agenda packet (entire)
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
of the
City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
. Council Chamber
. March 18, 2008
6:30 p.m.
The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7
prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
B. Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Presentation
PAGES
2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Consent Agenda - All itemsilisted 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 Coul11cil Member or citizen 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 Minutes - City Council Meeting - February 19, 2008 and
Council/Manager Meeting - March 11, 2008
B. Approval of Check Register
C. Licenses:
1. General Business Licenses
2. Rental Property Licenses
3. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Golden
Valley Rotary Club
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1. Planning Commission - February 25, 2008
2. Joint Water Commission - January 2, 2008
3. Envision Connection Project Board of Directors - January 24, 2008
E. Bids and Quotes
1. Highway 55 Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Pumps - Quotes
2. City Hall Roof Top Air Conditioning Condensing Unit - Quotes
F. Receipt of December 2007 (Unaudited) General Fund Budget Report and General
Fund Balance Analysis Report
G. Authorizing Transfers from General Fund to Equipment Replacement Fund and
Building Improvement Fund
H. Receipt of February 2008 General Fund Budget Report
I. Authorization to Sign Contract with Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. for Natural
Resource Management Plan
J. Authorization to Extend Contract with Tim's Tree Service for 2008 Spring Brush
Pick-up Program
K. Authorization to Extend Contract with Waste Management for Residential Curbside
Recycling
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 PM
A. Public Hearing - Ordinance #382 - Amendments to Section 11.03 Regarding
Definitions and Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1) Regarding Infill
Housing Development
B. Continued Public Hearing - Ordinance #396 - Child Care Facilities in Business and
Professional Offices Zoning District
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Announcements of Meetings
B. Mayor and Council Communications
7. ADJOURNMENT
Memoran
City Administration/Council
763-593-8003/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
March 18, 2008
Agenda Item
1. B. Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Presentation
Prepared By
Thomas D. Burt, City Manager
Summary
Susan Blood, Executive Director, will attend the meeting and make a brief presentation on
the services they provide.
alley
orand
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
March 18, 2008
Agenda Item
3. B. Approval of City Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley.
Attachments
Loose in agenda packet.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
alley
e n u
Inspections
763-593-8090 I 763-593-3997 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
March 18, 2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 1. General Business Licenses
Prepared By
Kathryn Pepin, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per City Code, some businesses are required to be licensed by the City. Listed below are
the License Number, Applicant, License Type and Fee of those who have submitted an
application for approval.
#3103 Malik's Amstar Gas Station/18 Nozzles $310.00
601 Boone Avenue North
#3104 Gregg & Jim's Service, Inc. Gas Station/8 Nozzles $160.00
1900 Douglas Drive
#3105 Holiday Station Stores, Inc. Gas Station/26 Nozzles $430.00
7925 Wayzata Boulevard
#3108 Jim Lupient Oldsmobile Gas Station/1 Nozzle $55.00
7100 Wayzata Boulevard
#3109 Superamerica #4443 Gas Station/10 Nozzles $190.00
1930 Douglas Drive
#3110 Superamerica #4497 Gas Station/18 Nozzles $310.00
6955 Market Street
#3112 Golden Valley Country Club Gas Station/2 Nozzles $70.00
7001 Golden Valley Road
#3113 G.V. Service Center Gas Station/12 Nozzles $220.00
600 Boone Avenue North
#3114 General Mills, Inc. Gas Station/36 Nozzles $580.00
1 General Mills Boulevard
#3115 Kabalan Co. Gas Station/23 Nozzles $385.00
Medicine Lake Citgo
9405 Medicine Lake Road
#3117 Schuller's Tavern Dancing/Entertainment $375.00
7345 Country Club Drive
#3118 Collision Center Motor Vehicle Facility $25.00
900 Florida Avenue South
#3119 Lauren Clayman Flower Sales $20.00
1432 Rhode Island Avenue North
#3122 Chester Bird American Legion Amusement Devices $45.00
200 North Lilac Drive
#3125 Schuller's Tavern 1 Amusement Device $30.00
7345 Country Club Drive
#3128 Superamerica #4497 Off Sale 3.2 Beer $150.00
6955 Market Street
#3129 Superamerica #4443 Off Sale 3.2 Beer $150.00
1930 Douglas Drive
#3132 Davanni's On Sale 3.2 Beer $500.00
663 Winnetka Avenue North
#3133 Brookview Golf Course On Sale 3.2 Beer Fee Waived
200 Brookview Pkwy
#3135 Christianson & Torgerson On Sale 3.2 Beer $500.00
Holiday Inn Express
6020 Wayzata Boulevard
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the issuance of licenses as recommended by staff.
Public JI~y
n m
Fire Department
763-593-8055 I 763-512-2497 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
March 18, 2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 2. Rental Property Licenses
Prepared By
Becky Perkins, Office Clerk
Summary
As per City Code, some businesses are required to be licensed by the City. Listed below are
the License Number, Applicant, License Type and Fee of those who have submitted an
application for approval.
#3126
Action Homebuyers Triplex
5315 Greenview Lane
Rental Property
$160.00
#3093
Valley Square Commons
759 Winnetka Avenue North
Rental Property
$600.00
#3087
Dover Hill Apartments Rental Property
2478 Rhode Island Avenue North
$140.00
#3086
Dover Hill Apartments Rental Property
2410 Rhode Island Avenue North
$140.00
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the issuance of licenses as recommended by staff.
Me 0 dum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8006/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
March 18, 2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 3. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Rotary Club of
Golden Valley
Prepared By
Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per State Statute organizations that conduct gambling within the City limits have to submit
an application for a lawful gambling permit to the State after the permit has been approved or
denied by the City. Depending upon the timing of the permit the applicants may request the
City to waive the 30-day waiting period.
Attachments
Application for Exempt Permit (2 pages)
Letter from Rotary Club of Golden Valley requesting waiver of 30 day waiting period (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice
requirement for the Rotary Club of Golden Valley.
Mar 05 08 12:05p
CARBIGRAPH IC PRODUCTS
800-766-4488
p.5
Minnesota Lawful Gambling
LG220 Application for Exempt Permit
An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit organization that:
. conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days, and
· awards less than 550,000 in prizes during a calendar year.
ORGANIZATION INFORMATION
Fee is 50 for
each event
Page 1 of 2 6107
For Board Use Only
Check#
$
Organization name
6dJ..:f)e1lJ V 'H..Le R017\~..... (! L U 13
Type of nonprofit organization. Check (...f) one.
o Fraternal 0 Religious 0 Veterans ~ Other nonprofit organization
Mailing address C.l1Y. \ StatelZip Code ~ounty.
/'fool fiOLl>EN VhLI.- 0-0L..Def'J V.J\L.L fJ1N ~S4;).'7 Ilr::..AJJ.J,
Name of chief executive officer CEO) Daytime phone number
CttfiD .B66-~~ ?&>3-St./~-770
ATTACt{A COpy OF ~ OF THE FOLLOWING FOR PROOF OF NONPROFIT STATUS
Previous gambling permit number
-d- 'l/3cr -07- CO /
* Do not attach a sales tax exempt status or fed
_ Nonprofit Articles of Incorporation OR a c nt Certificate of Good Standing.
Oon't have a copy? This certificate must be' ear from:
Secretary of State. Business Services Div., 180 State OffiCe BUI lng, . aul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-296-2803
- Internal Revenue Service -IRS income lax exemption [501 (c)J letter In your organization's name.
Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, send your federal ID number and
the date your organization initially applied for tax exempt status to:
IRS, P.O. Box 2508. Room 4010, Cincinnati, OH 45201
_Internal Revenue Service - Affiliate of national, statewide, or international parent nonprofit organization (charter)
If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of.QQ1h of the following:
a. IRS letter showing your parent organization is a registered nonprofit 501(c) organization with a group ruling
b. the charter or letter from yout parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate.
_Internal Revenue Service - proof previously submitted to Gambling Control Soard
If you previously submitted proof of nonprofit status from the Internal Revenue Service, no attaChment ie required.
GAMBUNG PREMISES INFORMATION
activity will be conducted (for raffles, list Ihe site where the drawing will take place)
k)
City I ,I Zip Code Cppnty
(.0 V n-e. h. "'"
Check the box or boxes that indicate the type of gambling activity your organization will conduct:
;lKl"Bingo ~ Raffles 0 "Paddlewheels 0 "Pull~Tabs . 0 *lipboards
* Gambling eqUipment for pull-tabs, tipboarcls, paddlewheels, and bingo (bingo paper,
hard cards, ancl bingo number selection device) must be obtained from a distributor
licensed by the Gambling COntrol Board. To find a licensed distributor, go to
www.gcb.state.mn.us and click OIl List of licensed Distributors, or call 651-639-4076.
Mar 05 08 12:05p
CARBIGRAPH Ie PRODUCTS
800-766-4488
p.6
LG220 Application for Exempt Pennit
LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Page 2 of 2
6107
If the gambling premises is Within city limits,
the city must sign this application.
Check (--I) the action that the city is taking on
this appllc:ation.
XThe application is acknowledged with no waiting period.
_The application is acknowledged with a 30 day walting
period;3nd allows the Board to issue a permit after 30
days (60 days fur a 1st class city).
_The application is denied.
Print city name G..
Dale.3J~1 rJt
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S SIGNATURE
The infof'l'1111tion provided in this appf
the financial report will be completed
If the gambling premises is located in a township, both
the county and township must Si911 this application,
Check <..,J) the action that the county Is taking on
this application.
_The application is acknowfedged with no waiting period.
_The application is acMowledged with a 30 day waiting
period, and anows 1he Board to issue a permit after 30
days.
_The application is denied.
Print county name
On behalf of the county, I acknowledge this application.
Signalure of county personnel receiving appUcation
Tdle
Date
'--1_
TOWNSHIP: On behsffofthe township, 1 scknowled~ thatthe
organization is applying for exempted gambling activity within the
township timits. (A township has no statutory authOlity to approve
ordenyan application [Minnesota Statute 349.213. subd. 2)]
Print township name
Signature of township official acknowledging application
Title Date I
comp" te and accurate to the best of my knowledge. i acknowledge that
Cl d the Boan:} within 30 days of the date of our gambling actMty.
Date ?:> I 10 ,Ob
ChiefexeaJtiveofficer's signature
C~plete an application for each 9a
<"::';one day of gambling activity
. two or more consecutive days of gambling activity
. each day a raffie drawing is held
Send application with:
. a copy of your proof of nonpront s1atus, and
$50 application fee for each event.
Make check payable to "State of Minnesota."
To: Gambling Control Board
1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South
Roseville, MN 55113
Oala privacy. Ttis form wlH be made available
In alternative format Q.e. large prinr, Braille) upon
request. The Informa1lOl1 requested on this
fOITn (and any a!lachmel1s) will be used by the
Gambling Conlrol Board (Board) to detennine
your quaili:::alicns to be InvolllBd in lawful
gambling activities In Minnesola. You have the
llIht to refuse to supptj !he infonnation
requested; however. if you refUse to s~pIy
1his information, If1e Boan:I may not be able to
determine your qualifications and, as a
consequence, may Jefuse to issue you a
perm~. If you supply the informalfon requested,
Financial report and record keeping
required
A financial report form and instructions will be
sent with your pel111it. Within 30 days of the
activity dale, complete and re1um the financial
report form to the Gambling Control Board.
Questions?
Call the Licensing Seelion of the Gambling
Control Board at 651-639-4016.
lhe Board wit be able to ptOC8SS your
application. Your name and and your
organlza1lon's name and address wm be pubic
infonnation when recellIed by the Board. AI
the other information you provide wi. be privata
dala unil the BoaRl issues your permit. III/hen
lie Boartllssues your pennit, all of !he
infonnation provided to !he Board will become
public. lf1he Board does not issue a permit, all
Inbmlallon j:rnVided remains priv.aIB, win the
exception of your name am yout organization's
name and address which wfll remain pOOIic.
Private data are available to: Board mernbels.
Board staff' whose work requires access to
the Information; lVinnesota's Department of
Public Safety; Attorney General;' COmmissioners
of Administration. Finarr.e, and RevenjJe;
Legislative Auditor. national and international
gambling regulatory agencies; anyone PllSuant
to court order; olher individuals and agencies
that are specifically autllorized by state or
federal law to have access to the infolmation;
individuals and agendes for whidllaw or legal
order authorizes a new use or sharing of
information after !his Notice was given; and
anyone with your consent
Rotary Club of Golden Valley
7001 Golden Valley Road · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55427
March 11, 2008
Ms. Judy Nally
Administrative. Assistant
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Rd.
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Dear Judy;
The Rotary Club of Golden Valley will host its annual fUndraiser at the Golden Valley
Golf and Country Club on Friday, May 2, 2008. We respectfully request that the City
Council. waive the customary 30...day waiting period fot the exemption for lawful
gambling permit required for this type of event.
