VRBO's is a different thing. We already have too much street traffic from garbage trucks, lawn services, Amazon, etc. More people in the neighborhood would just increase this traffic. It would also result in trees removed, increased street parking, and affect safety by more unknown people in the neighborhood. Proceed carefully with many restrictions to keep GV the great place it is to live! September 28, 2022, 6:57 PM Katherine Heller-Ostroot 1345 Toledo Ave. N. Golden Valley, 55422 Thank you for considering Accessory Dwelling Units in Golden Valley. I am writing in support of ADUs, as this would allow us the opportunity to affordably downsize as we age, remain in the neighborhood where we've developed strong ties with our neighbors, and continue to contribute to this community. September 28, 2022, 6:43 PM Susan Eder Cunningham 1635 Kelly Drive Golden Valley, 55427 NO, a big fat No. Didn't the city already take input several months ago? Why is GV still pushing this agenda. The council & mayor are trying to ruin the charm of GV. Why does GV allow itself to be held hostage by the unelected Met Council. I am sure they are some how involved in this crazy idea! September 28, 2022, 4:35 PM Art Obinger 3343 Major Ave n Golden Valley, 55422 Yes! I support the allowance of ADUs! September 28, 2022, 4:20 PM Susan Joanne Bennefeld 1401 kelly drive Golden Valley, 55427 For all the reasons already mentioned by Kathryn E., I support the allowance of ADUs. September 28, 2022, 2:43 PM John Murray 1801 Independence Ave N Golden Valley, 55427 The future is now in so many aspects of our lives. ADU's are a means to get ahead of the curve when looking at population density. New land is scarce but more housing is needed. Homeowners might need supplemental income that an ADU would provide. People get to age in place. What's not to love? The ADU trend is moving across the nation and it's time for us to join in that movement. September 28, 2022, 11:46 AM Kathryn Mathis Enloe 8560 DULUTH ST Minneapolis, 55427 Accessory Dwelling Units COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 1 Contents Overview…………………………………………………………….………………2 ADU Knowledge And Opinions…………………………..…………………….… 3 Demographics………….………………………………………………….……....22 Appendix A: Social Media Reach And Engagement…………………….…….26 Appendix B: Additional Community Feedback…………………………………28 Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 2 Overview Soliciting public input was a major component of the Golden Valley Planning Commission’s consideration of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Staff solicited input from the community through an online survey regarding: • ADU allowance • ADU concerns • interest in building ADUs To promote the survey and the issue, the City published a news story in the May/June issue of CityNews and multiple online news stories. All information included links to the online survey. The City further promoted the survey and issue through social media posts on Facebook, Twitter, and NextDoor. Online Survey The survey was active from May 25–July 2, 2022, was limited to one response per IP address, and had 307 responses. See survey responses starting on page 3. Social Media Outreach The City posted information and reminders about the the survey two times on Facebook, Twitter, and NextDoor between May 26, 2022 and June 15, 2022. See Appendix A for reach and engagement details for each post. Additional Community Feedback See Appendix B for additional feedback submitted to the City. Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 3 ADU Knowledge And Opinions 1. When did you first learn about ADUs? Of the 307 respondents, 102 (33 percent) learned about ADUs in the last few years, 94 (31 percent) learned about ADUs in the last few months or year, 65 (21 percent) learned about ADUs 5–10 years ago, and 40 (13 percent) learned more than 10 years ago. Six (2 percent) answered “other” (see below). Other Very recently This article and survey. Though they were common in Cloquet near where I grew up after the 1918 fire. I don't know what you mean "learn about". I've known they exist. Didn't know the acronym. I’m Just now From Golden Valley city news May/June 2022 Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 4 2. How did you first hear about ADUs? Of the 307 respondents, 89 (29 percent) heard about ADUs via a newspaper or on TV, 74 (24 percent) heard about ADUs via the Golden Valley City newsletter or website, and 67 (22 percent) heard about ADUs via adoption of ADUs in another municipality or area. Fifty-seven (18 percent) answered “other” (see below). Other Pinterest from property owners Realtor Costco Some friends that were discussing real estate investments and long term extended family planning. Place of employment friend We’re eagerly waiting for approval to build. my previous neighborhood in n Mpls Seeing them in our previous neighborhood News Realtor They used to be called 'granny apartment' From cities like Seattle. Democratic caucus event in Plymouth MN Friends Don’t know Personal research Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 5 in a class Carriage house conversion I read about them in a magazine...or the New York Times. HGTV and other media Looking at houses Family Adus in other cities who have more ADUs I’ve seen them We lived in the San Francisco Bay Area TV shows on hgtv Have seen them in other places. Seeing them in Airbnb listings When I previously worked as a mover, I moved a resident into an ADU above a primary house an adu project done through my employer friend church other church church church friend friend church friend Other cities allowing them Golden Valley Housing Coalition Youtube videos (Not Just Bikes channel) friend Real estate industry Knew someone who had rented the detached cottage of a St. Paul mansion. My brother-in-law rented one. Researching possible rental options for our property We lived in one Seeing an ADU in person at friend's parent's home - above garage apartment In process of building an addition for adult disabled children hoping for ADU Researching to add our own adu No idea - it’s a pretty common/basic concept Learning about living with less Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 6 College I work in the senior living industry 3. If a neighbor was planning to build an ADU, what would you be interested in or concerned about? Rank from Not at all interested/Concerned (1) to Extremely interested/Concerned (5). Based on response averages, the area respondents are most interested or concerned about is Quality of build or exterior finish, and the area respondents are least interested or concerned about is Square footage of unit. See Other answers below. Item Not at all interested/ Concerned (1) Not too interested/ Concerned (2) No opinion (3) Very interested/ Concerned (4) Extremely interested/ Concerned (5) Weighted Avg Square footage of unit 60 62 33 85 63 3.1 Height of the unit 37 53 17 115 81 3.5 Setbacks from property lines 27 52 19 119 89 3.62 Quality of build or exterior finish 23 31 26 133 92 3.79 Parking provided 39 45 38 92 91 3.5 Advanced notice of the project 39 39 57 91 79 3.43 Construction impacts 31 43 52 89 87 3.52 Planned user of the unit 70 38 56 64 77 3.13 Planning for storm water runoff 34 39 38 105 87 3.57 Other Most concerned about changing the nature of our City's zoning regulations which have served the residents well for so long. also excess garbage, recycling and foot traffic And my answer is reflective of concerned not interest at all, and against all above. Tree removal. Smaller footprint project might need stricter replacement requirements. interested in who was architect, builder, so could learn from interested in how they did it, so I could learn and eventually do on my property Would be very interested, want to do this myself noise, crime, congestion, loss of suburban feel How it will affect my views out my windows and my property value. Please allow soon. Obscuring sight lines or blocking sun Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 7 Concerns on trash/recycling/garbage collection and accessibility in snow for ADU's To make sure it isn't going to be rented out or used as a vrbo or something of the sort. Basically, that it will be used for someone in the immediate family and that any rental would be temporary and require some sort of permit that would have a stiff penalty for letting said ADU become a rental long term. Number if people to live there Who would be renting the unit, relative, friend, etc.?? I would be interested in how the ADU would affect the architectural design of the existing house (ie, would it make it ugly and affect my property values). Additional Cars, street parking. People renting as Air BnB, so people coming in and out. Does the property owner have to live in either the ADU or the home or will they be able to rent out both prefer incentives so unit is energy efficient, solar powered as it think of this for our family , I envision a small well built unit for our adult daughter and think- whats the problem. but then I start thinking of bigger units speciifally for rental purposes and I find that more worrisome. I specifically would not like a VRBO unit in my back ground. Complicated idea but I guess its coming so lets just be sure we do it right. Design of build - needs to match primary home. No trailers, Mobile Homes, Shipping Containers. Golden Valley has done a very poor job of managing stormwater in the past -I’d like to see that this has changed my neighbor has a large extra building on his property and he doesn't maintain it nor his yard. We bought in Golden Valley because we like the setbacks, the large yards. I am upset that the look and quality of our neighborhoods will be crowded. My neighbor already has a large out building of about 16 x 24 that is full of junk. I don't want all of our block to have so many extra people and cars. This is a horrible idea I would be extremely concerned about and opposed to the potential addition of an ADU. general design and impact on adjoining properties Important to ensure ADUs are built in a proper quality for residence (aligning with style/quality of neighborhood homes), ensuring ADUs weren’t used for short term rentals but for longer term residency. Utility impact (power, sewer, etc) This is a great tool for people to age in place, care for aging parents or provide secondary income by renting the unit out. Love this idea! Would prefer ADUs be limited to homes that are homesteads Impact to my backyard (would a giant window be facing my patio for “strangers” to look at…assuming it’s a short term rental). (In short, ordinances to protect enjoyment of property while allowing ADUs) How many people will live there? Will there now be two families next door to me? sight lines, landscaping Lower quality Tennant and increase in crime Removal of trees and green space is a concern as this is what makes GV popular Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 8 4. Should Golden Valley allow freestanding (detached) ADUs in rear yards in addition to attached ADU options? Of the 307 responses to this question, 124 (40 percent) answered Yes, 79 (26 percent) answered No, and 104 (34 percent) answered Maybe, but it depends on the regulations on location and size. 5. If you were a homeowner, would you ever consider building an ADU on your property if allowed by City Code? Of the 307 respondents who answered this question, 101 (33 percent) answered Definitely Yes, 79 (26 percent) answered Leaning Yes, 48 (16 percent) answered Leaning No, and 79 (26 percent) answered Definitely No. Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 9 6. Why not? This question was only asked if the respondent answered Definitely No to question 5. It was open- ended and gathered no statistical data. Answers I moved to this city because I liked the fact that the houses were not all crammed together on 80x100 lots I want to preserve the current housing zoning ordinance Parking is already an issue at my home; Poor use of green space, crowded parking, excess garbage and neighborhood noise and possibly pets. Already no pet ordinance in GV. This is just a scheme to get more taxes What for, we have gotten along this long why now? I moved to Golden Valley for less density than the city. This adds density. I enjoy the larger yards, privacy. I think city lots in GV are already crowded, and many park on the street. Let’s clean up the properties we have before allowing folks to build makeshift apartments. why would I want to I’m on a 8000 squad ft lot. Where would I put it..ah..the front yard next to my 4 garbage cans! Nice ! Ruins property nearby. More people, more traffic. Stop this now would only be in favor of attached ADUs Property not large enough, “look of the neighborhood”, etc As a green step city we should consider environmental impacts Size of lot Privacy too dense, parking issues, lose neighbor feel, rental issues increased population leads to increased conflict and less ability to enjoy the neighborhood. I already have to contend with rental resident that smoke pot, are loud, and generally detract from the enjoyment of my property. I don't want this worsened by the addition of more residents. No need Not worth the cost - not needed. Because I don't want increased population density in our neighborhood No space. Adversely impacts home values of adjacent dwellings No reason to. No need No need Over-population of areas not meant to support increased density More to maintain. Adds population density. Potential liability. Small lot Trashy in a yard meant for a yard. Too many people in small area. Don’t want to be around areas like this since I enjoy privacy. Because I chose to live in a single family zoned district, otherwise I would have decided to live in a multi-family dwelling area. No room Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 10 We would not build an ADU because we specifically bought our property for the large outdoor space and to have reasonable privacy from our neighbors. Not enough room on my property, and no reason for one. We pride ourselves in having lots that are open and have room for gardening. Space between the houses is wonderful in Golden Valley. It is one reason we chose to live here over 50 years ago. Neighborhoods designed for single family homes shouldn’t be turned into fractured design. Let’s jus park an airstream or mobil fish house and drop some power and call it a ADU. Don’t like this idea, well I am not enthused about yours either! Lot sizes that currently exist are already very small. An ADU would take up too much space and make the neighborhood feel tight and cluttered. No reason to do so Rules are not always followed we live in Basset Creek drainage area and am concerned about water run off. People say they're building a garage and load the yard with crap. Have a shed built almost on my property. I see a big problem with shed placement. Only use them to store more junk. This is a terrible Idea with half acre lots. Crowding & destruction of the single family ambiance of Golden Valley. Added paving for parking, added vehicles, visual density. I already feel like I’m in a commercial parking lot with all the cars and home businesses in my neighborhood. no need Not appropriate Once a 2nd building is established, it becomes "secondary" and not the main focus of the homeowner. the maintenance won't be inspected, illegal rentals, variance requests and neighbor relations just get worse, especially when the property is sold and any 'commitments' either disappear or are neglected with no enforcement. It's going to cost the city/taxes a LOT to keep this building type performing at a high level. If you have an ADU, you need to be in a housing zone where multi-family is approved. Let the large lots divide up, that's fine, but doubling-up actual dwellings as separate buildings where they are not zoned is not appropriate for GV. I'm all for attached/integrated, but detached is too far and has many many unintended consequences that the city/taxpayers of GV's size simply doesn't have the $$$ to afford. High density housing should be placed on repurposed commercial real-estate. The layout of the current housing stock is what makes the city attractive to potential buyers. ADU will now doubt be a blight of bad design, poor planning, and weak over site and will make neighborhoods less desirable. If I wanted to live in a dense housing block I would buy in Mpls or St Paul. I hate the idea of more cars, people and renters. A couple of houses near me have renters which has caused problems with upkeep, police calls, etc. Why does our city council think we want to have our city be crowded? The reason I live in a single family home is because I do not want to live in or near high density housing. There is plenty of high density housing available in Golden Valley. We don't need to ruin single family homes by adding ADU's in the backyard! The question should be why do people want one. It is a bad idea for the community. I don't like people I like the suburban layout of GV Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 11 Why is that any of your business? It is a weird idea. We do not need back yard rentals in Golden Valley. I would be upset if my neighbors did this. I love the quiet of my back yard. It is a stupid idea I do not need additional space. It is abad idea. The charm of Golden Valley is large suburban lots. This is not an urban community. There are plenty of apartments going up right now in Golden Valley, so the premise that there is a shortage of rental housing is not supported. It is one thing to have a family member live in the ADU, but over time people will rent them out for additional income and I have chosen not to live in a rental neighborhood. There will be parking issues, noise issues, added traffic. If they become short term rentals, we would have many new people coming and going in our neighborhoods. I do worry about safety and crime. Our lot is too small I choose and pay to live in a single family community not a high density area with apartment type renters. Because there isn't enough room on almost any property in the city, and the added congestion and close proximity would be uncomfortable. All of the reasons previously listed I would add on to my home before doing an adu My lot is not big enough The disruption to the character and quality of life in Golden Valley would be unacceptable and greatly degree the quality of the community. Changes the feel of the neighborhood and increases density, already have too many apartment buildings! Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 12 7. Would you be supportive of others having the option to build an ADU in Golden Valley? This question was only asked if respondents answered Definitely No to question 5. Of the 79 respondents who answered this question, 57 (72 percent) would not be supportive of others having the option to build an ADU in Golden Valley, 6 (8 percent) would be supportive, and 16 (20 percent) would maybe be supportive, but it would depend on City Code restrictions. 8. For what reasons would you consider building an ADU? (select all that apply) This question was only asked if respondents answered Definitely Yes, Leaning Yes, or Leaning No to question 5. Of the 226 responses, 159 (70 percent) would consider building an ADU to house an aging parent/relative, 102 (45 percent) would consider building an ADU as a guest house, and 97 (43 percent) would consider building an ADU as a secondary unit for an adult child. Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 13 9. Adding ADUs to single-family residential districts could impact the overall density of housing units in a given area, depending on if ADUs are widely built. How concerned are you of this potential impact on single-family areas? Of the 303 respondents who answered this question, 70 (23 percent) are extremely concerned, 49 (16 percent) are very concerned, 100 (33 percent) are not so concerned, 61 (20 percent) are not at all concerned, and 23 (8 percent) have no opinion. 10. If you are concerned about increased density from ADUs, what aspects are of the most concern? (select up to three) Of the 303 respondents who answered this question, 136 (45 percent) are concerned about parking/traffic demand, 122 (40 percent) are concerned about an increase in activity/noise, and 97 (32 percent) are concerned about visual impacts. 114 (38 percent) are not concerned about added density. Twenty-eight (9 percent) answered “other” (see below). Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 14 Other Answers Do we have enough parks, trails, and sidewalks to support increased density and more livable spaces? Right now I’d say GV has a split personality between an urban community and historically suburban planning. Renters have no stake in ownership, thus, more inclined to not care… More people, more crime General safety and crime. Pressure on wildlife. My property value crime that comes with more populated areas (in general) Move forward with environmental precaution. Random people coming in and out of rentals Concerned about loss of privacy from increased housing density No room for gardens and other outdoor activities. All of the above Potential Decrease in property value Crime is there a maximum square footage? based on lot size? There could be environmental impacts, such as a lot with some large trees or shrubs could be removed. potential increase in prime due to increase in rentals and lack of investment in the neighborhood and aesthetics that often come with renting over owning. Concerned about water in my basement Rental properites in a single family area. We need more housing in GV less privacy Primary concern is for detached ADU. Integrated is a better option for our community. Once a 2nd building is established, it becomes "secondary" and not the main focus of the homeowner. the maintenance won't be inspected, illegal rentals, variance requests and neighbor relations just get worse, especially when the property is sold and any 'commitments' either disappear or are neglected with no enforcement. It's going to cost the city/taxes a LOT to keep this building type performing at a high level. If you have an ADU, you need to be in a housing zone where multi-family is approved. Let the large lots divide up, that's fine, but doubling-up actual dwellings as separate buildings where they are not zoned is not appropriate for GV. I'm all for attached/integrated, but detached is too far and has many many unintended consequences that the city/taxpayers of GV's size simply doesn't have the $$$ to afford. Developers that would buy property to build these units in speculation decrease in property values Potential loss of backyard privacy. Perhaps a zoning change to allowable height of privacy fences could mitigate this concern access routes to ADU. Means building more drive way, utility lines, etc. Increased demand on city resources Tree/Vegetation Removal Contrary to many opinions - e.g. in the narrow lots study - I believe increased density is good for people and the environment. Denser neighborhoods are more "walkable" and require less infrastructure per capita Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 15 11. Do you have any other thoughts or comments to share on the topic of ADUs to include in the engagement report? (optional) 500 characters max This question was open-ended and gathered no statistical data. Answers Support ADUs, please adopt flexible ADU ordinance Preserve the current zoning ordinance at it is today with no added density. Added density should take place outside of the residential areas in Highrise developments, all efforts should be made to require developers to include low income accessible units into their developments as the city is now so admirably requiring. Keep up that good work! ts Given the increasing expense of housing with incomes not increasing as quickly as inflation this is an affordable option for multigenerational housing. Agree with poster in FB group that permit to build should be dependent on owner occupation of the primary dwelling to minimize flipping and create a vested interest in neighborhood peace/tranquility. Provisions should be out in place regarding setbacks and asthetics (including height). And STRs should be licensed/regulated with a limit to numbers