Sincerely,
Cha~gr
President
Service Above Self
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 25, 2008
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
February 25, 2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, McCarty, Schmidgall
and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes,
City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner
Kluchka was absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
February 11, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Eck referred to the third paragraph on page 7 and noted that the word "stated" was
missing in the second sentence.
Waldhauser referred to the seventh paragraph on page 6 and stated that the last
sentence should read as follows: The Commissioners decided not to add an adjustment
for pervious pavers to the driveway requirements.
McCarty questioned what would constitute cause for denying a Conditional Use Permit to
a day care facility if they met all the requirements. Grimes explained that circulation
issues or inadequate parking could be cause for denial of a Conditional Use Permit. Eck
added that a Conditional Use Permit could be revoked if a day care center was not being
run properly.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve
the February 11, 2008 minutes with the above noted changes.
2. Discussion Regarding Mixed Use Zoning District Language
Grimes reminded the Commission that the City Council recently adopted the 1-394
Corridor Study and re-designated the properties in the 1-394 Corridor area on the General
Land Use Plan map to Mixed Use. He stated that now the Planning Commission and
Council need to adopt a Mixed Use zoning district because state law requires that the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Map be consistent. He said he would like the
Commissioners to go through the proposed new Mixed Use zoning district language page
by page to make sure it is easy to understand and administer. He stated that the Council
has concerns about the car dealerships in the area becoming non-conforming and stated
that one option could be to create some kind of special Conditional Use Permit for car
dealerships. He explained that even if a car dealership is considered to be non-
conforming it could continue to operate and be maintained. However, it just couldn't be
expanded.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 25, 2008
Page 2
Keysser referred to the recently approved Morrie's Conditional Use Permit allowing two
awnings to be added and asked if that would be considered an expansion. Grimes said
yes because they were attached to the building and were built closer to the setback line.
Grimes stated that there are other uses in the 1-394 Corridor that would also become non-
conforming and that some of them would be ok if they are zoned Mixed Use.
Waldhauser asked if "building up" would be considered an expansion. Grimes said yes.
Keysser said one option could be to "grandfather in" some of the existing uses for a
certain period of time. Cera said another option could be to allow non-conforming uses to
expand up to a certain percent. Waldhauser suggested allowing expansion but not
allowing acquisition of new properties for the same use.
Eck said he thought the philosophy of the Corridor Study was that auto dealerships were
not the intended long-term use in the area. Grimes agreed and reiterated that there are
other uses that are also not intended long-term uses.
Keysser asked if there is an inventory of all the buildings in the Corridor Study area.
Grimes said yes.
Waldhauser referred to gas stations and questioned if the Mixed Use ordinance should
expand what is allowed to provide for neighborhood convenience. She said she would
also like to encourage building above auto dealerships.
Schmidgall said it has never been his agenda to not allow viable businesses to continue
and if they want to improve their properties they should be able to. Keysser agreed.
Grimes suggested allowing auto dealers and auto repair uses as a conditional use. Cera
stated that allowing those uses with a Conditional Use Permit would allow them to stay
forever. Grimes suggested language that would allow existing auto uses to continue. He
added that once a non-conforming use stops being utilized or is abandoned the City can
require it to be brought into conformance.
Waldhauser questioned if there would be a noise issue with auto body uses next to
residential properties. Grimes stated that newer shops are much more sophisticated and
that garage doors are required to closed at all times.
Cera suggested having a time frame or moratorium in which the City would allow for an
expansion to a non-conforming building. Keysser suggested language that says for the
first 10 years after this ordinance is adopted any existing use would be able to expand.
McCarty asked if that language would allow the City to deny variances. Keysser stated
that a property owner could always ask for a variance but they would have to prove
hardship.
Eck stated that he doesn't understand the rationale for requiring a Conditional Use Permit
for a restaurant located in a free-standing building. Grimes discussed the various types of
restaurant classes. Waldhauser stated that the intent was to discourage stand alone
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 25, 2008
Page 3
restaurants. Grimes said that Class I restaurants could be added to the permitted uses
list, but recommended that Class II restaurants require a Conditional Use Permit because
they have drive-through windows. Grimes added that any use over 2 acres in size is
required to be mixed use.
Eck referred to the maximum height requirements in the various subdistricts and
questioned what would happen if someone built a tall building and then left it. Grimes said
it would not be considered non-conforming because it would have a Conditional Use
Permit. He reviewed a map of the subdistricts and discussed the height allowed in each.
Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 1 (E) and said it should read "Improve connectivity for
all modes of transportation". She referred to Subdivision 1 (F) and said the words "work to
establish" are redundant. The sentence should read "Foster sustainable development and
a balance between urban and natural systems". She referred to Subdivision 3(F) and
asked if medical clinics and personal care services could be combined. Grimes said he
. thinks the two uses are different and should be separate.
McCarty referred to Subdivision 4(8) and suggested the words "or restaurant" be taken
out. He thought the sentence should read "Any permitted commercial use in a free
standing building".
Waldhauser referred to language regarding live-work units which states that they should
maintain a generally residential character in which the work space is subordinate to the
residential use. She said she would like it to say the opposite. Grimes stated that Golden
Valley has historically allowed 20% of a residential space to be used for a home
occupation and these proposed live-work units allow 30% of the space to be used for a
home occupation. Keysser asked why the percentage of the space dedicated to each use
needs to be addressed. Waldhauser asked why the City would care if no one actually
lives in the unit if the building is predominately commercial. She said she sees no reason
to limit the size or ratio. Keysser said he would want people to live in the units. McCarty
questioned how feasible the live-work idea is.
Cera referred to Subdivision 6(A)(4) regarding setback requirements and questioned if
they want buildings that close to the street. Waldhauser said the idea was to have to
buildings close to the sidewalk, not the street.
Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 5(E) regarding live-work units and questioned why
wholesale or manufacturing uses wouldn't be allowed. Grimes said he would look at
revising the language. Keysser said that some manufacturing uses have noise, smell and
sanitation issues. Grimes said he thought that buildings that have live-work units in them
would have covenants and rules.
Keysser referred to Subdivision 7(8) regarding required open space and questioned if
15% is too much. Grimes noted that open space consists of plazas, green spaces, play
areas, trails and parkways or a combination thereof.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 25, 2008
Page 4
Cera referred to Subdivision 6(F) regarding minimum height and asked if the City is
limiting itself by preventing stand alone buildings/uses. Grimes agreed and stated that the
City is trying to encourage Mixed Use but questioned how this ordinance would allow for
certain uses such as a gas station. Waldhauser suggested requiring a variance for those
types of uses. Grimes suggested possibly requiring a Conditional Use Permit for buildings
less than 2 stories in height. McCarty questioned if it would be forward thinking to not
allow single story development at all.
Keysser referred to Subdivision 8(E)(2) regarding building materials and requiring that at
least 20% of the fa<;ade facing the primary street shall be faced with Kasota stone or
other indigenous dolomitic limestone. He said he thinks the language limits architectural
freedom. Grimes explained that the City Council wants to have a certain look and
consistency in the corridor area. McCarty said he would like the buildings to look different
from each other. Grimes noted that there is language in the proposed ordinance that
allows alternate approaches with City Council approval. McCarty proposed striking the
language in Subdivision 8(E)(2). He added that what he said about requiring some sort of
stone, not just limestone, was just a suggestion or a compromise, but not what he would
prefer. Cera agreed. Waldhauser said she thinks a general color scheme is important.
She suggested requiring consistency on individual blocks or areas. Keysser asked the
Commissioners to vote on whether or not Subdivision 8(E)(2) should be removed. Eck,
Schmidgall and Waldhauser thought the language should stay in the ordinance. Cera,
Keysser and McCarty thought the language should be removed from the ordinance.
McCarty referred to Subdivision 8(C)(3) regarding window and door openings and stated
that there. should be commas inserted after the word "shelving" and after the words
"mechanical equipment".
McCarty referred to Subdivision 8(E)(1) regarding exterior wall finish and stated that the
last sentence should be changed to read "except for glass, all exterior wall material shall
be integrally colored".
McCarty referred to Subdivision 8(E)(3) regarding architectural trim and asked if stucco
and cement board should be added. Grimes said he thought the words "other equivalent
materials" would cover stucco and cement board.
Waldhauser questioned where the ordinance encourages benches. Grimes asked if she
was suggesting requiring benches. Waldhauser said she would at the least like to
encourage and allow sidewalk benches. Grimes said there are potential right of way
issues, plowing issues and safety issues with permanent benches being placed on
sidewalks and in the right-of-way area.
Keysser referred to Section 11.48, Subdivision 2(A) regarding construction or alteration of
a single family dwelling and asked if that language needs to remain in the ordinance.
Grimes said that language could be removed.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 25, 2008
Page 5
McCarty referred to Subdivision 4(C) regarding variances and suggested that the word
"reviewed" be changed to "decided". The Commissioners agreed.
Cera noted that the ordinance talks about sustainability in regard to the construction
process but it doesn't address sustainability in regard to building operations at all.
McCarty said he thinks the building industry would drive sustainable operations.
Schmidgall agreed that there is an industry-wide trend to have energy efficient buildings.
Waldhauser stated that sustainability is also addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Cera
said he would like to encourage sustainability in this ordinance. Grimes asked Cera to
help him draft some language about sustainability to add to the ordinance.
3. Appointments to the Douglas Drive Corridor Study Scoping Committee
Grimes stated that Golden Valley has received funds from the Federal Government to do
a planning study regarding connectivity in the Douglas Drive Corridor. He stated that the
connectivity issues are only a part of what the City Council would like to study and they
want to do a corridor study similarto the 1-394 Corridor Study. He stated that he would
like three Planning Commissioners to be a part of the Douglas Drive Corridor Study
Scoping Committee to help figure out what issues should be addressed as a part of a
study.
Keysser asked about the parameters of the study area. Grimes discussed the proposed
boundaries of the study.
Keysser said he would like to volunteer. Waldhauser said she would also like to volunteer.
Keysser suggested tentatively including Commissioner Kluchka because he thinks that
this is something he might like to be involved in.
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No reports were given.
5. Other Business
Waldhauser stated that she received a call from a resident who was concerned about
the number of group homes in her neighborhood. The resident was also concerned
about people at Schuller's smoking outside near her yard.
Grimes explained that the City Council has included the group home issues in their
annual list of legislative items. He stated that he also talked to the same resident about
the smoking issues and he has forward the issue to the Police Department.
6r. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9: 1 0 pm.
JOINT WATER COMMISSION MINUTES
Golden Valley - Crystal - New Hope
Meeting of January 2, 2008
The Golden Valley - Crystal - New Hope Joint Water Commission meeting was called to
order at 1 :30 pm, in the City of Golden Valley Council Conference Room.
Commissioners Present:
Tom Burt, City Manager, Golden Valley
Kirk McDonald, City Manager, New Hope
Anne Norris, City Manager, Crystal
Staff Present:
Bert Tracy, Utility Maintenance Supervisor, Golden Valley
Guy Johnson, Public Works Director, New Hope
Tom Mathisen, Public Works Director, Crystal
Randy Kloepper, Utility Maintenance Supervisor, Crystal
Dave Lemke, Utility Maintenance Supervisor, Golden Valley
Sue Virnig, Finance Director, Golden Valley
Paul Coone, Operations Manager, New Hope
Approval of JWC Minutes
MOVED by Norris, seconded by McDonald to approve the minutes of the December 5
meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
18 inch Valve Replacement
Paul Coone introduced the two quotes received for the 18 inch valve replacement.
Com anies
Lametti & Sons,
Incor orated
Schurcon Incor orated
Quotes:
$49,430.00
$82,750.00
MOVED by Norris, seconded by Burt, motion carried unanimously to award the bid for the
18 inch valve replacement to the lowest responsible bidder, Lametti & Sons, Inc., in the
amount of $49,430.
Depository Resolution 08-1
Commissioner Norris introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 08-1
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES FOR JOINT WATER FUNDS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner
Burt and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Burt,
McDonald and Norris; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Chair and his signature
attested by the Vice Chair.
Joint Water Commission
January 2, 2008
Page 2
Next Meetina
The next meeting will be held when Scott Harder is ready to present the comprehensive
plan for review.
Other
Tom reported that Scott Harder is meeting with Linda Loomis and Sandy Colvin-Roy prior
to the final task force meeting; he is meeting with Shahin Razania to discuss financial
review findings and expectations for a kick-off meeting; and he is arranging a meeting with
the three city finance managers to discuss water conservation and related financial impacts
which will be the final step before submitting the water supply plan update to the JWC for
review.
Adiournment
Burt moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 1 :40 p.m.
Thomas D. Burt, Chair
ATTEST:
Carol Broermann, Administrative Assistant
Envision Connection Project
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2008
Present: Jim Heidelberg, Helene Johnson, Linda Loomis, Philip Lund, Marshall Tanick
and Blair Tremere
Absent: Dean Penk and Luke Weisberg (GVCEF Representative)
Staff: Jeanne Andre
The meeting began at 7:10 pm in the Council Conference Room.
Approval of Minutes
Tremere/Johnson moved to approve the minutes of December 20,2007, as presented.
Motion carried.
Golden Valley Connects Outreach
Communications Working Group - The Communications Working Group hasn't met a
second time. Laura Pugh and Jeanne Andre are looking at options outside of i-
neighbors that might be more user-friendly.
Concert in the Park MC coordination and Ice Cream Social - Sue Cook has
scheduled Stompin Dixie for the July 28 concert. This would be a good date for the ice
cream social as youth sports activities are completed by that time. Marshall Tanick has
had further discussions with both the American Legion and VFW about co-sponsoring a
concert event. They are both interested and are talking with their boards about the
project. It was suggested that they could sell hot dogs. They could cooperate on a Flag
day event on June 16, or each sponsor one concert, possibly June 16 and July 7.
Speaker's Bureau - Blair Tremere and Philip Lund met as a working group and worked
on an approach to the speaker's bureau. They would like to have a script that could be
adapted to various venues. They recommended preparing a sample presentation for
the next Board Meeting, with the goal of then taking it to the quarterly Bridge Builder
Meeting for fine-tuning. The next suggested audience would be the assembled Boards
and Commissions, either at another summit (as occurred in 2005) or at the annual
dinner.
Nametags - Jeanne Andre distributed the new Bridge Builder name tags to the
members. The rest will be distributed at the Bridge Builder quarterly meeting.
Bridge Building Activities
Quarterly Meeting - Marshall Tanick recommended holding the next session at the
Golden Valley Public Safety Building on March 1 from 10 am to noon. Chief Altonen is
willing to provide a tour and overview of the public safety department. Tanick will take
charge of the invitations/calling and will ask Bruce Peterson to be the convener. Jeanne
Andre will do an i-neighbors' notice.
Brids;le Builder Activities - Jeanne Andre reported that an Eagle Scout candidate has
been in contact with the City and is interested in the lilac project. He is talking with his
leader and will set up a meeting to get further information if it seems feasible to
proceed. Bridge Builder Mary Anderson has partnered with the Northwest YMCA and a
homework mentor program is set to start February 4 and continue to June. They have
recruited and trained ten mentors and four substitutes.
Envision Connection Project
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2008 - Page 2
Fundraising for Bridge Builder Activities and Criteria for Grants - Dean Penk and
Luke Weisburg were not in attendance, but Luke sent an email outlining possible
approaches to joint community fundraising. One issue is whether the Board would like
to form a separate 501 c (3) organization and cooperate with GVCEF, or support having
the existing GVCEF broaden its mandate to include the mission of the Connection
Project, with separate working groups for the festival and Bridge Builders. The Board
expressed interest in the latter approach, but wanted a better understanding of the
proposed new board responsibilities and suggested that a name that encompassed the
broader mission should be adopted. Luke also asked that the Board identify some
Bridge Builder projects that could use financial support in 2009 for the purpose of
preparing a joint fund-raising effort. The group brainstormed and thought up some
possible projects. Jeanne Andre will ask Luke for feedback on the ideas before the
group zeros in on a couple at the next meeting. The ideas were:
. Provide expanded computer resources for study buddies at the library
. Support for the community ice cream social
. Support for a local community Welcome Wagon project
. Support for a paint-a-thon or forming a community fix-up group
. Forming a community garden - organizing and/or providing water (could also link
to food shelf)
. Support for a community weeding project
. Support for a community buckthorn-busting effort - events, education and tools.
. Help organizing a community dog park
Recruitment of Members to the Executive Board
Jeanne Andre reported that the next newsletter will solicit members for the Board.
Philip Lund reported that Sharon Glover is interested in attending a meeting but could
not attend this meeting as she had to leave at 8 pm and didn't have a ride.
Future Meetings
The next meeting will be on February 28. After that meeting, the Board indicated that it
would like to meet on the third Thursday instead of the fourth for the rest of the year.
The meeting ended at 8:45 pm.
Jeanne Andre
Assistant City Manager
Hey
e randum
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
March 18, 2008
Agenda Item
3. E. 1. Approve quote and contract for Highway 55 Sanitary Sewer Lift Station
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager
Summary
The Highway 55 sanitary sewer lift station pumps are failing and require daily cleaning to
remove debris from the plugged pumps. The problem is excessive wear between the
impellers and the volute which allows debris to plug the pumps. The replacement of both
sewer pumps is critical to the operation of the sewage lift station.
Staff has received two price quotes for identical replacement sewage pumps, installation,
freight and tax.
General Repair Service
Braun Pump and Controls
$25,251.15
$23,856.76
Funding for the pumps would come from the Water and Sanitary Sewer Utility Reserves.
Recommended Action
Motion to approve contract with Braun Pump and Controls for replacement of two sewer
pumps in the amount of $23,856.76.
alley
emo nd m
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
March 18, 2008
Agenda Item
3. E. 2. Award Quote and Authorize Contract for Replacement of City Hall Roof Top Air
Conditioning Condensing Unit Servicing the Lower Level of the Building
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Summary
The following quotes for the replacement of the City Hall roof top condensing unit which
services the lower level of the building were received:
Northland Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (NMC)
Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (MMC)
$ 23,500.00
$ 35,700.00
The City Hall building currently has four roof top air conditioning (AC) units which service the
entire upper level of City Hall and one AC condensing unit which services the lower level of
the building. The condensing unit is approximately 28 years old and has experienced several
costly repairs in order to maintain cooling during the summer months.
The quotes provided above are for the 10.1 EER (Electrical Efficiency Rating) High Efficient
condensing unit. Neither contractor recommended the 11.1 EER unit due to the history of
service calls related to the dual compressor system. The new compressor will be more
efficient than the existing rooftop unit by approximately 1.5 to 2 EER.
This project is funded in the 2008 Building Capital Improvement Budget (refer to page 56, in
2008, $15,000 and page 60, $250,000). The work will be completed this spring.
Recommended Action
Motion to award quote and authorize contract for the City Hall roof top condensing unit to
Northland Mechanical Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $23,500.
Hey
erno n urn
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
March 18, 2008
Agenda Item
3. F. Receipt of December 2007 (Unaudited) General Fund Budget Report and General Fund
Balance Analysis Report
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The monthly General Fund Budget Report provides a progress report on the General Fund
operations for 2007. The revenues and expenditures show current month actual and year-to-
date actual compared to the 2007 approved budget. Also included is the General Fund
Balance Analysis Report.
Attachments
December 2007 General Fund Budget Report - Unaudited (2 pages)
General Fund Balance Analysis (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to receive and file the December 2007 General Fund Budget Report and General
Fund Balance Analysis Report.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report - General Fund
December, 2007 -Unaudited
Percentage Of Year Completed 100.00%
Revenue:
Over %
2007 Dec YTD (Under) of Budget
Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received
Ad Valorem Taxes $10,265,000 5,057,311 10,273,035 8,035 100.08%
Homestead Credit 0 335,049 335,049 335,049
Licenses 127,670 4,257 165,230 37,560 129.42%
Permits 900,000 47,744 1,039,519 139,519 115.50%
Federal Grants 0 0 1,161 1,161
State Aid 50,500 8,252 119,372 68,872 236.38%
Charges For Services 1,977,010 6,848 1,691,545 (285,465) 85.56%
Fines & Forfeitures 280,000 31,591 253,594 (26,406) 90.57%
Interest On Investments 185,000 404,089 404,089 219,089 218.43%
Miscellaneous Revenue 190,740 1,547 195,284 4,544 102.38%
Transfers In 175,000 0 175,000 0 100.00%
TOTAL Revenue $14,150,920 $5,896,688 $14,652,878 $501,958 103.55%
Percentage Of Year Completed 92%
Expenditures:
Over %
2007 December YTD (Under) Of Budget
Division Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend.
Council $284,490 36,644 $272,740 ($11,750) 95.87%
City Manager 786,040 69,462 706,450 (79,590) 89.87%
Admin. Services 1,457,020 188,589 1,325,111 (131,909) 90.95%
Legal 100,000 23,932 115,092 15,092 115.09%
General Gov't. Bldgs. 601,885 74,802 502,953 (98,932) 83.56%
Planning 381,970 39,123 336,293 (45,677) 88.04%
Police 4,154,655 488,876 4,123,078 (31,577) 99.24%
Fire 1,442,135 247,464 1,363,715 (78,420) 94.56%
Public Works Admin. 297,740 25,683 286,906 (10,834) 96.36%
Engineering 604,815 43,271 508,544 (96,271 ) 84.08%
Streets 1,241,610 152,062 1,220,480 (21,130) 98.30%
Community Center 78,150 19,525 67,713 (10,437) 86.64%
Park & Rec. Admin. 602,665 59,505 582,849 (19,816) 96.71%
Park Maintenance 925,555 96,131 854,823 (70,732) 92.36% .
Recreation Programs 456,665 25,040 320,660 (136,005) 70.22%
Casualty Insurance 180,020 90,770 300,489 120,469 166.92%
Transfers Out 725,000 885,049 1,610,049 885,049 222.08%
TOTAL Expenditures $14,320,415 $2,565,928 $14,497,945 $177,530 101.24%
City of Golden Valley
General Fund
Fund Balance Analysis
Fund Balance @ 01/01/07 $8,652,199
Estimated Revenue - 2007 $14,652,878
Adjusted Estimated Expenditures- 2007 14,497,945
Excess of Revenue Over (Under) Expenditures 154,933
Estimated Fund Balance @ 12/31/07 8,807,132
Proposed Revenue - 2008 15,033,985
Proposed Expenditures - 2008 15,033,985
Excess of Revenue Over (Under) Expenditures 0
Projected Fund Balance @ 12/31/08 $8,807,132
% of 2008 Proposed Expenditures 58.6%
alley
Me n
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
March 18, 2008
Agenda Item
3. G. Authorizing Transfers from General Fund to Equipment Replacement Fund and Building
Improvement Fund
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
As discussed at the Council Strategic Planning Workshop on March 8, 2008 the following
resolution will give approval to transfer general funds to the Equipment Replacement Fund
and Building Improvement Fund. These transfers will fund the needed equipment and
building improvements outlined in the 2008-2012 Capital Improvement Program.
Attachments
Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of $885,048 from the General Fund to the Equipment
Replacement Fund ($550,000) and Building Improvement Fund ($335,048) (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of $885,048 from the General Fund to
the Equipment Replacement Fund ($550,000) and Building Improvement Fund ($335,048).
Resolution 08-15
March 18, 2008
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $885,048 FROM THE
GENERAL FUND TO THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND ($550,000)
AND BUILDING IMPROVEMENT FUND ($335,048)
WHEREAS, the transfer of $550,000 to the Equipment Replacement Fund would
finance the replacement of fire pumper unit number 325 which is twenty-two years old. This
transfer will eliminate the need for one of the two equipment certificates of indebtedness as
outlined in the 2008-2012 Capital Improvement Program.
WHEREAS, the transfer of $335,048 to the Building Improvement Fund would
finance future improvements to the City buildings as outlined in the City's Capital
Improvement Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden
Valley to authorize the transfer of $885,048 from the General Fund to the Equipment
Replacement Fund ($550,000) and Building Improvement Fund ($335,048).
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
alley
Mem ndum
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
March 18, 2008
Agenda Item
3. H. Receipt of February 2008 General Fund Budget Report
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The monthly General Fund Budget Report provides a progress report on the General Fund
operations for 2008. The revenues and expenditures show current month actual and year-to-
date actual compared to the 2008 approved budget.
Attachments
February 2008 General Fund Budget Report (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to receive and file the February 2008 General Fund Budget Report.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report. General Fund
Feb.08
Percentage Of Year Completed 17.00%
Revenue:
Over %
2008 February YTD (Under) of Budget
Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received
Ad Valorem Taxes $11,295,415 0 $0 ($11,295,415) 0.00% (1)
Licenses 151,095 11,084 19,866 ($131,229) 13.15%
Permits 750,000 31,686 73,361 ($676,639) 9.78%
State Aid 50,500 5,672 19,277 ($31,223) 38.17% (2)
Charges For Services 1,940,035 32,465 59,719 ($1,880,316) 3.08% (3)
Fines & Forfeitures 280,000 20,557 20,985 ($259,015) 7.49% (4)
Interest On Investments 185,000 0 0 ($185,000) 0.00% (6)
Miscellaneous Revenue 206,940 2,491 2,702 ($204,238) 1.31 % (7)
Transfers In 175,000 0 0 ($175,000) 0.00% (5)
TOTAL Revenue $15,033,985 $103,955 $195,910 ($14,838,075) 1.30%
Notes:
(1) 1st 1/22007 tax settlement will be received in July.
(2) This includes Gang Strike Task Force reimbursement budget of $40,000
and Police Training of $10,500. Gang Strike Task Force involvement was discontinued for 2008.