granted. This is a great way for families to take care of each other. None These type of units may provide needed housing but not easy access to other needs such as transportation, health care and food resources. I'm sure there will be concerns, but some of those could be mitigated by requiring builders or owners of properties with ADUs to live onsite. Given the growing unavailability of affordable housing, I see this as a progressive and inclusive step forward. I am hugely in favor of it. As a resident of Golden Valley, i feel like we have the perfect home/lots for ADUs as the lots are larger than usual. Having ADUs availability will help diversified the city, which is always great for a town. Where I’m from ADUs are so very common these are great for everyone, kids going to college, extra office space specially now that many of us work from home. Family members visiting from out of town, caring for elderly parents.. so many good things. I’m very excited! Many homes already have 4 cans for trash, yard waste, recycling and compost. Adding more users adds more trash, noise, foot traffic and congestion. This is a not needed way to garner more taxes and inc pop density No Homeowners already have jumbo sized trailers, campers, boats & other various things stored in the front yards, driveways or streets. I’m concerned about safety, too many people jammed in too small areas always leads to an increase in crime. Golden Valley should focus on getting their police force filled & taking care of the infrastructure we already have. I would like to see an environmental study on the effects on run off, levels of tree removal, & climate impact. LOVE these. This city has huge lots and lots of wasted space to house aging relatives and adult children getting their lives started. It adds affordable housing options that aren’t apartments or full size single homes and as long as airBNB isn’t part of the equation, it’s an almost universal positive for the community. please allow all forms of ADUs without owner-occupancy requirement Are you people insane??? How about just leave our neighborhoods alone!!!! Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 16 I fully support allowing ADUs to be built, but I think there should be a requirement that the owner live on the property in order to be allowed to build an ADU. I think it’s great for people to be able to house their parent(s) or adult children or even to rent, but I do not want house flippers doing this all over GV for no reason. How is an ADU different from a “mother-in law apartment.” I don’t know how common these are in Golden Valley specifically, but I wasn’t aware that zoning of a single family residence could be used to prevent a home from including a mother-in law apartment and/or that I would need special zoning to provide a living space in my home for an elderly relative. This trashes the city. Stop implementing this garbage in our once nice area. Property taxes are already ridiculous GV is narrowing streets when they promised they wouldn’t, how will parking work with narrow streets? Where do these cars for the adus go in a snow storm? With narrow streets we can’t get garbage truck traffic and fire truck traffic through, where are these extra vehicles parking? Home values will decrease. If you’re sitting on your patio or deck and have the ability to not see in the neighborhood, what happens to neighborhood watch? If you can’t see around these dwellings, safety is a concern. GV is popular for its trees and large lots, do we want GV to look like uptown or st Louis Park etc? An ADU would be a significant help to family caregivers. Working caregivers would benefit greatly. I was a weekend caregiver before I became my mom's live-in caregiver. The commute took time, especially in winter. please allow ADUs favor ADUs, should allow I support ADUs in Golden Valley With increasing rental and housing costs I believe this would be an excellent way to support families. If neighboring towns allow this, we should too or risk declining property values relative to competing towns Was surprised Golden Valley didn’t allow this, thought all MSP cities did. I’m quite for the idea, especially given the shift back to more multigenerational living. It gives people options and real flexibility with their home property. I think if done well it would only enrich Golden Valley’s livability. Highly in favor of them. Our home in Golden Valley had a full walk out apartment and allowed for multi generational living—first with my aunt and uncle, then my grandmother and then my adult sister. It’a a way increase a sense of community and enhance Golden Valley’s appeal for aging people who can no longer deal with the large yard work of so many properties. Highly interested in this proposal moving forward and highly likely to take advantage of it. 500 characters is insufficient to convey additional thoughts. Will send follow up comments to planning department. I think it’s a wonderful opportunity that could allow for aging residents to continue living with family out of a nursing home we would move out of Golden Valley if this passes Thinking about this for my disabled to have a sense of autonomy while staying safe, close, and keeping dignity I have twin disabled sons. One of my sons could live in a detached ADU. Having a detached ADU will allow him autonomy while being close to us for when he needs help. Being detached is very Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 17 important is us. An attached ADU would not work for our family due to how loud my other disabled son is and they need space from each other. The arguements presented are flawed, seniors want to stay in their homes, not move into someone's back yard. The more likely outcome is that the city will have an influx of renters in residential areas which will detract from the peaceful environment Golden Valley has cultivated. I think this would really ruin the esthetic of the neighborhood. GV is so nice and spacious, we will start to look like SLP. Fail to see why it is needed. I generally support more flexible housing options and policy that enables denser housing. Please focus on makung golden valley more affordable by capping taxes and reducing waste in city programs... Not by cramming more people into smaller areas I acknowledge that there is not enough accessible housing options for people and this could be a way to help accommodate people. Thank you for moving this forward. GV lots are typically quite large and, as long as the regulations are well stipulated, should be able to handle usage. The rules that I see applying: some %-size restriction the house that is originally on the lot. man’s some aesthetic requirements. Hip roof house, hip roof adu. Color of orig house = color of adu. support this as an affordable housing option in our community Im concerned that the city may want to force me to have ADUs Big issue is the reduction of permeable surface, a huge environmental concern They should be prohibited from being used in higher transient scenarios such as vacation rental units (VRBO's) or Air B&B's. These would bring unpredictable activity to any neighborhood and create a source of stress for seniors and those with small children. What are the size and height limitations. I think we need to seriously consider the ramifications of ADU's , and what "worst case" scenarios could occur by legally pushing the boundaries of any type of "OK" ADUs are expensive to build, so will probably have limited uptake, but adding more affordable housing is one of the biggest social equity things we can do. Do not allow for rentals like Airbnb. Allow for older adults or family guest and keep these units for maximum 2 people and under a certain sq footage. Not for rentals Sounds like a good step towards something similar to Minneapolis’ 2040 plan Many people on Golden Valley have large yards and plenty of room for an ADU. Regardless of what type is allowed, thinking about population density, additional noise and traffic should be minimally impacted within a few block area. Need bigger lots first. Necessary due to cost of housing now! Do not allow in Golden Valley I have huge zoning questions, property tax questions. Either areas are zoned single family residential or they should be multi family dwelling zone, but NOT mixed. None GV has copious restrictions on primary dwelling height, seize and lot placement. Not to mention auxiliary space. ADU's go against the spirit of the landscape all of these restrictions are intended to preserve. Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 18 Build quality and water runoff should be prioritized along with keeping the height and square footage to a minimum. We purchased our home/property in Golden Valley specifically because it was less dense than other cities like Minneapolis and St Louis Park. I am very opposed to increasing density in areas that are currently zoned for single family dwellings. I think short term rentals should be prohibited in ADUs There must be other ways to solve this problem without ADUs. I like the idea of providing families affordable ways to support aging parents or adult children in place, near the family, and I've wondered if we could do something for our parents here. Housing AND eldercare are super expensive and they sound like a great way to provide affordable living for an adult child or care for aging parent. Most concerned about parking with current increased car theft and break ins… This is a dump idea not suited for GV. Let Mpls build their high density in a city setting! I’m concerned that Golden Valley is trying to pack more housing into stable neighborhoods that currently have a decent amount of space between each. I would hate to see Golden Valley become as densely packed as St. Louis Park and parts of Hopkins. In my opinion, it lowers the desirability to live in the area and lowers property values. I would like to see studies on how this is working in other areas of the country. Are the goals that were set being met? Or did they find that there was a different outcome? It would be nice to see actual pictures of homes that have ADUs (or Granny Flats as they called them in CA) not just illustrations. Definitely most concerned with size of building Most Golden Valley lots are too small to support this idea I’m generally in favor of this, so long as planning and enforcement of regulations are upheld. Our neighbors are already loud and have people over all the time. I worry about what would happen if some of those people were living there full time, or for extended periods. How do we ensure these don’t just become party houses? Allowing ADUs to be built is an easy thing for the city council, but unless incentivized, I don't forese this gaining much traction (unfortunately) If we want to solve housing cost issues, we need to be willing to increase the density of our own neighborhoods I have a detached garage, can I also have an ADU, so three structures on my property I assume this relates to detached ADU's only and not attached ADU's. If attached ADU's are being researched then please send out a specific survey for attached ADU's. I also think the topic of tearing down the house and restructuring the buildings on the property should be topic that needs to be addressed to include multi unit ADU's. Setbacks, size of unit, and minimum tenant requirements should be codified in city ordinances and zoning requirements. It will also be important to codify quality of build and minimum requirements - to ensure they go beyond she-shed, he-shed level and have appropriate visual appeal. good idea, allow pass an ordinance, should have one already I’ll build what I want to take care of my family. It’s my property. I pay taxes, don’t mess with me. Didnt think I needed permission to take care of my family and build what I wanted on my land. If I want to build something for my parents, I’ll do it. Don’t get in my way. Let me do what I want on my land, for my family. Get out of my way., Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 19 Terrible survey. Great idea, perfect solution for my Dad. When can I get one? good solution for seniors, GV should allow just learned