(3) Administrative charges to construction funds are made as contracts are paid out.
(4) Includes January receipts from the County.
(5) Annual building rents from Motor Vehicle, Golf & Vehicle Maintenance Funds will be received in June.
(6) Transfers will be made in June.
(7) Interest earnings will be distributed at year.end.
Percentage Of Year Completed 17%
Expenditures:
Over %
2008 February YTD (Under) Of Budget
Division Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend.
Council $343,135 $16,071 $28,633 ($314,502) 8.34%
City Manager 802,550 $60,001 97,464 (705,086) 12.14%
Admin. Services 1,549,110 $60,669 99,959 (1,449,151 ) 6.45% (2)
Legal 103,000 $9,359 9,359 (93,641) 9.09% (1)
General Gov't. Bldgs. 615,950 $67,239 107,284 (508,666) 17.42%
Planning 388,980 $21,998 38,065 (350,915) 9.79%
Police 4,291,240 $322,380 582,124 (3,709,116) 13.57%
Fire and Inspections 1,487,650 $89,706 150,364 (1,337,286) 10.11 %
Public Works Admin. 308,175 $22,127 38,596 (269,579) 12.52%
Engineering 662,945 $29,061 55,176 (607,769) 8.32%
Streets 1,322,660 $78,314 147,596 (1,175,064) 11.16%
Community Center 78,825 $5,031 9,910 (68,915) 12.57%
Park & Rec. Admin. 627,850 $66,665 94,722 (533,128) 15.09%
Park Maintenance 945,905 $58,599 99,844 (846,061 ) 10.56%
Recreation Programs 423,665 $24,493 37,242 (386,423) 8.79%
Risk Management 207,345 $446 0 (207,345) 0.00% (4)
Transfers Out 875,000 $0 0 (875,000) 0.00% (3)
TOTAL Expenditures $15,033,985 $932,159 $1,596,338 ($13,437,647) 10.62%
Notes:
(1) Includes up to 01-07 billings from Best & Flanagan.
(2) Annual payment on Hennepin County Assessor's Contract made in June.
(3) Transfers to Capital Project Funds made in June.
(4) The renewal year starts in February. They have not sent us the new rates for 2008.
alley
Memoran m
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
March 18, 2008
Agenda Item
3. I. Authorize Contract with SEH for City Wide Natural Resource Management Plan
Prepared By
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Summary
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. completed a Natural Resource Inventory for the City of Golden
Valley in 2002. The Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP) is the "next step" in the
planning process after the completion Natural Resource Inventory.
The Natural Resource Inventory quantified, qualified and mapped key resources in a
Geographic Information System (GIS) database. The NRMP will address the following core
principles:
1. Management needs for natural resources,
2. Goals and priorities for natural resources management,
3. Methods and best management practices that meet goals and priorities, and
4. Costs, desired outcomes, risks, and options for successful implemerttation.
The scope of work for the plan will include joint meetings with the Environmental, Planning,
and Open Space and Recreation Commissions, a workshop meeting with the City Council as
well as a regular City Council at which the plan will be presented for approval.
Staff has received a proposal from SEH for $27,000 to complete the Natural Resource
Management Plan. Funding for the plan has been budgeted in the 2008 professional services
portion of the Environmental Control I Storm Water Utility Division.
Attachments
Proposal letter for the Natural Resources Management Plan from SEH to Jeannine Clancy
dated March 11,2008 (5 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the signing of the consultant agreement with SEH in the amount of
$27,000 for completion of the Natural Resource Management Plan.
~
SEH
RECEIVED
MAR 1 22008
BY.
.==
March 11, 2008
RE: City of Golden Valley, Minnesota
Natural Resources Management Plan -
Scope of Services
SEH No. GOLDV-P-NRMP
Ms. Jeannine Clancy
Director of Public Works
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Dear Jeannine:
Thank: you for the opportunity to provide professional services to the City of Golden Valley for
completion of a Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP). The following scope is provided for
completion of the NRMP in 2008.
Background
The City of Golden Valley is initiating the preparation of a Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP)
The NRMP is the "next step" in the planning process after the completion of the natural resource
inventory in 2002 where key resources in the city were quantified, qualified and mapped in a Geographic
Information System (GIS) database. The NRMP will address the following core principles:
. Management needs for natural resources
. Goals and priorities for natural resources management
. Approaches, methods and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that meet the goals and priorities
. Long and short term schedules and costs, desired outcomes, risks, and options for successful
implementation
. A user friendly NRMP that integrates the Natural Resources Inventory database and can be
updated and revised in the long term as new management methods, priority changes, and
implementation needs change and develop
Scope of Work
The following is intended to provide a list and description of tasks that will be completed in the NRMP.
For consistency with the Natural Resources Inventory, all or some of these NRMP items will be
addressed by the Resource Management Units (RMUs) that were defmed during the inventory. Fourteen
RMUs were defmed that are comprised of geographic units named after a major park or natural resource
feature in the city. Depending on the results, RMUs each have separate and unique management needs.
RMUs ultimately serve the greatest purpose for planning, scheduling, and costs allocations in the
implementation phases.
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, S1. Paul, MN 55110-5196
SEHisanequalopportunityemployer I www.sehlnc.comI651.490.2000 1800.325.2055 I 651.490.2150 fax
Ms. Jeannine Clancy
March 11, 2008
Page 2
Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP)
Natural Resources Inventory Update
Following the completion of the Natural Resources Inventory in 2002, new open spaces have been added
to city management or ownership. These new areas were not field assessed in the 2002 inventory due to
access constraints and previous private ownership. These new areas will now be field assessed and added
to the GIS database.
The new areas, including the General Mills Nature Preserve and Golden Ridge Nature Area, will be field
assessed and mapped using the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) Minnesota Land
Cover Classification System (MLCCS). The MLCCS assessment will be performed to the same level
(level 4) as in the 2002 effort. Aerial photographs will first be reviewed to level 1 or 2, followed by field
assessment to refine to level 4 and add the modifiers on invasive species, percent impervious surfaces,
and rare features.
The completed MLCCS assessment will be converted into a GIS database and incorporated into the 2002
results dataserver and/or the appropriate format requested by the City. The same attributes provided in
the 2002 GIS results will be included.
Lastly, SEH will coordinate with city staff to determine if there have been any major developments or
changes to areas that were addressed in the 2002 inventory. These would primarily include vacant parcels
that were vegetated with natural cover that have been converted to a development or other major land use
change. In a fully built out city like Golden Valley, these changes are expected to be minimal, but any
change may be important for natural resource management. It could also include areas that involved
major redevelopment and changes in land uses. If warranted, these areas will be field checked and revised
in the GIS database.
Vegetation Nuisance Species Control, Eradication, and Management
Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and Glossy Buckthorn (R. frangula)
Nuisance species eradication and control is expected to be one of the most important components of the
NRMP, particularly for buckthorn. Buckthorn was recorded in nearly all of the city's wooded habitats
including in the designated open spaces, parks and trail corridors. One of the modifiers determined during
the 2002 inventory addressed the percent cover, age structure, and density of buckthorn where it was
observed during the field assessment. This modifier data is critical for developing a strategy to implement
eradication and control measures most effectively and efficiently.
One favorable aspect is that buckthorn eradication and control techniques and strategies have been widely
practiced and applied for a couple of decades. Natural resource managers now have a well developed
resource base of proven techniques to choose from. This resource base reduces the need to experiment
and the potential for error. The challenge for Golden Valley will be to develop a strategy that is best
suited to meet the conditions that characterize the city's buckthorn problem.
Effective buckthorn control requires a strategy that optimizes the management tools and meets the
objectives set forth by the city. For example, eradication andcontrol within a public park may require the
same practices on neighboring residential parcels to be effective. Neighborhood outreach and public
participation may be a key element for success, otherwise efforts limited strictly to parks and public open
space may be futile. Another example relates to the large amount of labor needed for successful
buckthorn control. City maintenance staff will not be able to work on control efforts exclusively; the
amount of buckthorn may be overwhelming. Other communities have recruited volunteers to provide
Ms. Jeannine Clancy
March 11, 2008
Page 3
assistance in the spirit of environmental stewardship. These ''buckthorn busters" have been key
participantS for many of the buckthorn control success stories.
Another strategy to consider is where to prioritize, and begin and complete buckthorn eradication and
control. For example, which parks are priority and most feasible for treatment? Where do you start and
how many additional treatments will be necessary to maintain the restored condition? Can buckthorn
management even be implemented citywide or is it more feasible to focus on a smaller area or subset of
the city? With the City of Golden Valley boundary shaped in a rectangular configuration, where does
buckthorn treatment begin if a citywide approach were taken? Would it start in the middle to work
outward in a concentric approach, or at one end of the city towards the other? These are just a small
sample of items that will need to be addressed with regards to strategies.
In essence, this section of the NRMP will become a buckthorn eradication and control plan for the City. It
will be formatted as follows:
1) A Summary section addressing the buckthorn problem that is based on the fmdings of the 2002
inventory.
2) A Plan section that addresses strategy and implementation options and approaches. It will include
implementation schedules, anticipated cost benefit and staffing scenarios, and prioritizations.
3) A Technical Data section in the Appendix with buckthorn eradication and control methods,
techniques, BMPs, case studies, and other relevant technical data.
Lastly, it is anticipated that input and feedback from city staffwill be implemented throughout the
development of this section and for that matter all sections of the NMRP. The nature and details on how
this will be implemented will be determined through advisement with city staff.
Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and Other Wetland
Nuisance Vegetation
Of these species, purple loosestrife is the one of most concern and the one species that is being
successfully managed. Purple loosestrife is present within the city, but in relatively small amounts due in
large part to successful treatments with biocontrol agents (beetles). In the NRMP, we propose to conduct
a field check of the loosestrife stands that were observed in the 2002 inventory and any other occurrences
noted by city staff. Records and accounts (if available) documenting beetle releases within the city will
also be reviewed at the city or any of the resource agencies who are implementing biocontrol. Depending
on the fmdings, a section of the NRMP will include a summary section addressing the locations and
degree of the problem and a plan section addressing the appropriate strategies, BMPs, costs, and
schedules. Technical data will be included in the appendix.
Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea maculosa)
Several patches of garlic mustard and spotted knapweed were observed in parks and trail corridors during
the 2002 inventory. Most of the garlic mustard occurs within stands of common buckthorn. Eradication of
garlic mustard should be conducted in conjunction with any buckthorn control that is implemented or can
be accomplished as an individual action. Spotted knapweed is more aggressive and common in open
fields, and can be a challenge to eradicate without long term management applications.
Vegetation Management/Maintenance, Ecological Restoration and Enhancement
This task includes options for managing existing, and restoring and enhancing the ecological communities
and amenities in the parks, trails and public open spaces (including golf courses) of the city. This also
Ms. Jeannine Clancy
March 11, 2008
Page 4
includes vacant woodlots within proximity to residential areas and other areas of public concern.
Nuisance species control and eradication efforts addressed above is often a component of actions related
to this task. Vegetation management addresses the management of the existing natural and planted
vegetation including in storm water ponds, public rights-of-way, and city naturally landscaped areas.
Ecological restoration includes wetland restoration, woodland habitat improvement and restoration, urban
forest renewal, prairie restoration, and lakeshore and Basset Creek floodplain restoration. Ecological
enhancement is similar in many respects and can also include actions to improve a feature or community
asset valued by the City and stakeholders alike.
The fIrst step in this task is identifIcation of the features and ecological communities that should be
subjected to vegetation management, and ecological restoration and enhancement. This will be
accomplished through reference to the Natural Resources Inventory and consultation with city staff and
data. The vegetation management and ecological restoration and enhancement needs will be developed
and tabulated, followed by communication and direction with city staff on priorities and
recommendations. Upon completion of city staff recommendations, specifIc action plans for each park,
trail corridor, or other open space will be developed.
Woodlot management will focus on identifying management and maintenance approaches that will
improve woodlot quality and integrity. The approaches will include recommended city policy and
management goals to implement, and stakeholder education and outreach. Particular focus and
management criteria will be established for standing dead tree management that will consider safety,
ecological and wildlife benefIts, and education and outreach on the benefits and hazards of standing dead
trees and forest floor logs. Brush control and management, nuisance species control, and ecological
conditions will also be addressed.
Each action plan will include a summary of the ecological problem or subject area, a plan addressing
implementation, and technical data section in the Appendix. This approach could also follow the RMU
format. Implementation for each action will include recommended approaches and alternatives, schedules,
risks and benefIts, and anticipated costs.
Urban Wildlife Management
This task will address goose management. Habitat modifIcation and aversion approaches will be an
important component. Problem areas and issues will be addressed in the summary section. Options for
implementation will be discussed in the plan section under this task. Success measures, Best Management
Practices (BMPs), costs, risks, and schedules will also be included in the various implementation options
that are developed. Public education and outreach may become essential components as well. The Deer
Management Plan will also be referenced when appropriate to cross reference and correlate management
strategies and plans.
Goose management will also need to consider goose and waterfowl ecology principals and issues in the
surrounding communities. Habitat modifIcation is the most important and successful non-lethal
management approach for reducing goose impacts. Vegetation management implementation, including
through public outreach on private lands is the most effective method in an urban setting. The conditions
found on corporate campuses, ball fIelds, golf courses, and other "lawnscapes" are the most optimal goose
habitats in urban areas. Modifying public perception and understanding of this relation is the biggest
challenge. Solutions can range from simple to very complex, for example replacing or modifying
manicured lawns with tall and strategically installed vegetation (i.e. native prairie plantings, trees and
woody barriers).
Ms. Jeannine Clancy
March 11, 2008
Page 5
Project Administration
The project administration costs described below would be applicable regardless of which of these six
tasks were selected. Administrative costs include word processing and accounting administration.
Meetings & Open House
Our scope includes efforts to support and attend council meetings, and City staff meetings. The following
meetings are included in the scope of work:
1) Kick off meeting and two (2) meetings with City staff
2) Three (3) meetings including with the; joint environmental advisory committee, Open/Space and
Recreation committee, and planning commission.
3) Up to two meetings with the city council if needed
Project Schedule
We anticipate beginning the project as soon as an agreement has been approved by the City.
Compensation
SEH proposes to be compensated for the scope of services proposed in the agreement on an hourly basis.
Compensation will be based on the hourly cost of personnel plus reimbursable expenses, including
reproductions, mileage, and equipment. We have estimated that the services described above to cost a
total of $27,000.
If this document satisfactorily sets forth your understanding of our agreement, please sign the space below
and return one copy to our office. We look forward to working with you, your staff, and the community
on this project. Thank you for the opportunity to continue working with the City of Golden Valley.
Sincerely,
SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INe.
fJLIl! 4
~~
~pr:.. M
Brad R. Kovach, CWD
Project Manager
t:\spsglnatural resourceslproposals 2008\goIdenvalley\nnnp2008\2008\nnnp200800 _scope_letter .doc
Accepted this _ day of
,2008.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA
By:
Title:
alley
Mem randum
Public Works
763-593-8030 r 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
March 18, 2008
Agenda Item
3. J. Award Contract Extension for the 2008 Spring Brush Pick-up Progra'Tl
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Summary
The City of Golden Valley contracts on an annual basis for curbside removal of brush during
the first three weeks of May. The 2008 Recycling Budget includes $66,000 for the Spring
Brush Pick-up Program.
Tim's Tree Service has been the single bidder for the project for the past several years with
no increase in price since 2004. Tim's Tree Service has identified that they are willing to
extend the 2007 contract into 2008 with no increase in price.
The 2008 Spring Brush Pick-Up Program is scheduled to begin on April 28th.The City will be
divided into three sections, with one week designated for pick-up in each.
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Entire area north of Hwy 55 and east of Douglas Drive
Entire area north of Hwy 55 and west of Douglas Drive
Entire area south of Hwy 55
Week of April 28th
Week of May 5th
Week of May 12th
Attachment
Amendment to Contract 07-08 between City of Golden Valley and Tim's Tree Service, Inc.
(1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve contract 07-08 between the City of Golden Valley and Tim's Tree Service,
Inc. for $59,160.
AMENDMENT
Contract 07-8 between
City of Golden Valley and Tim's Tree Service, Inc.
This amendment to Contract 07-8 is made this ,2008, by and
between the City of Golden Valley ("City") and Tim's Tree Service, Inc. ("Contractor") to
perform certain spring brush pickup from the private property within the City of Golden Valley.
The original contract was for three weeks beginning on April 20, 2007.
The parties wish to extend the original contract for an additional year (Spring 2008) at the
same total contract price per year as the previous years.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Except to the extent modified by this Amendment, the contract between the City
and Contractor for spring brush pickup (the "Contract") is hereby ratified in all respects.
2. The Contract is extended for an additional year (Spring 2008).
3. The total yearly payment for contract services shall be in the amount of
$59,160.00.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the original contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties sign below.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
TIM'S TREE SERVICE, INC.
By
By
Thomas Burt
Its: Manager
Dale Ledstrom
Its: President
000090/480568/756991_1
Hey
Memorandum
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
March 18, 2008
Agenda Item
3. K. Award Contract Extension for the Residential Curbside Recycling Contract
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Summary
In cooperation with the cities of Minnetonka and Plymouth, staff has been evaluating options
to provide recycling services to residential customers. After considerable study, staff is
recommending that the existing contract with Waste Management be extended for three
years, with an option for an additional three years.
The proposal from Waste Management would increase the hauling and the processing fee by
a percentage equal to the CPI and capped at 3% per year. However, the revenue sharing
formula would change.
Currently, the three communities receive 100% of the revenue derived from the sale of
recycled materials. The proposal from Waste Management is to reduce that amount to 80%
in 2009, and further reduce it by 2% per year for each year of the contract. If the three
communities entered into a second extension, the average revenue sharing amount would be
approximately 75% to each city, averaged over five years, assuming that the values of the
materials and the amount of recycling occurring in each community held constant.
The revenue sharing has an overall impact on the rate to the resident and assists the City
with programs such as fall leaf drop off, spring brush pick up and administrative costs
associated with Mighty Tidy Day. Staff believes that there are administrative cost savings
associated with continuing with the existing contractor and not changing vendors at this time.
Attachments
Addendum NO.2 to Agreement for Recycling Collection Services (3 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize signing the Addendum NO.2 to Agreement for Recycling Collection
Services through December 31,2011 with Waste Management, Inc., Savage, Minnesota.
This is contingent upon the approval of the contract with the Cities of Plymouth and
Minnetonka.
ADDENDUM NO.2 TO
AGREEMENT FOR RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICES
This Agreement is made on between the City of
Golden Valley ("City") and Waste Management - Savage, Inc. ("Contractor").
The parties have previously entered into an Agreement for Recycling Collection
Services for the term January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2005 (the "Agreement"),
which was amended by Addendum No.2 to extend the term to December 31, 2008 and
make other changes. The parties wish to amend the Agreement again to extend the
term and make additional modifications.
Accordingly, the parties agree as follows:
1. Paragraph 8 of the Agreement is amended to read:
8. Term: The term of this Agreement shall be from January 1, 2001 through
December 31, 2003 2011, the date of signature by the parties notwithstanding.
This agreement may be extended upon the written mutual consent of the parties
for such additional period as they deem appropriate, and upon the terms and
conditions as herein stated.
2. Exhibit B-2 which is attached to this addendum will substitute for Exhibit B-1 for
the period from January 1,2009 through December 31,2011.
3. Except as specified above, all other provisions of the Agreement will remain
unchanged and in effect, and the parties confirm those provisions and agree to
perform and comply with them.
Date:
Date:
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
WASTE MANAGEMENT - SAVAGE,
INC.
By:
Its Mayor
By:
Its
And:
Its City Manager
EXHIBIT B-2
Comprehensive Recycling Services
A. Curbside Recycling Collection:
1. City of Golden Valley will have ONE Collection District with collection on
ONE day each week. The day of collection will be Friday of each week.
2. Cost from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011 for Curbside
recycling collection will be $2.73 per household per month. Processing fee
for the same term will be $51.09 per ton set rate.
3. The fees in paragraph 2 will be adjusted by a percentage equal to the CIP-
U Midwest All Items on January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2011, not to
exceed 3 percent in each year.
4. The number of households (CDU's) for which service is provided will be
adjusted on January 1 and July 1 of each year of the Agreement.
5. The City and Contractor will divide the material revenues after subtracting
the processing fee as follows:
Year City Contractor
2009 80% 20%
2010 78% 22%
2011 76% 24%
6. Recyclable materials collected continue to be the same materials collected
as of December 31, 2008. New materials added to the curbside program
could include the following upon mutual agreement between all parties:
a. All empty steel aerosol containers, except those that contained paint
and hazardous chemicals.
b. All empty, clean and dry steel paint cans up to one gallon is size,
including the lid (removed from can) with labels removed.
EXHIBIT B-2
Page Two
B. Collection at City Facilities and Schools:
The Contractor will provide weekly collection of the same recyclables
collected curbside at City facilities, schools, churches and other City
designated sites for no additional cost.
Hey
Me n
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593--8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
March 18, 2008
Agenda Item
4. A. Public Hearing - Ordinance #382 - Amendments to Section 11.03 Regarding Definitions
and Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1) Regarding Infill Housing Development
Prepared By
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Summary
At the February 11, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held an informal
public hearing on several changes to Chapter 11 of the City Code (Zoning Chapter). These
changes are primarily to the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District. The proposed changes
address issues related to "infill" development. These changes are a result of concerns that
the City has received from residents regarding the impact of the expansion of existing homes
or construction of new single family homes in established neighborhoods. The concern has
been that the new or remodeled homes are too large and not in character with the existing
homes in the area. After the informal public hearing, the Planning Commission voted on ten
motions that made up the infill zoning changes. The vote was unanimous on nine of the
changes and a 4-3 vote for the change related to the increase of side yard setback based on
the height of the structure. In this case, several members of the Planning Commission wrote
a minority report for City Council information (enclosed).
In late 2006 the Planning Commission was asked by the City Council to study the infill issue.
A report was developed by the Commission and submitted to the City Council in April 2007.
As a result of the report, the City Council asked the Commission to recommend changes to
the zoning code to address the concerns raised in the report. The Planning Commission
drafted changes to the zoning code and held an informal public hearing on these changes in
August 2007. After that hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
changes to the City Council. A public hearing on these code changes was scheduled before
the City Council in September 2007. However, this hearing was never held and finally
cancelled. In late 2007, the City Council reviewed the changes recommended by the
Planning Commission. As a result of the City Council review and feedback, the Planning
Commission reworked the infill zoning changes and held an informal public hearing on those
changes on February 11, 2008.
Attachments
Planning Commission Minutes dated February 11,2008 (6 pages)
Memo to Planning Commission dated February 5, 2008 (2 pages)
Memo to Planning Commission dated December 12, 2007 (2 pages)
Planning Commission Minutes dated December 17,2007 (3 pages)
Memo to Planning Commission dated January 11,2008 (2 pages)
Planning Commission Minutes dated January 14, 2008 (3 pages)
Planning Commission Minority Report dated February 26,2008 (3 pages)
Speech given by Marcia Fluer at the February 11, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting
(1 page)
Underlined/Overstriked Version of Zoning Code Changes (8 pages)
Ordinance No. 382, Amendments to Section 11.03 Regarding Definitions and Section 11.21,
Single Family Zoning District (R-1) Regarding Infill Housing Development (3 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 382, Amendments to Section 11.03 Regarding Definitions and
Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1) Regarding Infill Housing Development.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 11, 2008
1. Approval of Minutes
rs Cera, Eck, er, Kluchka, McCarty,
,Ianning and Development
Inistrative Assistant Lisa
ular meeting of the Planning Commi ion was held at the Golden Valley
Cou " Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley d, Golden Valley, Minnesot
February 2008. Chair Keysser called meeting to order at7
Those present.wer
Schmidgall and Waldh r. Also prese
Mark Grimes, Planning Inte
Wittman.
McCarty referred to the 'paragraph 0 at the word "to" should be
the word "the". He r ed to the fifth par 'ph on page 2 an ' d that the word
"also" should be ed. He referred to th st paragraph on pag . questioned if
arding 10% of a building's'..otprint was worded correc e
decided to leave it as it was w 'en.
D by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser
January 14, 2008 minutes with the abov
d motion carried unanimously to app
oted corrections.
2. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Amending the R-1 Single
Family Zoning District
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To amend the R-1 Single Family Zoning District in regard to infill
housing development
Grimes referred to the last Planning Commission meeting and reminded the
Commissioners that the biggest issue raised at that meeting was how to determine the
side yard setback requirements and when the proposed new requirements should be
used. He stated that the other issues addressed were clarifying how the height of a house
is determined, making sure that existing conforming structures don't become non-
conforming once the new ordinance is adopted and defining the average grade of a lot.
Cera asked about the requirements for new construction versus the requirements for a
house that is torn down. Grimes explained that if a house is destroyed or torn down it can
be rebuilt exactly as it was, however it can not be expanded.
Cera referred to the proposed new language regarding side yard setback requirements
and stated that it was his understanding that the entire setback was supposed to become
larger once a house was taller than 15 feet, not that the setback was supposed to be
larger only on the part of the house that is over 15 feet in height.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 11, 2008
Page 2
Grimes clarified that would mean that the side yard setback requirement for a house 28
feet in height on an 80-foot wide lot would be 16.5 feet. Kluchka said yes. He added that
the Planning Commission agreed at their last meeting that for new construction the entire
structure would have to be set back further from the side yard property lines, not just the
part of the structure that was greater than 15 feet in height. Grimes asked the
Commissioners if they wanted this requirement on both side yard lot lines. Kluchka said
yes because it would help avoid the "alley affect" between houses. Waldhauser said she
thinks both sides should be looked at separately.