about these, great idea, disappointed aren’t allowed already Maybe it would work on corner lots if drainage were worked out. My sump pump works often when we have a great deal of rain. Golden Valley has many low areas. ADUs are a good thing, they should be allowed in GV Golden valley should be open to modern living I am mostly interested in this option as it relates to aging in place This is a fantastic move that the city should make, for the benefit of the entire city. What we are talking about is basically a home addition, but without being attached to the house. All the usual code requirements will apply. Looking forward to seeing this option for Golden Valley's future My wife grew up in a desirable middle class community in California that started allowing ADUs 40 years ago. Within a short time crime, crowding, lack of parking, and an influx of a demographic that did not reflect the values of the neighborhood caused it to become little more than a slum. A retail mall which had thrived there closed because crime was out of control. Why risk doing that to our lovely city? I think adding ADUs is a great idea for our single-family zoning districts. It’s a more efficient use of space than strictly single-family lots and offers cheaper housing options in today’s market Already allowing single family homes to be remodeled into a duplex is adding to paved yards and multiple cars. Pls don’t allow ADU’s. husband and I are now working from home at least 2x / week, need extra office space I don't find an ADU very different from an addition that people build on to their houses for a family or TV room Cost of skilled nursing and assisted living housing is unaffordable to most, much better to invest in your home and add an ADU. Allow units that existing residents can downsize into and continue living in the same neighborhood. Need housing that is wheelchair accessible, not just the ADUs over garages in Minneapolis. Older residents want to be able to continue living in Golden Valley. DON’T RESTRICT PROPERTY RIGHTS. LET PEOPLE BUILD WHAT THEY WANT, AS LONG AS COMPLIES WITH BUILDING CODE Should allow ADUs that are accessible to disabled Golden Valley is behind, need an ordinance as good or better than neighboring towns, quickly. Parents are aging! I think the biggest thing is these units need to be well designed to fit in existing neighborhoods and well managed to keep up/enhance neighborhoods and property values by offering additional housing options. Many single people/aging people/extended family living situations require thinking differently than traditional family concept. I really don't know how low to mid income adults kids will be able to get into housing. I think we have to be open minded to explore but to be careful to protect some of what we have come to value about our back yards. We should find out what other cities have done to make this more acceptable It would negatively affect my property value is neighbor built one Primary concern is against detached ADUs. Integrated is a better option for our community. It’s a terrible idea. The benefit of having ADUs is dwarfed by the potential negative impact. Nope Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 20 This is a horrible idea and I will not vote for any council person that has this go forward. why do you think people love Golden Valley? Don't ruin it with this It's about time that we move into this new era. This could be a solution to the need for higher density housing. I beg you to NOT add ADU's to single family housing neighborhoods. There are plenty of apartments available for people who want to live in high density housing. Please stop this and help protect Golden Valley's neighborhoods! Homeowners bought their properties. In as broad a way as possible they should be able to use/develop that property as they can. Thank you for the opportunity to share opinions. golden Valley in nice and quiet do not need to be MPLS No My mom lives 5 minutes away from us, but her house is too much to take care of long-term. Having an attached, or detached ADU would give us the chance to have multi-generational living. We have a strange lot layout, so I am concerned we wouldn't even be eligible for this but staying hopeful. There should be a zoning category that specifically allows roomers, so neighborhoods zoned for single-family occupancy can stay that way if they want. ADUs make sense and should be allowed in zoning with proper considerations. I am for ADUs with specific size and location restrictions. People should be able to make reasonable ADUs for family and income. I DO NOT want people to be able to put a second home on their lot - ONLY small structures or additions to allow for small 1-2 bedroom structures interior or exterior. Definite yes I'm very interested in building a garage loft on a detached building. Likely for personal use, but could be for a guest or rental in the future. Looking forward to learning more from the city! My neighborhood in GV has huge lots. Its not sustainable for few people to take up so much land. This is a good idea of a way to reinvest within our very own community. Provide more people using the same resources (water and sewer) vs extending new roads and infrastructure out etc. This has to be done extremely carefully, if we are doing it. The criteria to allow it must be clear. The size of the lot should be GIANT in order to allow it. Neighbors should get to weigh in in the process If this is allowed at some point, I hope they would limit the use to family members only or long term rental only. Would like to see this allowed since it directly impacts my family situation With an aging mother of my own, I’m extremely interested in ADUs and we have been looking to move outside of GV to accommodate this need since it’s not allowed here. Great opportunity ADUs should be restricted to homes that are also homesteads Yes, survey should have offerred something less than very concerned as an option. ADUs above a detached garage are nice. We regularly stay at one in Florida. Thank you for asking!!!! Great information! This will be a great addition to the city. I appreciate the opportunity to utilize existing property to fit our lifestyle and stay in our community. I think it's something to be talking about at a minimum. Very common in other parts of the US. Please approve! Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 21 No Concern over rental property of the units, density of people, noise, and visual view of them. Poorly written survey! "Interested" is very separate from "concerned" & should NOT be linked. Your results will be inaccurate. We are interested but are NOT concerned Rentals could also be an issue. If u need in-law space you can redo your current residence without adding an extra dwelling I think this is necessary to help solve the affordable housing crisis. I have an adult son who cannot find an affordable apartment. Also, when my elderly father could no longer live in his own home, it would have been a preferable solution rather than putting him into an assisted living facility. Having an accessible space for my aging/mobility impacted parents to stay with us is a high priority as is the potential to age in place with our adult children. We’d sell and move elsewhere to accomplish this. I’m glad to see this conversation starting! It’s an important time to talk about housing access as more first time homeowners get priced out and aging populations need housing options. set backs should be somewhat maintained to prevent GV becoming like a congested modern suburb If allowed it will be another reason to consider leaving Golden Valley I think allowing ADUs is an important step to increase housing options since the housing stock is inadequate for demand. I want regulations to be thoughtful though so ADUs don't negatively impact neighbor's property (too close/big, not enough off street parking, storm water impacts). I think requiring property owners to live on the property with the ADU could be a way to ensure fewer neighbor complaints/conflicts with absent landlords about their tenants. I want the same options on my property as people do in neighboring towns. I don’t want to move or not be able to care for aging family / others. It is a very bad idea. We need to increase density for environmental reasons and types of housing for cultural reasons. I think if there are clear parameters around the ADU builds that would be just fine to them. The parameters I would care about are environmental, implications and impact of to neighbors and then aesthetics. I am a big proponent of the proposal to allow ADUs, and I am happy to see the city trying to make progressive improvements to housing and infrastructure. I would also be happy to see more mixed- use zoning, and would be interested in any proposal or discussion around that. Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 22 Demographics 12. In which quadrant of Golden Valley do you live? Of the 302 respondents who answered this question, 117 (39 percent) live north of Hwy 55, west of Hwy 100, 88 (29 percent) north of Hwy 55, east of Hwy 100, 67 (22 percent) live south of Hwy 55, west of Hwy 100, 24 (8 percent) live south of Hwy 55, east of Hwy 100, and 6 (2 percent) live outside of Golden Valley. Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 23 13. Which of the following age ranges are represented in your household? (Check all that apply.) Of the 302 responses, 160 (53 percent) have people of ages 30–50 in their household, 152 (50 percent) have people ages 50+, and 41 (14 percent) have people ages 18–29 in their household. Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 24 14. What type of housing do you currently live in? Of the 302 respondents who answered this question, 268 (89 percent) live in a single-family house, 11 (4 percent) live in a townhouse/rowhouse, and 8 (3 percent) live in a condominium. 4 (1 percent) answered “Other” (see below). Other Answers what does it matter, I pay taxes, fucking stupid survey none of your business Split entry near Olsen School with a hard working sump pump rambler with finished basement, No walkout Accessory Dwelling Unit Community Input Report Page 25 15. Which of the following best describes your current housing situation? Of the 302 respondents who answered this question, 259 (86 percent) own a single-family home, 16 (5 percent) own a multi-family or attached home (condo or townhome), 9 (3 percent) rent a multi-family or attached home (duplex, apartment, townhome, etc), and 14 (5 percent) prefer not to say. 1 (0.3 percent) answered “Other” (see below). Other Answers Cohabitate with parent who owns property, and we pay rent (% of mortgage) to them. APPENDIX A Social Media Reach And Engagement Page 26 SOCIAL MEDIA REACH AND ENGAGEMENT Accessory Dwelling Units Reach = Number of people who saw the post Engagement = Number of people who interacted with the post May 26, 2022 PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS Facebook 1823 349 20 4 5 Twitter 292 6 0 0 0 Comments NAME COMMENT Carol Hedberg YES, sensible and essential for our aging parents and their families! Mike Jorgensen Yes please. So many cities already allow ADU's. This would be fantastic! Abe Desta This would be nice and make a step forward on Housing access in the TC metro. Looking forward to hearing more about this. Julie Billups Definitely yes! Larissa Griffin- Sponsler About time! June 15, 2022 PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS Facebook 2382 268 4 5 0 Twitter 115 4 0 1 0 APPENDIX B Additional Community Feedback Page 28 Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting June 13, 2017 Agenda Item Short-term Rentals Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary With the anticipation of the Super Bowl in Minneapolis in February of 2018, the City Council has asked that staff investigate the issue of short-term rental housing (e.g., Airbnb) to help determine if any action or change in City policy should be considered. Short-term rentals are a topic being dealt with by numerous communities in a variety of ways. The League of Minnesota Cities has decided not to take a position on this subject, as they view