Keysser clarified that there are two options for new construction to consider. One option is
to increase the side yard setback requirements on both sides of a lot for houses that are
taller than 15 feet. The other option is to consider increasing the side yard setback
requirement only for the side of the house that is taller than 15 feet.
Keysser referred to houses that are torn down. Grimes reiterated that state law says that
if a structure was built in a conforming way it can be replaced, repaired and maintained
but not expanded. Keysser asked if a one-story cottage could be torn down and replaced
with a two-story home as long at the same footprint was used. Grimes said no because
that would be considered an expansion.
Eck said he wants to be consistent and questioned why somebody would be allowed to
remodel one way but not allowed to build a new house the same way when the net result
is the same. Cera said if someone is spending the money to tear a house down they can
spend the money to rebuild it right.
Keysser referred to the language about additions to houses.
Waldhauser suggested allowing a certain number of square feet instead of saying that an
addition up to 10% of the footprint could be built without following the proposed new
setback requirements. Cera agreed with Waldhauser's suggestion. Keyser said he would
be more comfortable allowing a percentage but suggested language that would allow an
addition to be 10% of the original footprint, not to exceed 400 square feet.
Grimes stated that it is going to be difficult to figure out 10% of a structure's footprint
because the measurements are going to have to be verified before and after construction.
He suggested measuring houses using the outside dimension. He questioned if the 10%
language would only apply one time or to one addition. The Commissioners agreed on
allowing a 10% addition one time based on the current footprint of the house.
Eck stated that the proposed new side setback language doesn't address new
construction. He suggested different language.
Keysser opened the public hearing.
Marcia Fluer, 225 Janalyn Circle, stated that the City has been working on the
"McMansion" issue for nearly two years and she is proud to say that Golden Valley will
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 11, 2008
Page 3
soon join the ranks with other cities that have moved to protect their communities. She
urged the Planning Commission to keep it simple and recommend the proposed new
changes so the City Council can act quickly. She also urged the city to apply the new
recommendations to remodels and partial teardowns as well as new construction.
She noted that some Planning Commissioners have expressed concern about young
couples who buy homes in Golden Valley with the dream of expanding later and asked
about current home owners' dreams being threatened by the potential of monster houses
that take away their light, their view, their neighborhood's character and the value of the
existing homes. She added that thousands of residents fit into this category and she
doesn't think the City should be worrying about the "could-be" young buyers because
they'll find something that fits and their first home probably won't be their last.
She said she feels that if an expansion or rebuild won't meet the new code requirements,
the current house is already right-sized for the lot. Owners or developers can build
anything they want within the setback and height limitations. She added that there is
nothing ambiguous about applying the rules to all housing and if the code isn't applied
across the board, it is meaningless and homeowners are still free to petition for a
variance.
She suggested the City keep the current residents happy by giving them a measure of
security and rules everybody concerned can understand and follow.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing.
McCarty stated that he doesn't think that Councilmember Shaffer's proposal is a simple
proposal and he would like to go back to the Planning Commission's original report.
Cera showed the Commission an aerial photo of a house in St. Louis Park that had a
second story addition on it that went straight up on top of the first floor. He said he is
worried that the same thing will happen in Golden Valley so remodels and teardowns
should be treated the same way as new construction. He said he is against allowing a
10% increase in a footprint before the new setback language applies.
Keysser suggested going through the proposed new ordinance one item at a time and
voting on them individually. He started with the first one which is the definition of "Average
Grade of a Lot". McCarty asked if the measurements are equidistant. Grimes stated that
one measurement would be taken on both sides of a proposed house and one in the
middle. Keysser said he thought measurements should be taken at the lowest point and
the highest point on a lot.
McCarty stated that the language regarding grade should be either "average grade" or
just "grade" but it should be consistent. The Commissioners agreed that the language
regarding grade/average grade should be changed to just "grade".
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 11 , 2008
Page 4
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the following definition: "Grade of a Lot" - The ground elevation of a house or
structure taken at three points along a building line facing a street. If the house or
structure faces more than one street, the grade shall be for all sides facing the street.
Keysser referred to the next item which is the definition of "Building Height
Determination" .
Kluchka asked if illustrations are going to be added to this ordinance. Grimes said
illustrations could be added to the code or they could be handed out as part of the
building permit process. Waldhauser suggested putting illustrations on the City's website.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the following definition: "Building Height Determination" - The
vertical distance or height of a structure shall be measured from the grade at the front
building line (street side) to the average height of the highest pitched roof or the highest
point of a flat roof structure. The grade of a lot is established at the time of subdivision
approval by the City. If the grade was not established at the time of subdivision approval
by the City, the Director of Public Works shall establish the grade prior to construction of
the structure. In the case where a house or structure has been removed from a lot for the
construction of a new house or structure, the grade for the new house or structure shall
be no more than one foot higher than the grade that existed for the house or structure that
was removed. In the case of a corner lot, the grade is taken from all sides of the house or
structure facing a street.
Keysser referred to the next item regarding building lot coverage. Waldhauser asked if
impervious surface requirements include swimming pools. Grimes said yes. Cera asked if
the sentence regarding total impervious surface can be made into a separate item.
Grimes said yes.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the following subdivision: Subdivision 10. Total impervious
surface. Total impervious surface, including swimming pools, on any lot or parcel shall not
exceed 50% of the lot or parcel area.
Keysser referred to the next item regarding side yard setbacks. Eck read his proposed
new language. McCarty questioned if an addition up to 10% of the building's footprint
would still be allowed to be built straight on top of a first floor addition without having to be
stepped back. Grimes said yes. Schmidgall said he doesn't support the language
regarding 10% of the building's footprint and that any addition should have to meet the
new requirements.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Eck and motion carried 4 to 3 to recommend approval
of the following language in Subdivision 10(A)(3): Cera, Schmidgall and Waldhauser
voted no.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 11,2008
Page 5
(a.) In the case of lots having a width of 100 feet or greater, the side setbacks for
structures 15 feet or less in height shall be 15 feet. The side setbacks for any structure
greater than 15 feet in height shall be 15 feet plus one-half foot for each additional one
foot (or portion thereof) of structure height over 15 feet. In the case of additions to
existing structures, these setback rules shall apply if the foundation size or footprint of
the structure is increased by 10% or more. If the foundation size or footprint is not
increased by 10% or more, vertical additions may be made without increasing existing
side setbacks.
(b.) In the case of lots having a width greater than 65 feet and less than 100 feet, the
side setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in height shall be 12.5 feet. The side
setbacks for any structure greater than 15 feet in height shall be 15 feet plus one-half
foot for each additional one foot (or portion thereof) of structure height over 15 feet. In
the case of additions to existing structures, these setback rules shall apply if the
foundation size or footprint of the structure is increased by 10% or more. If the
foundation size or footprint is not increased by 10% or more, vertical additions may be
made without increasing existing side setbacks.
(c.) In the case of lots having a width of 65 feet or less, the side setbacks for structures
15 feet or less in height along the north or west side shall be 10% of the lot width and
along the south or east side shall be 20% of the lot width (up to 12.5 feet). The side
setbacks for any structure greater than 15 feet in height shall be 15 feet plus one-half
foot for each additional one foot (or portion thereof) of structure height over 15 feet. In
the case of additions to existing structures, these setback rules shall apply if the
foundation size or footprint of the structure is increased by 10% or more. If the
foundation size or footprint is not increased by 10% or more, vertical additions may be
made without increasing existing side setbacks.
Keysser referred to the next item regarding side wall articulation. McCarty asked if the
side wall articulation language applies to a second story. Grimes said he could add
language regarding articulation on a second story. Schmidgall said he likes the language
as is because it says "any wall". The Commissioners agreed.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the following language in Subdivision 10(A)(3): (d.) For any new
construction, whether a new house, addition or replacement through a tear-down, any
wall longer than 32 feet in length must be articulated, with a shift of a least 2 feet in
depth, for at least 8 feet in length, for every 32 feet of wall.
Keysser referred to the next item regarding height limitations.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the following language in Subdivision 10: B. Height Limitations.
No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District to exceed a height of
28 feet for pitched roof houses and 25 feet for flat roof houses.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 11, 2008
Page 6
Keysser referred to the next item regarding the amount of accessory structure space
allowed on a lot.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the following language in Subdivision 11: E. Each property is
limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of the following accessory structures: detached
and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses and gazebos. Swimming pools
are not included in this requirement. No one detached accessory structure may be
larger than 800 square feet in area and any accessory structure over 120 square feet in
area requires a building permit.
Keysser referred to the next item regarding the roof design on accessory structures.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the following language in Subdivision 11: J. Roof. Gambrel and Mansard
roofs are not permitted on any accessory building with a footprint of more than 120
square feet.
Keysser referred to the next item regarding the height and side setback requirements
for structures built prior to the adoption of this proposed new ordinance.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the following language: Subdivision 13. Height and Side
Setback of Pre-2008 Structures. For all existing structures constructed in the R-1
Zoning District prior to January 1, 2008, if the side setback and height were compliant
with the Zoning Code at the time a building permit was issued, the location and height
are considered conforming to current Zoning Code. However, new construction and
additions to such properties must comply with current requirements of the Zoning Code.
Keysser referred to the next item regarding driveway requirements. Cera asked about
the use of pervious pavers for driveways. Grimes explained that part of the driveway
requirements include considering the look of a driveway. The Commissioners decided
not to add an adjustment for pervious pavers to the driveway requirements.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the following language in Subdivision 17: C. Coverage. No
more than forty percent (40%) of the front yard may be covered with concrete,
bituminous pavement, stone or pavers.
Planning
763-593-8095rl 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
February 5,2008
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing on Various Text Amendments to Section 11.21,
Single Family (R-1) Zoning District Related to Infill Development
At the January 14, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission met to discuss
various changes that were suggested to the draft zoning code amendments related to infill
development. As you will recall, the Planning Commission met with City Councilmember Bob
Shaffer on December 17, 2008 to discuss his ideas related to the changes needed to the
zoning code to address infill issues. I am attaching a copy of a memo I wrote to the Planning
Commission dated December 12, 2007 and a copy of my memo to the Planning Commission
dated January 11, 2008. The later memo summarized the changes that were discussed at the
meeting on December 17, 2007.
At the January 14, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission agreed that several
new changes would be included in the proposed changes to the zoning code related to infill
issues. These are outlined in the January 11 memo. These changes are included in the
attached changes to Section 11.03 (Definitions) and Section 11.21 Single-Family (R-1);
The issue that created the most discussion at the January 14 meeting related to the increase
of side setback requirements for homes that are over 15 ft. in height and how this would effect
additions or expansions of existing houses. The Planning Commission was split on this issue.
One position was that any additions must meet the requirement that additions to homes over
15 ft. in height must have an increased side setback-the same as new structures. The other
position was that the requirement to increase the building setback for additions over 15 ft.
would "kick in" if the building footprint or foundation size was increased by 10% or more. (The
proposed ordinance indicates the Jater position which allows the 10% increase in footprint size
before the increase setback is required for height over 15 ft.)
After the informal public hearing, the Planning Commission may vote or table consideration of
the infill changes. Changes can also be made to the proposal. As I indicated at the January 14
meeting, the Planning Commission may attach a report to the recommendation it gives to the
City Council. This report could include a "minority report" to explain a position that was held by
members but not approved. The City Council encourages such feedback.
Recommended Action
The staff recommends approval of the attached changes to Section 11.03 (Definitions) and
Section 11.21 (Single Family R-1) that address issues related to concerns about infill
development in the single-family zoning district.
Attachments
Memo from Mark Grimes dated December 12,2007 (2 pages)
Planning Commission Minutes dated December 17,2007 (3 pages)
Memo from Mark Grimes dated January 11,2008 (2 pages)
Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes dated January 14, 2008 (2 pages)
Underline/Overstrike version of the code pages reflecting all proposed changes (7 pages)
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
December 12, 2007
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Reconsideration of R-1 Zoning Code Changes Related to Infill Development
At the August 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held an informal public
hearing to consider various changes to the Single Family (R-1) Chapter and one change to the
definition chapter of the Zoning Code. After the hearing, the Commission voted 6-1 to
recommend approval of the changes to the City Council. This recommendation was originally
scheduled to go to the City Council at a public hearing on September 4, 2007. At the
September 4,2007 meeting, the Council voted to continue the public hearing in order to allow
the Council to go over the recommendation from the Planning Commission at a Council!
Manager study meeting. Due to some staff absence and other delays, the infill
recommendations did not get to a City Council/City Manager meeting until November 13, 2007.
At the November 13 meeting, Council Member Shaffer outlined his concerns about the
changes proposed by the Planning Commission related to height and volume of houses. He
provided drawings and models to demonstrate his concern. The direction from the Council was
for Council Member Shaffer to meet with the Planning Commission to consider altering the
Planning Commission's recommendation related to height and setback. Also, the Council
asked the staff to better define the method for determining the grade of a lot.
Council Member Shaffer believes that new height suggested by the Planning Commission of
28 ft. for a pitched roof house and 25 ft. for a flat roof house is fine. However, he is concerned
about from what point the measurement is taken. He is suggesting that Golden Valley consider
that the grade of a lot be maintained at the grade when the subdivision was approved or the
same grade as the house was when it was demolished to make way for a new home. With this
requirement, new houses or additions could be built to the full height allowed by code but the
height would start from a historical point.
Council Member Shaffer would also like to consider a change that would increase the side
setback when a house if over a certain height. For instance, the code could state that a home
that is 17 ft. high may be placed right on the side setback line. For each foot of height over 17
ft. to the maximum allowed height, the setback would have to be increased by % ft.' for each
foot of height over 17 ft. As an example, for a house on an 80 ft. wide lot, if the maximum
height house of 28 ft. was to be constructed, the side setback would be 12.5 ft. plus 5.5 ft. (1/2
ft. for each foot of height over 17 ft.) for a total side setback of 18 ft. There may have to be
some adjustment made for lots less than 65-75 ft. side.
Council Member Shaffer also believes that it is important to require that walls over a certain
length are articulated. He may have a suggestion on the one proposed by the Planning
Commission. The proposal suggested by the Planning Commission states that for walls over
32 ft. in length, there must be a shift of at least 2 ft. in depth, for at least 8 ft in length for every
32 ft. of wall.
After meeting with Council Member Shaffer, the Planning Commission may want to amend the
infill changes approved back in August 2007. Staff would suggest that a new informal public
hearing be held to get public input.
Attachments
Minutes from the November 13, 2007 Council/Manager meeting (1 page)
Underline/Overstrike version of the Code pages reflecting original Planning Commission
recommendations (5 pages)
Minutes from the August 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting (4 pages)
Golden Valley Survey Requirements (1 page)
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 17, 2007
1.
ka, McCarty
ember Bob Shaffer ector of Planning
, tern Joe Hogeb ~ and Administrative
hauser was ent.
regular meeting of the Planning Com ission was held at the Golden Valley City
C cil Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley oad, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Ma
Dece er 17, 2007. Chair Keysser call the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Those pres ,were Planning Commissi
and Schmidga. so present was Counc
and Development Grimes, Planning
Assistant Lisa Wittman.
Approval of Minutes
November 26, 2007 Joint Plann
Commission Meeting
.-~..
.".- .'
_~pace and Recreation
unanimously to approve the
ace and Recreation
ysser abstained from voting
November 26, 2
Eck referred to th
the word "were"
ck, seconded by Schmidgall and otion carried unanimously to approve
r 26, 2007 regular Planning Commis n minutes with the above correction.
Issioners Keysser and McCarty abstained from voting because they were not
ent at the meeting.
2. Discussion Regarding In-fill Housing Issues
Shaffer referred to the Planning Commission's report on In-Fill Housing and
Redevelopment. He said he thinks that lessening the height requirement as suggested
isn't going to make a big difference. He suggested that the volume of a house and the
volume between houses is what will make a bigger difference. He gave the
Commissioners drawings and showed them models that illustrated massing and the. air
space between different types of houses on different sized lots.
Shaffer said he is also recommending that the proposed language regarding side wall
articulation be removed or be made applicable to all floors of a house and that the entire
side yard setback needs to become larger as a house gets taller.
McCarty asked if that means the entire structure would have to be set back further from
the side yard property line. Shaffer said yes.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Planning Commission
December 17, 2007
Page 2
Shaffer stated that existing structures would be "grandfathered in" and new additions
would have to meet any new setback requirements. He said that increasing the volume of
space between homes would mean more than reducing the height and the idea is to pull
houses away from each other so he is proposing that if a house is over 15 feet in height,
the side yard setback requirement should increase 6 inches per foot over 15 feet.
Keysser asked if the City has seen examples of large homes being built on 75 foot wide
lots. Schmidgall asked how many "monster" houses have been built. Shaffer thought 5 or
6 "monster" houses have been built, but that there will be more. He suggested having
different requirements on 40-foot wide lots.
Keysser questioned the costs involved in having to "set back" a second story addition
when remodeling a house. He said he is not sure what is wrong with a small house being
located next to a bigger house. Shaffer agreed that there will be costs involved in having
to set back a second story addition but he is trying to protect neighborhoods. He stated
that when houses are out of scale is when the City receives complaints.
Rich Baker, 224 Janalyn Circle, stated that the problem is the visual impact on the
neighborhood. He said he knows it is difficult to measure the volume of a house and
questioned how that would be done. Shaffer agreed that it is difficult to measure the
volume of a house and explained that he is trying to affect the volume of houses without
actually measuring the volume. Grimes noted that the proposed new ordinance does
have impervious surface requirements which will also help determine the size of a new
home.
McCarty stated that the Planning Commission spent a lot of time on the Infill Development
Report and the residents that attended the meetings seemed happy with the
recommendations in their report. Shaffer said he thinks the recommendations have to be
visualized in 3-D in order to better understand the issues.
Keysser said he's concerned about fewer people being able to build and it being more
expensive to add on to their homes and that is not fair to property owners. Shaffer stated
that other communities are adding language to their codes similar to what he is
suggesting and people are working with it and have been alright with it.
Kluchka said he thinks the biggest issue is houses that are torn down and rebuilt with
larger houses. He added that it is more efficient to "build up" and it is better for the
environment and for water run-off.
Cera agreed with Shaffer and stated that if a second story addition is required to be set-
back further it would affect the scale of the house. Keysser said he agrees that Shaffer's
proposed language would work for new construction but not for remodels or additions.
Shaffer discussed the issue of grading and "building up" the grade in order to make a
house taller. Kluchka noted that the Planning Commission's proposed language stated
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Planning Commission
December 17, 2007
Page 3
that the grading on a lot can only be "built up" as high as necessary to get the proper
drainage.
Grimes stated that there are so many unique lots in Golden Valley that it is difficult to
measure the grade. Shaffer suggested measuring the height of a new home from the
existing grade or setting the new house based on the current grade of the lot because
proportions of new houses start to match if they are built where they originally started.
Keysser stated that there are a number of lots that need fill brought in, in order to make
the drainage work properly. Shaffer agreed and stated that in those types of situations the
homeowner might have to request a variance.
Cera suggested looking at the grade on a lot during the subdivision process. Grimes
stated that new plats now require subdivision agreements and drainage plans at the time
a lot is subdivided. Kluchka said he likes the idea of l11easuring from the initial grade.
Grimes stated that the City would have to require a survey to set the grade and it would
have to be checked before and after construction.
Shaffer reiterated that height isn't the issue, it's the volume. He explained that he is trying
to give the Planning Commission ideas that he thinks could be incorporated into the code
that will work.
Eck referred to the language regarding the height of homes and questioned the last
sentence. Grimes explained that the last sentence "grandfathers in" existing homes.
Keysser summarized the proposed changes discussed. Grimes said he will draft some
new language for the Planning Commission to discuss the following items: measuring
grade from the existing grade point, structures higher than 15 feet will require 6 inches of
additional side yard setback area for each additional foot over 15 feet, sidewall
articulation on second stories and roofs, and second stories being setback further from
side yard property lines. Shaffer added that he will work on some drawings that can be
put in the code.
5.
3. Reports on Meeting f the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
neil, Board of Zo ng Appeals and other Mee .
4.
T.
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
January 11, 2008
To:
Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Additional Changes to Zoning Code Related to Infill Development
At the December 17, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission met with City
Councilmember Bob Shaffer to discuss his concerns related to the proposed changes to the
zoning code related to infill development. As indicated in the minutes ofthe meeting, there
were several areas where changes were suggested to the proposed changes recommended
earlier by the Planning Commission. At the end of the meeting, I told the Commission that I
would consider the points brought up at the meeting and bring back some alternatives for the
Planning Commission to consider. These proposed changes relate to the determination of
grade, increasing the setback distance with the increase in building height and additional
definitions to help make the code easier to understand.
The following are changes to the infill suggestions after the December 17 meeting:
1. The setback requirement for houses and structures would be increased after the height
goes over 15 ft. For all lots over 65 ft. in width, the side setback would increase % ft. for
every foot of height over 15 ft. up to the maximum allowed height. For lots less than 40 ft.
wide, the side setback would increase % ft. for every two feet of height over 15 ft. up to the
maximum allowed height. This change would be require that all new houses and additions
to new houses be "stepped back" as the height increases. This was the major concern
addressed by Councilmember Shaffer.
2. The method for determining building height is clarified. The height is measured from the
grade established at the time of subdivision approval. If a house existed on a lot and was
torn down to make way for a new house, the grade of the house that was torn down would
be the established grade with up to a one foot increase permitted.
3. In order to prevent homes from becoming nonconforming that were legally built prior to the
adoption of the new side setback and height requirement, staff is suggesting that houses
built prior to Jan. 1, 2008 are considered compliant. However, any new construction would
have to meet the requirements of the current zoning code. This allows a house that was
legally built at 30 ft. height to be added on to if the addition meets the requirements of the
zoning code. If this section was not added, houses that were above the new height
requirement could only be expanded if a variance was granted.
4. A definition of average grade of lot is included that states that the grade is determined at
the building line facing a street. Staff will determine policy for determining the average. If
the lot is a corner lot, the average grade would be for all sides facing a street.
Attachments
Memo from Mark Grimes dated December 12, 2007 (2 pages)
Planning Commission minutes dated December 17,2007 (3 pages)
Underline/Overstrike version of the code pages reflecting past and current proposed changes
(7 pages)
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 14, 2008
Page 4
3. Discussion Regarding In-fill Housing Issues
Grimes reminded the Commission of their December 17 meeting where Councilmember
Shaffer made several suggestions on the proposed ordinance changes regarding in-fill
housing development. Grimes referred to his memo dated January 11 and reviewed his
proposed language changes.
The first proposed change states that the setback requirement for houses and structures
would be increased after the height goes over 15 ft. For all lots 65 ft. or greater in width,
the side setback would increase % ft. for every foot of height over 15 ft. up to the
maximum allowed height. For lots less than 65 ft. wide, the side setback would increase
% ft. for every two feet of height over 15 ft. up to the maximum allowed height. This
change would require that all new houses and additions to existing houses be "stepped
back" as the height increases.
Keysser asked how the above language would apply to additions to houses. Waldhauser
said it would mean a second story addition would have to comply with the proposed new
language. Keysser said he strongly objects to applying this language to additions.
Cera asked about the height of a one-story house. Grimes said a one-story house is
approximately 15 feet in height.
McCarty said he is also against thel proposed new height language applying to additions
because it will cause the Board of Zoning Appeals to get a lot a variance requests.
Keysser added that he wants peop~e to be able to add on to their homes.
Waldhauser stated that reducing a ~econd story would help create more space between
houses. Cera agreed and stated th~t if a second story goes straight up on top of a first
story it creates an alley affect betw~en houses.
Kluchka suggested requiring the prbposed new height language only ifthe footprint of a
house changes because of an addi~ion. Keysser said he likes that compromise. He added
that people buy houses with expec~ations of expanding it in the future.
!
McCarty suggested requiring the p~oposed new height language if the footprint were to
change by a certain percentage. I
i
Waldhauser questioned if the 28 fobt height limit would allow for a two-story house.
I
i
i
Schmidgall disagreed with the suggestion of only requiring the proposed new height
language if the footprint changes apd stated that if this new language doesn't apply to
remodels and additions they might !as well do nothing to the current ordinances. Keysser
said he doesn't think it is fair to limit people. McCarty agreed and questioned how the
proposed new language would wo~k if someone just wanted to add a small front entryway
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 14, 2008
Page 5
addition. Keysser said that is why he likes the idea of allowing a certain percentage of the
footprint to be changed before the new height language applies. He suggested allowing
10% of an existing footprint to be changed before the height language would apply.
Waldhauser questioned if that would force people to expand into the side yard setback
area.
Eck said he doesn't understand the rationale of allowing a new structure to be built one
way and an addition or a remodel being required to be built a different way because the
end result is the same. McCarty said that people would know the rules from the beginning
if they were building a new house. Cera questioned the difference between a "tear down"
and an addition if the existing foundation is used. McCarty said he thinks there is a
difference if the footprint changes.
Schmidgall said he would support the first change referenced in Grimes' memo as is.
Keysser asked the Commissioners what they thought about allowing a small percentage
of change in the footprint of a house before the new height language would apply.