it mostly being a political issue. However, they have offered a range of responses from cities and counties across Minnesota. Broadly, short-term rentals are arrangements for the use of a room, apartment, or house for one night or more. Services like Airbnb, among others, utilize the internet to let interested providers advertise their spaces and interested users browse to find a space that fits their needs. While this provides a convenient arrangement for those involved, the lack of local oversight has prompted many municipalities to explore regulating these services. Concerns regarding short-term rentals include: A lack of oversight of public safety issues – Unregulated short-term rentals are not subject to additional fire or building inspections, leaving the door open to possibly unsafe situations. Potential impacts to surrounding properties – Noise, parking, trash, and other quality of life issues for neighbors are left unaddressed without regulation. Protection of traditional service providers – Hotels and other lodging services pay a local tax and are subject to Minnesota sales tax. Without regulation, property owners of short-term rentals may not be aware of these requirements. In response, some cities have chosen to ban short-term rentals in their entirety. However, this creates a significant challenge in enforcement since these rentals are hard to locate and track, inventory is constantly entering and leaving the market, and a significant amount of money and staff time is necessary to pursue what may ultimately be a mostly unsuccessful endeavor. Conversely, many cities are increasingly choosing to try and regulate them. Resources that address short-term rentals stress the importance of simple and convenient registration and/or licensing of the facilities in order to discourage the temptation to avoid detection. In Golden Valley, the Zoning Code provides for the “rental of single sleeping rooms to not more than two people for lodging purposes only” when the property owner resides on the premises in the Single Family Zoning District (R-1). There is no system in place currently to register or license these type of rentals, nor to ensure that the proper taxes are being collected. A quick visit to the Airbnb website shows that at any one time there are a handful of properties listed in Golden Valley (there are also numerous other websites that facilitate these transactions, with Airbnb being the most well-known). Other cities in the metro area, including both Minneapolis and St. Paul, are investigating how to handle short-term rentals—especially in light of the upcoming Super Bowl—and will be considering new regulations (see attached articles). Attachments League of Minnesota Cities Bulletin article dated April 18, 2016 (3 pages) St. Paul Neighborhood Planning Committee memo dated April 14, 2017 (9 pages) Star Tribune article dated April 28, 2017 (2 pages) Golden Valley Council Manager Meeting November 1, 2022 Agenda Item 6. A. Approve First Consideration – Ordinance No. 746 Establishing A 2023 Master Fee Schedule Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary First consideration of the master fee schedule will be presented by staff at this meeting. Council has reviewed these rates with the proposed budget presentation as well as the Council Manager meeting on October 11, 2022. This schedule shows the approved rates for 2022 and changes to 2023 rates by using red highlighted numbers or wording. The utility rates will be effective for any billing after April 1, 2023. The second consideration will be November 15, 2022. Financial Or Budget Considerations The rates were discussed with the 2023-2024 Proposed Budget and the 2023-2032 Proposed Capital Improvement Program. All rate changes have been incorporated into the Proposed 2023 Budgets. Recommended Action Motion to adopt First Consideration, Ordinance No. 746, Establishing A 2023 Master Fee Schedule. Supporting Documents •Ordinance No. 746, Establishing A 2023 Master Fee Schedule (1 page) •2023 Proposed Fee Schedule (28 pages) ORDINANCE NO. 746 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Establishing A 2023 Master Fee Schedule The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. The City Code requires that certain fees for City services and licenses be established from time to time by the City Council. Section 2. The Master Fee Schedule attached an Exhibit A is hereby adopted as the city’s fee schedule effective January 1, 2023, unless otherwise noted. The fee schedule is on file in the City Clerk’s Office during business hours. Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions” and Sec. 1-8 entitled “General Penalty; Continuing Violations” are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 1st day of November, 2022. _____________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Theresa Schyma, City Clerk Council Review 10/11/2022 1st Consideration 11/1/2022 2nd Consideration 11/15/2022 2023 Proposed Fee Schedule CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY FEE SCHEDULE-2023 PROPOSED F TABLE OF CONTENTS ADMINISTRATION LICENSES 3 MISCELLANEOUS FEES 6 ENGINEERING 8 FIRE DEPARTMENT 10 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 12 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 15 POLICE DEPARTMENT 17 PUBLIC UTILITIES 18 PARK & RECREATION RECREATION 21 BROOKVIEW 24 BROOKVIEW GOLF COURSE / 316 BAR & GRILL 26 DONATIONS 31 2 ADMINISTRATION LICENSES CITY CODE SECTION RENEWAL DATE 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE AMUSEMENT DEVICES Section 16-95 Pinball Machine, Video Game or Pool Table each location 1-Apr $15.00 each device 1-Apr $15.00 ***Recommend amending code to remove this license requirement. AUCTIONING CHICKEN COOP LICENSE Initial Application Fee $75.00 Annual License Renewal Fee 1-Apr $25.00 CIGARETTES - TOBACCO PRODUCTS Over the counter 1-Jan $450.00 Investigation Fee each individual/person $200.00 DOG KENNEL Per Kennel 1-Apr $200.00 FIREWORKS Retail consumer fireworks that sell other items 1-May $100.00 Retail consumer fireworks, retailers that sell only fireworks 1-May $350.00 GARBAGE HAULERS (See also Recycling Haulers) Base Fee per Hauler $200.00 $400.00 Per Vehicle 1-Apr $50.00 $100.00 GASOLINE STATIONS Dispensers 1 - 4 (each)Per Location 1-Apr $75.00 Over four dispensers (each)Per Location $50.00 LIQUOR LICENSING Section Code 4-41 Liquor License Processing Fees - On-sale, Off-sale, Beer, Wine, and Sunday sale (Non-refundable) New License Investigation Fee - per establishment $1,500.00 Administrative Fee $750.00 Renewal Investigation Fee - each individual/person $200.00 Administrative Fee $250.00 Miscellaneous Change thru the year Investigation Fee - each individual/person $200.00 Administrative Fee $100.00 Liquor - Investigation Fee Liquor-Wine & Beer new applicant $1,000.00 Liquor On-sale, Off-sale, and Sunday sale and Wine new applicant $1,500.00 Auctioneers do not need to be licensed in the City of Golden Valley. However, they have to show us a copy of a license or bond from the county or state and provide us a letter on the date, time and place of the auction. 3 ADMINISTRATION LICENSES CITY CODE SECTION RENEWAL DATE 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE Non-refundable administrative fee plus actual costs for investigation $500+Actual costs Liquor - Miscellaneous Change thru the year per change $100.00 Liquor License State Law 340A.408 Sunday sale 1-Jul $200.00 Off-sale 1-Jul $200.00 On-sale 1-Jul $8,000.00 Wine & Beer On-sale 1-Jul $2,000.00 Club 1-Jul up to 200 members $300.00 200-500 members $500.00 501-1,000 members $650.00 1,001-2,000 members $800.00 2001-4000 members $1,000.00 4001-6000 members $2,000.00 Over 6000 members $3,000.00 Liquor - On-sale 1-Jul Non-Intoxicating Malt $500.00 Brewer Tap Room $600.00 Cocktail Room $600.00 Liquor - Off-sale 1-Jul Non-Intoxicating Malt $150.00 Brew Pub - Malt Liquor $200.00 Small Brewer $200.00 Distilled Spirits $200.00 Liquor - Temporary Non-Intoxicating/Intoxicatng Malt Liquor License $100.00 MASSAGE THERAPIST - INDIVIDUAL Certificate each individual/person 1-Jan $100.00 Investigation fee each individual/person $100.00 $200.00 MASSAGE THERAPIST PREMISE LICENSE 1-Jan Operating location new applicant and renewal $500.00 Investigation fee each individual/person $200.00 MOBILE FOOD VENDING Non-residential zoning districts Up to 3 days (City Parks - limit 3 days)per day $40.00 Up to 120 days $150.00 Residential zoning districts Up to 2 permits in a 12-month period per permit $40.00 MOBILE VENDING/SERVICES Annual vendor registration 1-Jan NA $40.00 Event permits City parks (up to three days)$40.00 $50.00 Other non-residential zoning districts (up to three days for targeted events $40.00 $30.00 or seasonally for regularly occuring events) Liquor On, Off, and Sunday Sale and Wine (renewal or misc changes) 4 ADMINISTRATION LICENSES CITY CODE SECTION RENEWAL DATE 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE R-1 and R-2 zoning districts (up to two one-day permits in a 12 month period)$40.00 $30.00 R-3 and R-4 zoning districts $40.00 $30.00 NEW/USED VEHICLE SALES 1-Sep $400.00 PEDDLERS AND SOLICITORS 1-Jan Each Employee $30.00 PAWNBROKER AND PRECIOUS METAL Dealer Location 1-Jan $5,000.00 Dealer 1-Jan $400.00 Investigation Fee $3,000.00 $1,500.00 Non-refundable administrative fee plus actual costs for investigation $500+Actual costs $500.00 APS Transaction Fee $1.30 RECYCLING HAULERS (MULTI FAMILY APARTMENT)1-Apr Base Fee per Hauler $200.00 $400.00 Per Vehicle $50.00 $100.00 RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Single Family Dwellings One Unit Dwelling License 1-Jul $125.00 Re-inspection $100.00 Twin Homes & Duplexes License per Dwelling Unit Per Dwelling Unit 1-May $125.00 Re-inspection per unit/per address $100.00 Condominiums & Townhomes License Per Dwelling Unit Per Dwelling Unit 1-Sep $125.00 Re-inspection per unit/per address $100.00 Group Homes / homes with services License Per Dwelling Unit 1-Nov $125.00 Re-inspection per unit/per address $100.00 Multiple Unit Dwelling 3 or more units per building 1-Mar 3 - 50 Units $175.00 51 - 150 Units $225.00 151 + Units $300.00 Re-inspection per unit/per address $100.00 Star Program Fees Based on participation level and discount is capped at 151 units for market rate rental properties. Base Rate $35/unit Level 1 $20/unit Level 2 $12/unit Level 3 $8/unit Level 4 $0/unit Background check / Identification card 5 ADMINISTRATION LICENSES CITY CODE SECTION RENEWAL DATE 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESS License Fee per operating location 1-Jan $5,000.00 Investigation Fee $3,000.00 $1,500.00 Non-refundable administrative fee $500+Actual costs $500.00 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) Retail Establishment Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) Products (new applicant and renewal)$450.00 Over the counter Investigation Fee each individual/person $200.00 6 ADMINISTRATION MISCELLANEOUS FEES 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE ADDRESS CHANGE Residential $50.00 Non-Residential $100.00 ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT $75.00 Seasonal, Farm Produce, Christmas Tree Sales, etc in Commercial Zoning District ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS 1st citation per violation $100.00 2nd citation per violation $250.00 3rd citation per violation $500.00 per violation $500.00 CITATION APPEAL filing fee per violation $25.00 CERTIFICATION FEE (SPECIAL ASSESSMENT)$30.00 CITY CEMETERY Cemetery Plot $500.00 Open/Close Fee: Crematory (up to 2 per lot)per lot $200.00 Burial $750.00 CONDUIT DEBT ISSUANCE Issuance of Debt (Amount of Bonds)1.00% Refinancing Issuance Fees (Amount of Bonds)0.50% Host City (plus pay for legal publication)$500 DOCUMENTS City Code Full book in binder Cost of book, binder +20% All information is on the Municode website at: https://library.municode.com/mn/golden_valley/codes/code_of_ordinances City Maps $10.00 Copies Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 4 Black & White - letter or legal size documents of 100 or fewer pages .25/page Color - letter or legal size documents .33/page Plats, Record Drawings, Other Plats (i.e. address maps, building plans,comp plan, zoning) 4th citation and subsequent violations in 12 month period 7 ADMINISTRATION MISCELLANEOUS FEES 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE DOCUMENTS (continued) Digital Format Aerial photography time & material Custom Maps or Map Layers time & material Topography time & material Special Assessment Search non-owner $15.00 Video Reproduction per tape, DVD, CD + shipping $20.00 DOMESTIC PARTNER REGISTRATION Initial Registration $40.00 Amendment/Notice of Termination $25.00 Certified copy of Registration $5.00 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION 0 - 3 hours / hour $0.90 3+ hours / hour $1.20 PARADE/SPECIAL EVENT $25.00 PERSONNEL (OVERTIME WOULD BE 1.5 X RATE) Staff Attorney $105/hr $108/hr 8 ENGINEERING 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE EASEMENT VACATION (EACH REQUEST) $500.00 EQUIPMENT CHARGE (Per Hour) (Personnel will be added) Utility Vehicle does not include personnel $45.00 $55 Utility Equipment does not include personnel $200.00 $250 Heavy Equipment does not include personnel costs $125.00 $175 Medium Equipment does not include personnel $80.00 $100 Light Equipment not include personnel $45.00 $55 FLOODPLAIN SEARCH LETTER $50.00 FORCED TREE REMOVAL cost + 20% MICROMOBILITY SHARING OPERATIONS Implementation and oversight of License Agreement $250.00 500 PERSONNEL (OVERTIME WOULD BE 1.5 X RATE) Public Works Employee $62/hr $70 NATIVE VEGETATION LANDSCAPE PERMIT $100.00 RIGHT OF WAY Access Permit-Temporary $50.00 Delay Penalty - Right of Way Minn. Rule 7819.1000 subp. 3 $500/day Driveway Replacement Permit $125.00 In Boulevard Excavation Permit per opening $200.00 In Pavement Excavation Permit per opening (includes curb alterations)$400.00 Obstruction Permit-Permanent, per obstruction (includes courtesy benches,structures, walls, lighting, signage)$150.00 Obstruction Permit-Permanent, (includes fences, landscaping, trees, shrubs, vegetation, irrigation)$50.00 Obstruction permit-Temporary (includes use of parking lane, sidewalk, boulvard, driving lane, alley)$100.00 RIGHT OF WAY (continued) Overhead Utility Repair per location No Charge Underground Utility 0 to 100 Feet Administrative permit fee $250.00 per foot fee $1.50 over 100 Feet Administrative permit fee $400.00 per foot fee $1.00 Service Drop meeting conditions Not parallel to right-of way at least 10' from any city facility or utility, less than 1' wide, and depth in accord with law or, if none, industry standard No charge STREET ASSESSMENTS Residential/Single Family/Duplex, per dwelling unit on local street Sewer jet, vac truck, sewer camera Front end loader, 360 Backhoe, Pickup sweeper, Tandem axle truck, Aerial truck Single axle dump truck, Water truck, Tractor backhoe, Utility tractor/ accessory, 15 ft cut lawn mower, brush chipper, asphalt roller, asphalt paver, skid steer, tool cat, trackless Truck - one ton and under, Air compressor, Water pump, Generator, Steamer, Asphalt/saw, Concrete, Cable tracer) 9 ENGINEERING 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE Multi Unit Residential (more than 2 dwelling units) on local street Residential/Single Family/Duplex, per dwelling unit on state aid street Multi Unit Residential (more than 2 dwelling units) on state aid street Other Zonings, Local Streets Other Zonings, State Aid Streets Administrative Fee for Driveways and/or Sanitary Sewer repairs $250/maximum (Seven percent of total or maximum fee -whichever lessor) Low Income Level for Senior/Retired due to Disability Deferral Current HUD Limits STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Projects that do not require watershed review - No post construction BMPs $100.00 New Home Construction - no watershed review - No post construction BMPs $300.00 $400 Projects that require watershed review or require Post Construction BMPs $500.00 $600 TREE AND LANDSCAPE PERMIT Single Family Residential $150.00 All Other Projects $400.00 $500 Tree Mitigation Fee (per tree)450/tree $500/tree UTILITY PERMITS Water Meter Permit $100.00 $150 Water Tapping Permit $100.00 $150 Water Cut-off Permit $100.00 $150 Sewer Permit (connection)$100.00 $150 Sewer Repair Permit $100.00 $150 Sewer Cut-off Permit $100.00 $150 Sewer & Water Permits for Commercial Projects (Fee Based on Plumbing Value and if there is a Plan the Plan Review Fee would be 65% of the Fee) State Surcharge - each permit $1.00 Sewer Repair CCTV Inspection $150 WETLAND MANAGEMENT (PLUS PROFESSIONAL FEES IF NECESSARY)$150.00 $200 WIRELESS AESTHETICS Collocation Agreement Rent to collocate on the City structure Up to $150.00 Maintenance associated with the collocation $25.00 Electrical Service-monthly Per radio node less than or equal to 100 maximum watts $73.00 Per radio node over 100 maximum watts $182.00 Or actual costs of electricity, if the actual exceed the foregoing When a project is approved the street assessment will be considered following the special assessment policy. 10 FIRE DEPARTMENT 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE CARSEAT INSTALLATIONS/INSPECTIONS Non-resident $20.00 Each additional $10.00 EQUIPMENT CHARGE PER HOUR Fire Engine (includes personnel)$250.00 Fire Rescue Truck (includes personnel)$250.00 Fire Aerial Truck (includes personnel)$350.00 Police and Fire Rescue Truck (includes personnel)$250.00 Fire Boat (includes personnel)$75.00 Fire ATV (includes personnel)$75.00 Fire Life Safety Trailer (includes personnel)$200.00 Gas Lines, construction damage with Fire Department Response $250.00 FIRE COMMERCIAL COOKING VENTILATION SYSTEMS (HOOD AND DUCT CLEANING) Inspection $75.00 Re-inspection $150.00 FIRE SPRINKLER, FIRE ALARMS & SPECIAL FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS New Installation or Alteration of Existing Ref. MN Rules 1300.0160,subd. 1, subd. 2 Total valuation based on below fee schedule: FROM TO FEES $0 $500 $50.00 $501 $2,000 $50.00 for the first $500 plus $3.05 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, up to and including $2000 $2,001 $25,000 $95.75 for the first 2,000 plus $14.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $25,000 $25,001 $50,000 $417.75 for the first $25,000 plus $10.95 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $50,000 $50,001 $100,000 $691.50 for the first $50,000 plus$ $7.34 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $100,000 $100,001 $500,000 $1,058.50 for the first $100,000 plus $6.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $500,000 $500,001 $1,000,000 $3,458.50 for the first $500,000 plus $5.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $1,000,000 $1,000,001 and up $5,958.50 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof VALUATION 11 FIRE DEPARTMENT 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE FIREWORKS/PYROTECHNIC SPECIAL EFFECTS Permit fee includes required rental of fire engine and crew for one hour stand-by at display $350.00 FLOOR DRY (ACCIDENTS)per bag $20.00 FUEL TANKS Permanent above/underground Use Fire Sprinkler, Fire Alarms & Special Fire Suppression Systems Table Above Fuel, Compressed Gasses, Hazardous Materials, and Associated Appliances & Piping Temporary LP Tank/Fuel Tank per tank $50.00 PERSONNEL (OVERTIME WOULD BE 1.5 X RATE) Full-time Fire Personnel (scheduled time after hours -minimum 2 hours)$75/hr Paid On-Call Fire Personnel $35/hr TENT/CANOPY INSPECTIONS - REQUIRED FOR TENT EXCEEDING 400 SQ FT AND $50.00 canopies exceeding 700 sq ft (per site) each additional tent and/or canopy (per site)$25.00 WEED ERADICATION/LAWN MOWING - PER HOUR (SEE MINIMUMS) Occupied/unoccupied residential/commercial property - 3 hour minimum $125/hr SECOND OR MORE VIOLATIONS IN ONE SEASON A 12 - MONTH PERIOD Occupied/unoccupied residential/commercial property - 3 hour minimum $250/hr 12 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE WORKING WITHOUT A PERMIT - INVESTIGATION FEE The greater of $100 or 25% of the permit fee, not to exceed $500. Fee not to exceed permit fee. www.goldenvalleymn.gov/permits/pdf/building-fees.pdf WHEN APPLICABLE, A PLAN REVIEW FEE WILL BE ADDED TO PERMIT APPLICATIONS 65% of permit fee BUILDING PERMIT FEES BASED ON FEE SCHEDULE BELOW. Mandatory State Surcharge: per permit is a minimum of .50 and when a permit fee is over $1,000 in value the state surcharge is .0005 times the permit value. Surcharge is remitted to MN State Treasurer. Permit Cancellation Policy: 80% of the permit fee will be returned upon written notice of cancellation. If job has been started no refund will be made. If an inspection has been done no refund can be given. HVAC CONTRACTORS LICENSE FEE (April 1-March 31)$75.00 $100.00 BUILDING PERMITS BASED ON SCHEDULE BELOW: Mandatory State Surcharge: per permit is a minimum of .50 and when a permit fee is over $1,000 in value the state surcharge is .0005 times the permit value. Surcharge is remitted to MN State Treasurer. Cancellation and Refund Policy Permits: 80% of the permit fee will be returned refunded upon written notice of cancellation. If job has been started no refund will be made. If an inspection has been done no refund can be given.Refun Plan Review: Plan review fees are non-refundable once plan review has been started Surcharges, Electronic Document Fees and other related fees: Non-refundable BUILDING PLAN/STORAGE RETRIEVAL $50.00 ??? BUILDING PERMITS (Ref. MN Rules 1300.0160,subd. 1, subd. 2) Table 1 Total valuation based on below fee schedule: FROM TO FEES $1 $500 $50.00 $501 $2,000 $50.00 for the first $500 plus $3.05 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, up to and including $2000 $2,001 $25,000 $95.75 for the first 2,000 plus $14.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $25,000 $25,001 $50,000 $417.75 for the first $25,000 plus $10.95 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $50,000 $50,001 $100,000 $691.50 for the first $50,000 plus$ $7.34 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $100,000 $100,001 $500,000 $1058.50 for the first $100,000 plus$ $6.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $500,000 $500,001 $1,000,000 $3,458.50 for the first $500,000 plus $5.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $1,000,000 REINSPECTION FEE The fee will be charged by the Building Official or designee where additional time and expense is incurred by the City to achieve code compliance. VALUATION ALL BUILDING PERMIT VALUATION DATA WILL BE BASED ON THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL OR CONTRACT BUILDING/FIRE/COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL PLAN REVIEW FEE - 65% OF THE PERMIT FEE (NO 13 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE $1,000,001 and up $5,958.50 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof CONTRACTORS 1-Apr $75.00 ELECTRICAL State Surcharge - each permit $1.00 Minimum Fee Minimum permit fee is $50.00 plus $1.00 State surcharge. This is for one inspection only. Minimum fee for rough-in inspection and final is $100.00 plus $1.00 State surcharge. Maximum Fee Maximum fee for single family dwelling or townhouse not over 200 Amps is $200.00 plus $1.00 State surcharge. Maximum of 3 inspections. 0 to 300 Amp 50.00 400 Amp 58.00 Add $14.00 for each additional 100 Amps. Circuits and Feeders 0 to 30 Amp 8.00 31 to 100 Amp 10.00 Add $5.00 for each additional 100 Amps. Apartment Buildings per unit $85.00 house wiring Reinspection fee $40.00 $100.00 Remote Control and Signal Circuits per device $0.75 Retro Fit Lighting per fixture $0.65 Saver Switch $35.00 Service Replacement $100.00 Sign Transformer per transformer $8.00 Solar PV Installation Per Minnesota Solar PV System most current Fee Chart Street Lights and parking lot lights per each standard $4.00 SubPanel Replacement $40.00 Swimming Pool includes maximum 2 inspections $80.00 $100.00 ELECTRICAL (continued) Traffic Signals per each standard $7.00 Transformers and Generators up to 10 KVA $10.00 11 - 74 KVA $40.00 75 - 299 KVA $60.00 over 300 KVA $150.00 MECHANICAL: HVAC, GAS PIPING, REFRIGERATION AND FIREPLACE The inspection fee for the installation, addition, alteration or repair of each circuit, feeder, Fee per unit of an apartment or condominium complex. This does not cover service and house Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning 14 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE Includes all types of fireplaces - masonry, gas, gas log, gas insert, etc. Value Permit charge $0 $1,000 $50.00 $1,001 $5,000 $75.00 + 2.60% $5,001 $10,000 $179.00 + 2.15% $10,001 $25,000 $286.50 + 1.85% $25,001 $50,000 $534.00 + 1.65% $50,001 and up $946.50 + 1.30% PLUMBING AND PIPING FIXTURES Includes hydraulic sewer valves, rain water leaders, and alteration to existing systems. Value Permit charge $0 $1,000 $50.00 $1,001 $5,000 $75.00 + 2.60% $5,001 $10,000 $179.00 + 2.15% $10,001 $25,000 $286.50 + 1.85% $25,001 $50,000 $534.00 + 1.65% $50,001 and up $946.50 + 1.30% ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT FEE Based on Permit Fee permits with fixed fee or charged by item 2.85% do not have an electronic fee HOUSE/BUILDING Moving $500.00 Demolition $500.00 PERMIT CANCELLATION Request must be made within 180 days of permit issue date No work shall have occurred and no inspections hav 80% of permit fee SEWER ACCESS CHARGE (SAC) -CITY per unit $650.00 $750 PARTIAL OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE APPROVAL Partial Occupancy Permit form Administrative fee $300.00 WATER ACCESS CHARGE (WAC) -CITY per unit $1,700.00 $2,000 SAC Charges shall be based on the Residential Equivalent Connection Units (REC) resulting from the use of the City Water/Sewer systems. The REC shall equal the number of SAC Units determined under the SAC Determination to which the building permit relates. WAC Charges shall be based on the Residential Equivalent Connection Units (REC) resulting from the use of the City Water/Sewer systems. The REC shall equal the number of SAC Units determined under the SAC Determination by the Metropolitan Council to which the building permit relates. No surcharge or plan review fees will be returned (includes the fees for stormwater management, right-of-way (ROW) and tree preservation permits). Subject to Department Policies. 15 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE RECORD REAL ESTATE ITEMS Easements, CUP, PUDs, Development Agreements, Simplifile Hennepin County fee CONDITIONAL USE ITEMS Conditional Use Permit $400.00 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit $300.00 Extension $125.00 FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT $1,000.00 OUTDOOR SERVICE AREAS Outdoor Service Areas in Targeted Zoning Districts Application $200.00 Renewal Fee $100.00 PARK DEDICATION FEES Minnesota Statute 462.358 6% of Land Value PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Preliminary PUD Plan $1,000.00 Final PUD Plan $1,000.00 Extension $150.00 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - MAJOR AMENDMENT $500.00 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - MINOR AMENDMENT $250.00 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT $100.00 SIGN PERMIT Temporary Sign $50.00 Special Temporary Sign Additional $50.00 Permanent Sign $100.00 Building and Electrical permits maybe required. SUBDIVISION $400.00 Extension to Submit Final Plat $150.00 SUBDIVISION - MINOR $250.00 Extension to Submit Final Plat $150.00 TAX PARCEL DIVISION $100.00 TEMPORARY RETAIL SALES for each sale, up to five days $150.00 VARIANCE FROM ZONING CODE Single-Family Residential Zoning District $200.00 All other Zoning Districts $300.00 Extension $150.00 Appeal of Determination $100.00 16 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE ZONING EXAMINATION LETTER $100.00 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT $500.00 ZONING PERMIT (Fence, Shed, Deck, Patio, Garden Structure)$25.00 17 POLICE DEPARTMENT 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE ALARM SYSTEM - FALSE ALARMS (12 month period beginning March 1 of each year upon given notice) 1-3 false alarms $0.00 4-10 false alarms $100.00 11-15 false alarms $150.00 16 or more false alarms $250.00 ANIMAL CONTROL Impound Fee for dogs $50.00 Boarding Fee for dogs and cats per day (7 day maximum)$20.00 Dangerous Dog License $250.00 EQUIPMENT CHARGE PER HOUR Police Rescue Truck (includes personnel)$250.00 Squad Car (includes personnel)$110.00 FINGERPRINTING Golden Valley Resident $10.00 Anyone employed in Golden Valley $25.00 Additional Card $5.00 FORFEITED DWI VEHICLE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE $1,000.00 NUISANCE SERVICE CALL FEE (AFTER THREE CALLS)$250.00 PERSONNEL (OVERTIME WOULD BE 1.5 X RATE)$105/hour $109/hour Off Duty Police Officer (minimum applies as determined by City Manager/designee) 18 PUBLIC UTILITIES Rates begin with any billing after April 1 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE RESIDENTIAL UTILITY RATES - QUARTERLY BILLING (includes all residential classes except those classified as apartments) Inspection Fee for Fire lines $6.00 Penalties (for late payment)10% Sanitary Sewer (in 1000 gallons) Residential (per dwelling unit) (Flat Rate)- 5 and under units-winter qtr consumption $83.27 $86.60 Residential (per dwelling unit) (Flat Rate) - 6-15 units-winter qtr consumption $86.39 $89.84 Residential (per dwelling unit) (Flat Rate) - 16-19 units-winter qtr consumption $95.01 $98.81 Residential (per dwelling unit) (Flat Rate) - 20-25 units-winter qtr consumption $108.33 $112.66 Residential (per dwelling unit) (Flat Rate) - 26-39 units-winter qtr consumption $141.93 $147.61 Residential (per dwelling unit) (Flat Rate) - 40-59 units-winter qtr consumption $163.44 $169.98 Residential (per dwelling unit) (Flat Rate) - 60-79 units-winter qtr consumption $175.81 $182.84 Residential (per dwelling unit) (Flat Rate)- 80 to 99 units-winter qtr consumption $198.78 $206.73 Residential (per dwelling unit) (Flat Rate)- 100 and over units-winter qtr consumption $235.90 $245.34 Recycling - Residential curbside (per unit) -Recycling $17.00 $18.00 Organics (Starting January 2022) Residential curbside (per unit) -Organics $17.00 $18.00 Storm Sewer Utility Rate Charge for a Residential Equivalent Factor of 1.00 $81.00 $84.00 Each single family residential property is considered to be 1/3 of an acre. Street Lights Ornamental (per unit)$13.17 $13.57 Overhead (per unit)$9.08 $9.35 Water Minimum fee, includes up to 1,000 gallons of flow $21.00 Water meters up to and including 1"$21.00 Water meters over 1" and including 2"$112.85 Water meters over 2" and including 4"$155.40 Water meters over 4"$196.77 Above 1,000 gallons of flow per quarter up to 79,000 (per 1,000 gallons)$6.85 $7.06 80,000 gallons and over of flow per quarter (per 1,000 gallons)$6.93 $7.09 Emergency Water Supply - per 1000 gallons $0.30 $2.43 Irrigation Accounts (All) - Monthly Billing Minimum fee, includes up to 1,000 gallons of flow $21.00 Water rate per 1000 gallons $6.93 $7.09 All apartment buildings over 50 units will be billed monthly beginning April 1, 2018 Water Connection Fee (Fee charged by State for each water hookup) 19 PARK & RECREATION 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE ACTIVITIES Rates/Fees are printed in Seasonal Activities Catalogs (Spring/Summer, Fall, Winter). Staff will pro-rate and make program/event/activity fee adjustments as necessary. Adult (Non-resident fees applicable) Individual Athletics/Fitness $20.00-$100.00 $20.00-$150.00 Programs $1.00-$150.00 Special Events $4.00-$75.00 0-75 Open Gyms Drop-in fee $5.00 10-time Punch Pass $40.00 55+ Adult Newsletter Subscription $5.00-$8.00 Presentation/Discussion Groups $1.00-$5.00 Adult Trips & Sports Leagues (Non-resident fees non-applicable) Trips - 1-6 day Market Rate Sports Leagues $150.00-$1,000.00 $100.00-$900.00 Sports League Cancelation Fee $40.00 Youth Athletics $10.00-$150.00 $10.00-$200.00 Programs $5.00-$175.00 Trips/Events $0.00-$100.00 $0-$125.00 BACKYARD INDOOR PLAYGROUND Daily Rates Resident $4.50 $5.00 Non-resident $5.50 $6.00 Twilight (last hour of daily operation)$2.00 Socks $2.00 10 Punch Pass - Resident $35.00 $40.00 10 Punch Pass - Non-resident $45.00 $50.00 Group Rates Pre-reservation required; Ratio of 10:1 youth/adult; 1 payment only Groups of 15 kids or more, max 50, includes use of a party room when available $4.50 $5.00 Party Rates Includes 2 hrs party room; 10 wristbands; extra wristbands may be Resident $100.00 $110.00 Non-resident $120.00 $130.00 Picnic Packages Three One SIx Bar + Grill will provide food package options for party groups. Entire Playground Private Rental Includes 2 hrs exclusive use of playground and 2 party rooms Resident $250.00 Non-resident $280.00 Additional hour $100.00 OTHER PARK & RECREATION FEES Athletic Field Resident - no attendent per hour/per field (min 2 hrs)$25.00 Resident - with attendent per hour/per field (min 2 hrs)$40.00 purchased for daily rate (max of 20 people total per party room) 20 PARK & RECREATION 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE Non-resident - no attendent per hour/per field (min 2 hrs)$30.00 $35.00 Non-resident - with attendent per hour/per field (min 2 hrs)$45.00 $50.00 With Lights per hour/per field $10.00 All day tournament Resident per day/per field $150.00 Non-resident per day/per field $250.00 Field Attendant per hour $15.00 Beer/Wine Permit (only with Picnic Shelter rental)$50.00 Davis Community Center Gym Resident per hour $30.00 Non-resident per hour $40.00 Brookview Only Entire Park Use (includes all facility rental fees) Resident up to 12 hrs $300.00 $850.00 Non-resident up to 12 hrs $450.00 $1,200.00 Equipment Use Fee Permit Inflatable, climbing wall, zipline, etc Each $25.00 Gazebo/Sun Shelter Resident per hour (min 2 hrs)$50.00 $25.00 Non-resident per hour (min 2 hrs)$75.00 $35.00 Hockey Rink (outdoor) Resident per hour $25.00 $25.00 Non-resident per hour $35.00 $35.00 Community Garden Container Resident -$35.00 Non-resident -$50.00 Dog Bag Station Sponsorship Initial Sponsorship -$375.00 Annual Renewal Sponsorship -$160.00 Park Shelter Building Resident per hour (min 2 hrs)$20.00 $40.00 Non-resident per hour (min 2 hrs)$25.00 $50.00 Key Deposit refundable when returned $25.00 Picnic Pavilion Rental at Brookview Small Pavilion (up to 50 people) Resident $115.00 Non-resident $150.00 Large Pavilion (up to 100 people) Resident $150.00 Non-resident $200.00 Picnic Shelter Damage & Use Guideline Compliance Deposit Charged at time of reservation and refundable $250.00 Professional Photo/Video Use of Specific Park Area (plus facility rental fees) Resident per hour $100.00 Non-resident per hour $125.00 Sand Volleyball Courts at Brookview (2 courts) 21 PARK & RECREATION 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE Resident per hour/per court $15.00 Non-resident per hour/per court $20.00 With Lights per hour/per field $10.00 Tennis or Pickleball Court Tournament Resident per day/per court $75.00 Non-resident per day/per court $100.00 Court Resident per hour $7.00 Non-resident per hour $9.00 Youth Athletic Association Player Field Maintenance Fee Resident & Non-resident per person/per season $8.00-$12.00 Organization Field Maintenance Fee per organization/per season $100.00-$2,000.00 22 BROOKVIEW -2023 listed below - scroll down DEPOSIT Deposit is due at time of booking to hold reservation. $500 refundable damage deposit is due 30 days prior to rental. All rentals include:Set-up / take-down and AV equipment RESIDENT (Live or work in GV, book 24 months in advance for 14 hr, 12 months in advance for hourly) Room Room Capacity Hours Sweeney Lake Conference Rm -12 max 2 hr min North 50 – seated chairs only 2 hr min South Waiting for #2 hr min Both Waiting for #2 hr min Twin Lake Rm -4 No minimum Fossil Creek Rm -4 No minimum Hideout -20 – seated at tables 2 hr min Clubhouse -20 – seated at tables 2 hr min Room Option Capacity Hours Mon-Thur Fri Sat Sun Bassett Creek 250 (200 @ rounds, 12 head table)14 hr (10 am-12 am)1200+tax $1600 + tx $1000 + tx Banquet Room 250 (216 @ rectangles, 12 head table)Hourly (2 hr min)$90/hr + tax $100/hr + tax $140/hr + tax $90/hr + tax North 72 (72 at rounds & 12 at head table)Hourly (2 hr min)$55/hr + tax $60/hr + tax $80/hr + tax $55/hr + tax South 72 (Classrm/presentation at rectangles)Hourly (2 hr min)$55/hr + tax $60/hr + tax $80/hr + tax $55/hr + tax Lilac Room -No minimum Wirth Lake Rm -40 2 hr min Rice Lake Conference Rm -12 max 2 hr min Evergreen Deck -104 – seated chairs only 2 hr min 204 – seated chairs only 2 hr min Deck Event/Ceremony Fee (set-up of chairs, equipment, basic PA) All rooms Special Set-up/Clean-up Banquet/Event Attendant Outdoor Heater Drapery NON-RESIDENT (Book 22 months in advance for 14 hr, 10 months in advance for hourly) Room Option Capacity Hours Sweeney Lake Conference Rm -12 max 2 hr min North 25 – seated chairs only 2 hr min South 25 2 hr min Both 25 2 hr min Twin Lake Rm -4 No minimum Fossil Creek Rm -4 No minimum Hideout -20 – seated at tables 2 hr min Clubhouse -20 – seated at tables 2 hr min Room Option Capacity Hours Mon-Thur--Fri Sat Sun Bassett Creek 250 (200 @ rounds, 12 head table)14 hr (10 am-12 am)1400+tax $1800 + tx $1200 + tx Banquet Room 250 (216 @ rectangles, 12 head table)Hourly (2 hr min)$120/hr + tax $130/hr + tax $170/hr + tax $120/hr + tax North 84 (72 at rounds & 12 at head table)Hourly (2 hr min)$70/hr + tax $75/hr + tax $95/hr + tax $70/hr + tax South 72 (Classrm/presentation at rectangles)Hourly (2 hr min)$70/hr + tax $75/hr + tax $95/hr + tax $70/hr + tax Lilac Room -No minimum Wirth Lake Rm -40 2 hr min Rice Lake Conference Rm -12 max 2 hr min Evergreen Deck -104 – seated chairs only 2 hr min 204 – seated chairs only 2 hr min Deck Event/Ceremony Fee (set-up of chairs, equipment, basic PA) All rooms Special Set-up/Clean-up Banquet/Event Attendant Outdoor Heater Drapery CATERING per caterer per event per event BROOKVIEW - 2023 proposed Adopted $15/hr + tax $15/hr + tax $25/hr $25/hr Upper Level $50/hr + tax $25/hr + tax $60/hr + tax $60/hr + tax -$200 $200-$500 Fairway Deck - Lower Level Mon-Sun ADD-ON'S Varies based on needs $50 minimum Lower Level Mon-Sun $25/hr + tax Valley Room $45/hr + tax $45/hr + tax $75/hr + tax Full Rm $15/hr + tax $25/hour $50 $35/hr + tax Valley Room $55/hr + tax $55/hr + tax $90/hr + tax $15/hr + tax $15/hr + tax $35/hr + tax $35/hr + taxUpper Level Full Rm $15/hr + tax $60/hr + tax $35/hr + tax $75/hr + tax ADD-ON'S $75/hr + tax -$220 Fairway Deck - Additional Clean-up $50 $50 24-month Venue Approval $150 Facility Use 12% Varies based on needs $200-$500 $50 minimum $30/hour 23 DEPOSIT Deposit is due at time of booking to hold reservation. $500 refundable damage deposit is due 30 days prior to rental. All rentals include:Set-up / take-down and AV equipment RESIDENT (Live or work in GV, book 24 months in advance for 14.5 hr, 12 months in advance for hourly) Capacity Hours122 hr min North 25 2 hr min South 25 2 hr min Both 70 2 hr min 20 2 hr min 20 2 hr min Capacity Hours Mon-Thur Fri Sat Sun 200 14.5 hr (10 am-12:30 am) $1400 + tx $1800 + tx $1200 + tx 200 Hourly (2 hr min)$100/hr + tax $120/hr + tax $150/hr + tax $100/hr + tax North 72 Hourly (2 hr min)$65/hr + tax $70/hr + tax $90/hr + tax $65/hr + tax South 72 Hourly (2 hr min)$65/hr + tax $70/hr + tax $90/hr + tax $65/hr + tax N/A N/A 40 2 hr min 10 2 hr min 50 2 hr min 200 Event/Ceremony Fee (extra set-up, PA)N/A Special Set-up/Clean-up Banquet/Event Attendant DraperyOutdoor Heater (each) Stages NON-RESIDENT (Book 22 months in advance for 14.5 hr, 10 months in advance for hourly) Capacity Hours122 hr min North 25 2 hr min South 25 2 hr min Both 70 2 hr min 20 2 hr min 20 2 hr min Capacity Hours Mon-Thur Fri Sat Sun 200 14.5 hr (10 am-12:30 am) $1600 + tx $2000 + tx $1400 + tx 200 Hourly (2 hr min)$130/hr + tax $150/hr + tax $180/hr + tax $130/hr + tax North 72 Hourly (2 hr min)$80/hr + tax $85/hr + tax $105/hr + tax $80/hr + tax South 72 Hourly (2 hr min)$80/hr + tax $85/hr + tax $105/hr + tax $80/hr + tax N/A N/A 40 2 hr min 10 2 hr min 50 2 hr min 200 Event/Ceremony Fee (extra set-up, PA)N/A Special Set-up/Clean-upBanquet/Event AttendantDraperyOutdoor Heater (each)Stages CATERING per catererper event per event 24-month Venue Approval $150 Facility Use 12%Additional Clean-up $50 Fairway Deck Included in Bassett Creek South or Bassett Creek Full Room Rental $250 ADD-ON'S All rooms Varies based on needs $50 min$40/hour$200-$500$50 $25 for up to three sections Wirth Lake Rm $100/hr + tax Rice Lake Conference Rm $40/hr + tax Evergreen Deck $85/hr + tax Upper Level Room Bassett Creek Full Lilac Room $15/hr + tax Fossil Creek Rm PLEASE REMOVE THESE ROOMS FROM FEES Hideout $40/hr Clubhouse $40/hr Valley Room $65/hr + tax $65/hr + tax $100/hr + tax Twin Lake Rm PLEASE REMOVE THESE ROOMS FROM FEES Lower LevelRoom Mon-SunSweeney Lake Conference Rm $40/hr + tax Fairway Deck Included in Bassett Creek South or Bassett Creek Full Room Rental $200 ADD-ON'S All rooms Varies based on needs $50 min $30/hour $200-$500 $50 $25 for up to three sections Wirth Lake Rm $85/hr + tax Rice Lake Conference Rm $30/hr + tax Evergreen Deck $70/hr + tax Upper Level Room Bassett Creek Full Lilac Room $15/hr + tax Fossil Creek Rm PLEASE REMOVE THESE ROOMS FROM FEES Hideout $30/hr Clubhouse $30/hr Valley Room $55/hr + tax $55/hr + tax $85/hr + tax Twin Lake Rm PLEASE REMOVE THESE ROOMS FROM FEES Lower LevelRoom Mon-SunSweeney Lake Conference Rm $30/hr + tax 24 BROOKVIEW GOLF COURSE / 316 BAR & GRILL All fees are pre-tax 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE REGULATION COURSE 18 Hole $40.00 $42.00 18 Hole Club Member $32.00 $34.00 18 Hole Senior Club Member (Age 60+)$28.00 $30.00 18 Hole Senior (Age 60+)$33.00 $35.00 18 Hole League $40.00 $42.00 18 Tournament $40.00 $42.00 9 Hole $21.50 $22.50 9 Hole Club Member $18.00 $19.00 9 Hole Senior Club Member (Age 60+)$16.50 $17.50 9 Hole Senior (Age 60+)$18.50 $19.50 9 Hole League $21.50 $22.50 9 Hole Tournament $21.50 $22.50 2nd Nine $18.50 $19.50 2nd Nine Club Member $14.00 $15.00 Sunrise/Sunset Rate $18.50 $19.50 Twilight $22.50 $23.50 Twilight Club Member $18.00 $19.00 Junior Rate Club Member $23.50/$13.50 25.50/14.50 Junior Rate $26.00/$16.00 28.00/17.00 PAR 3 COURSE 9 Hole $13.50 $14.50 9 Hole Club Member $10.00 $11.00 9 Hole Senior Club Member (Age 60+)$9.00 $10.00 9 Hole Senior (Age 60+)$10.50 $11.50 9 Hole League $13.50 $14.50 9 Hole Tournament $13.50 $14.50 9 Hole Junior Rate Club Member $9.00 $10.00 9 Hole Junior $10.50 $11.50 9 Hole Youth on Course $5.00 $6.00 2nd 9 Par 3 $8.50 $9.50 Junior Par 3 Season Pass $90.00 $90.00 CART RATES 18 Hole Power Cart $34.00 18 Hole Tournament Cart $34.00 18 Hole Club Member Cart $28.00 9 Hole Tournament Cart $22.00 9 Hole Power Cart $22.00 9 Hole Par 3 Power Cart $18.00 Pull Cart/Regulation Course $5.00 25 BROOKVIEW GOLF COURSE / 316 BAR & GRILL All fees are pre-tax 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE Pull Cart/Par 3 Course $4.00 Trailer fee/Use of personal power cart $15.00/$10.00 CLUB MEMBER CARDS Resident Adult $85.00 Non-resident Adult $125.00 Resident Senior (Age 60+)$55.00 Non-resident Senior (Age 60+)$90.00 Resident Junior (17 yrs & under)$45.00 Non-resident Junior (17 yrs & under)$50.00 Par 3 $35.00 CLUB RENTALS 18 Hole full rental - Regulation $20.00/$30.00 9 Hole full rental - Regulation $10.00/$15.00 9 hole Par 3 half rental $10.00 CURLING Curling League $175.00 $200.00 Curling Rink Rental (1 hour)$15.00 $20.00 DRIVING RANGE Small Bucket $4.00 Medium Bucket $6.00 Large Bucket $8.00 LAWN BOWLING League Fee M-Th evenings (7 week league)$400.00 Single Rink Rental - Resident and Club Member $25.00/hour Single Rink Rental - Non-resident $30.00/hour Private Rental of Four Rinks $120.00/hour Private Rental of Eight Rinks - exclusive use $240.00/hour Senior Leagues $5.00 Game Official For Private Rentals / Events $30.00/hour Game Equipment Use For Leagues & Rentals included LESSONS Adult Group $95.00-$200.00 Junior Camp $150.00-$320.00 Junior Group $65.00-$150.00 26 BROOKVIEW GOLF COURSE / 316 BAR & GRILL All fees are pre-tax 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE LOCKER RENTAL Season $120.00 MISCELLANEOUS FEES USGA Handicap Service MGA Non-Club Member $50.00 Club Member Annual $35.00 Comedy Shows $20.00-$50.00 N/A No Show Fee FULL FEE Tent Rental (per day)$1,000.00 Table and chair rental (per hole)$15.00 Commemorative Bench $1,000.00 THREE ONE SIX BAR + GRILL Market Rate - All products and services Market Rate - All 27 DONATIONS 2022 ADOPTED FEE 2023 PROPOSED FEE Commemorative Bench with Engraved Plaque- City Park or Open Area $2,300.00 2,600.00$ Tree Donation- City Park or Open Area $350.00 Brookview Golf Course: Commemorative Bench with Engraved Plaque $750.00 1,000.00$ Tree Donation $350.00 28 Golden Valley City Council Meeting November 1, 2022 Agenda Item 6. B. First Consideration of Ordinance No. 747, Repealing Article IV of the City Code Relating to the Licensing of Amusement Devices Prepared By Theresa Schyma, City Clerk Summary An amusement device is defined in the City Code as “game of skill, a coin amusement, or a video game.” This definition includes jukeboxes, pool tables, pinball machines, and other arcade games. Currently each location in the City that has amusement devices must pay an annual fee of $15 per location and an additional $15 per device. The City is not required by state statute to license amusement devices. Previously, cities licensed amusement devices because they were thought to attract crime which would increase police calls. This is no longer a generally accepted view of the impacts of amusement devices. Furthermore, licensing requires staff time and imposes a burden on the three retailers in the City that have amusement devices. For these reasons, staff believes licensing amusement devices no longer serves a public purpose and recommends repealing this section of Code in its entirety. Financial Or Budget Considerations The City collects less than $150 per year for licensing amusement devices. Recommended Action Motion to adopt first consideration of Ordinance No. 747, Repealing Article IV of the City Code Relating to the Licensing of Amusement Devices Supporting Documents •Ordinance No. 747, Repealing Article IV of the City Code Relating to the Licensing of Amusement Devices (1 page) ORDINANCE NO. 747 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE REPEALING ARTICLE IV OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO LICENSING OF AMUSEMENT DEVICES The City Council of the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Licensing for Amusement Devices is hereby eliminated, City Code Chapter 16, Article IV is repealed in its entirety and the article and section numbers contained therein shall be reserved for future use. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication will follow as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 15th day of November 2022. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/ Theresa J. Schyma Theresa J. Schyma, City Clerk Event Event Time Location NOVEMBER Saturday, November 5 City Hall Open for Absentee Voting 10:00 AM - 3:00 PM City Hall Tuesday, November 8 Election Day 7:00 AM - 8:00 PM City Precincts/Polls Wednesday, November 9 HRA Work Session 6:30 PM Hybrid - Council Conference Room Council Work Session 6:30 PM Hybrid - Council Conference Room Friday, November 11 City Offices Closed for Observance of Veterans' Day Sunday, November 13 Winter Market in the Valley (Indoors)10:00 AM - 1:00 PM Brookview Bassett Creek Room Monday, November 14 Special City Council Training Session 8:00 AM - 3:00 PM Location TBD Tuesday, November 15 City Council Meeting 6:30 PM Hybrid - Council Chambers Thursday, November 24 City Offices Closed for Observance of Thanksgiving Friday, November 25 City Offices Closed for Observance of Thanksgiving DECEMBER Thursday, December 1 Building An Equitable Golden Valley Quarterly Conversation: DEI Celebration 6:00 PM - 7:15 PM Hybrid Event Tuesday, December 6 HRA Meeting 6:30 PM Hybrid - Council Chambers City Council Meeting (Includes the Annual Truth-in-Taxation Hearing)6:30 PM Hybrid - Council Chambers Sunday, December 11 Winter Market in the Valley (Indoors)10:00 AM - 1:00 PM Brookview Bassett Creek Room Wednesday, December 13 Council Work Session 6:30 PM Hybrid - Council Conference Room Tuesday, December 20 City Council Meeting 6:30 PM Hybrid - Council Chambers Friday, December 23 City Offices Closed for Christmas Eve (observed) Monday, December 26 City Offices Closed for Christmas Day (observed) Review of Council Calendar