Schmidgall said he wants the new ordinance to apply whether there is a new house or an
addition built. Keyser said he would be willing to support the new height language if it
allows for a small percentage of a footprint to be changed without having to conform to
the new language. He proposed that the percentage be 10%. McCarty said he would be
comfortable with 20%.
Kluchka questioned how much of a hardship they want to put on people with narrow lots.
Eck reiterated that he thinks the end result of a new home and an addition would be the
same.
Grimes said it is a question of what is better and what is worse, building up or building
out, because a person could put a large addition on the back of their home that could ruin
a neighbor's view also. Kluchka said he wants to encourage people to improve their
homes and from an environmental and energy perspective it makes more sense to "build
up" rather than out.
Grimes noted that there are other parts of the proposed new ordinance that will address
these infill development issues such as reducing impervious surface.
Keysser suggested the Commissioners vote on each item in Grimes' memo individually.
Grimes told the Commissioners that any of them could write a minority report to the City
Council.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried 4 to 3 to recommend
approval of the following language to be added to the R-1 Single Family zoning District:
The setback requirement for houses and structures would be increased after the height
goes over 15 ft. if the foundation size or footprint of the structure is increased by 10% or
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 14, 2008
Page 6
more. For all lots greater than 65 ft. in width, the side setback would increase % ft. for
every foot of height over 15 ft. up to the maximum allowed height. For lots 65 ft. or less in
width, the side setback would increase % ft. for every two feet of height over 15 ft. up to
the maximum allowed height. This change would require that all new houses and
additions to existing houses increasing the footprint of the house be "stepped back" as the
height increases. Commissioners Schmidgall, Cera and Eck voted no.
Keysser referred to the second suggestion in Grimes' memo regarding grade. Grimes
noted that all subdivision applications now require a subdivision agreement that will
establish the grade before a new house is built. Keysser added that drainage problems
could be considered a hardship.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the following language to be added to the R-1 Single Family zoning district:
The height is measured from the grade established at the time of subdivision approval. If
a house existed on a lot and was torn down to make way for a new house, the grade of
the house that was torn down would be the established grade with up to a one foot
increase permitted.
Keysser asked for clarification of the language in item number three in Grimes' memo.
Grimes explained that item number three prevents homes from becoming nonconforming
if they were legally built prior to the proposed new language being adopted. This allows a
house that was legally built at 30 ft. in height to be added on to if the addition meets the
requirements of the zoning code. If this section was not added, houses that were taller
than the new height requirement could only be expanded if a variance was granted.
MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the following language to be added to the R-1 Single Family
zoning district: houses builtprior to Jan. 1, 2008 are considered compliant. However, any
new construction would have to meet the requirements of the current zoning code.
Keysser referred to the fourth suggestion in Grimes' memo regarding how the average
grade of a lot is determined. He asked if the average grade means the mathematical
average of the high point and low point. Grimes said yes.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the following language to be added to the R-1 Single Family
zoning district: grade is determined at the building line facing a street. If the lot is a corner
lot, the average grade would be for all sides facing a street.
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Rec'of - Z -Z,le - O~
Minority Report
Golden Valley Planning Commission Recommendations on Infill Development
The Planning Commission developed a consensus document on virtually all issues
related to infill development and expansion of existing homes. Issues related to building
height, impervious surface coverage, determination of building height, articulation of
sidewalls, accessory buildings and front lot coverage were debated extensively.
Initially, the Commission had various opinions on these issues but at the end of our
debate we came together and voted unanimously on all of these issues.
The one outstanding issue was related to massing of houses. As noted above we
came together on the issue of height, recommending a lowering of the maximum house
height from an average height of 30 feet to 28 feet for sloped roofs and 25 feet for flat
roofs. The other issue related to massing was the distance between houses. If large
houses were farther apart the affects of height and massing are reduced. The zoning
code addresses this by requiring side yard setbacks based on the lot size.
For new houses or complete teardowns where the foundation was destroyed, the
planning commission agreed that minimum setbacks would increase if the height of the
proposed house exceeded 15 feet. If a house was proposed to be the maximum 28
feet high, an additional 6.5 of setback would be required for each side lot. Again, this
concept was unanimously agreed to by the planning commission.
For additions or teardowns where the foundation was still in place, the commission
voted 4-3 to exempt these houses from the new setbacks unless the new addition
exceeded the existing foundation or footprint by more than 10 percent. It is very rare
for the planning commission to split on issues and we feel it is important to explain our
dissenting views.
We believe that the new setbacks should be required for all situations including
additions and teardowns. If a house were to add a second story, the second story
should be set back as described for new houses. We have seen many instances of
houses where a second story was added on top of the first floor on a lot too small for a
house that height. This creates canyons between houses and reduces the light and
views for houses on either side of the new house. If the additions were set back, this
would reduce the adverse affect on neighboring houses and the visual impact on the
neighborhood.
We do not agree that we would place the homeowner in a hardship position if the house
were required to be stepped back for a second story addition. We also do not believe
that this situation would occur very often and that creative architects could develop
additions that could accommodate most homeowner concerns. For lots or structures
that make compliant additions impossible, the homeowner would have the ability to
request a variance. We may want to develop some guidelines on how this situation
would be considered for a variance; it may be similar to the informal guideline that
allows BZA to consider issues related to single car garages.
The variance process gives an opportunity for neighbors to express their concerns
about the addition and may allow for a dialogue to ensue, potentially satisfying all
parties. If remodels were exempt from the setbacks, building permits would be issued
and additions built without neighbor's knowledge until construction was started, too late
for any discussions. We know BZA is not interested in more work, but this is the
perfect situation to allow for a public dialogue on specific issues related to remodels that
may adversely affect neighboring homes.
Finally, if the council decides to go with the remodeling exemption, we consider the 10%
footprint increase to be arbitrary and suggest that the increased setbacks be required
for any addition beyond the original footprint or foundation.
Thank you.
David Cera
Cathy Waldhauser
Steve Schmidgall
Les Eck
FEB 2 C ,008
To the Golden Valley City Council:
Notwithstanding the fact that I voted in favor of the report on infill
development being forwarded to you by the Planning Commission, I
realized after voting that I had voted inconsistently with the position I
favored at our January 14th meeting, at which time I voted against the report.
My vote is recorded in the minutes of that meeting.
My initial vote against the report reflected my position that I disagreed with
the portion concerning exempting additions to existing structures from the
revised setback requirements unless the footprint of the structure was
increased by 10% or more. My opinion was and still is that the net result to
the neighbors is the same whether it is a new structure or an addition to an
existing one.
Had I voted consistently at the February 11 th meeting, the report would have
come to you with a vote of three in favor and four against, which would
have accurately reflected how I should have voted, and, therefore, I am
adding my name to this minority report.
Respectfully submitted,
~CL
Les Eck
Golden Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing
Statement on Proposed Housing Code
Marcia Fluer / 1. Philip Zaugg
225 Janalyn Circle Golden Valley, 55416
.1
It has been nearly 2 years since the McMansion issue was raised before the Golden
Valley City Council. In the meantime we have seen what real estate greed, including
super-sizing, has done to home values, home owners, lenders and the U.S. economy.
The country is also moving to an awareness of limited resources and a definition of
responsible construction. Many cities have moved to protect their communities and I am
proud to say Golden Valley will soon join those ranks.
I urge you to recommend the changes you have outlined so the City Council can act
quickly. You have worked hard and deserve to be commended.
But I want to urge you to apply the new recommendations to remodels and partial
teardowns as well as new construction.
Some of you have expressed concerns about the young couple who buys what they can
afford now with the dream of expansion later. I believe in dreams. But what about current
owners' dreams; folks who love their neighborhoods, made necessary improvements;
expanded, count their homes as part of their retirement nest egg and are now threatened
by the potential of monster houses that take away their light, their view, their
neighborhood's character and most certainly the value of their existing house.?
Thousands of us fit into this category and I don't think the City should "buy a pig in a
poke" by worrying about the 'could-be' young buyers. Golden Valley has wonderful
neighborhoods and great homes for sale. They'll find something that fits and their first
home probably won't be their last.
10 years ago Phil and I added a second story to our house without encroaching on our
neighbors. But times and styles have changed and today's addition is likely to soar
skyward and expand to the limit of the lot.
We submit that if an expansion or rebuild won't meet the new code, the current house is
already right-sized for the lot. Owners or developers can build anything they want within
the setback and height limitations. There is nothing ambiguous about applying the rules
to all housing. Homeowners are still free to petition for a variance.
There aren't a lot of vacant lots in Golden Valley. Most of what you'll deal with is
teardowns, subdivisions and remodels. If the code isn't applied across the board, it is
meaningless. You can't serve everyone's dreams without inconveniencing or irritating
somebody. I suggest you keep the current residents happy by giving us a measure of
security and rules everybody concerned can understand and follow.
2. II. o~. '.J<V\~. QY\
9 11.03
activities of daily living, such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking,
seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working; or (2) having a disorder of
thought or mood that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize
reality, or ability to cope with the ordinary demands of life; and (3) requiring support to
maintain independence in the community.
Source: Ordinance No. 264, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 12-13-01
3. "Affected Persons" - Any or all persons who own property located within
500 feet of the subject premises under zoning review.
4. "Alley" - A public or private way affording only secondary means of access
to abutting property.
5. "Apartment" - A room or suite of rooms in a multi-family or multi-use
building arranged and intended as a place of residence for a single family or a group of
individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit.
6. "Apartment Building" - Any building or portion thereof which is designed,
built, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or which is occupied as the home or
residence of three or more families living independently of each other and doing their own
cooking in the said building, and shall include flats and apartments.
7. "Automobile Sales" - An open or enclosed area (building or structure),
other than a street, used for the display, sale, or rental, of new and used motor vehicles in
operable condition.
8. "Automobile Wrecking" - The dismantling or disassembling of used motor
vehicles or trailers, or the storage, sale or dumping of dismantled, partially dismantled,
obsolete or wrecked vehicles or their parts.
8.5 "Average Grade" - The average ground elevation of a house or structure
taken at three points along a building line facing a street. If the house or structure faces
more than one street. the average grade shall be for all sides facing the street.
9. "Basement" - That portion of a building with at least three walls having at
least one-half (1/2) or more of their floor-to ceiling height underground.
10. "Buildable Area" - That area of a lot which is exclusive of all yards and
within which the principal building must be constructed.
Source: Ordinance No. 585
Effective Date: 1-14-83
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
245
(6-30-04 )
S 11.03
12. "Building, Height of' The vertical distance above "grade" as defined
herein to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof, or to the deck line of a mansard roof
or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched roof or hipped roof. The
measurement may be taken from the highest adjoining sidev.'alk or ground surface 'Nithin a
five (5) foot horizontal distance of the exterior v.'all of the building, when such sidewalk or
ground surface is not more than ten (10) foet above grade. 12. "BuildinQ Height
Determination" The vertioal distance from the avorage ~rade plane at the buildinQ facinQ
the street to the a\'emQe hoiQht of the highest pitched roof or tho highest point of a flat roof
structure. On lots that ha':e more than one side faoinQ the street. the distanoe for heiQht is
from the average Qrade piano of all sides that face the street.
12. "Building Height" The vertical distance or height of a structure shall be
measured from the averaQe Qrade at the front buildinQ line (street side) to the averaQe
height of the hiQhest pitched roof or the hiQhest point of a flat roof structure. The Qrade or
averaQe Qrade of a lot is established at the time of subdivision approval by the City. If the
Qrade or averaQe Qrade was not established at the time of subdivision approval by the
City. the Director of Public Works shall establish the averaQe Qrade prior to construction of
the structure. In the case where a house or structure has been removed from a lot for the
construction of a new house or structure, the averaQe Qrade for the new house or structure
shall be no more than one foot higher than the Qrade or average Qrade that existed for the
house or structure that was removed. In the case of a corner lot. the averaQe Qrade is
taken from all sides of the house or structure facinQ a street.
13. "Business" - Any occupation, employment or enterprise wherein
merchandise is exhibited or sold, or which occupies time, attention, labor and materials, or
where services are offered for compensation.
14. "Car Wash" - A building and/or premises used principally for washing
and cleaning automobiles, using either manual or automatic production line methods.
15. "Cemetery" - Land used or intended to be used for the burial of human
dead and dedicated as a "cemetery" for such purposes.
Source: Ordinance No. 585
Effective Date: 1-14-83
16. "Child Care Facilities" - A service provided to the public in which children
of school or pre-school age are cared for during established business hours.
Source: Ordinance No. 712
Effective Date: 6-23-88
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
246
(6-30-04)
9 11.21
C. Home day care facilities licensed by the State of
Minnesota serving 12 or fewer persons.
Subdivision 5. Conditional Uses.
A. Residential facilities serving from seven to 25 persons.
B. Group foster family homes.
Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots. No dwelling or accessory structure shall be
erected for use or occupancy as a residential dwelling on any tract of unplatted land which
does not conform with the requirements of this Section, except on those lots located within
an approved plat. In the R-1 zoning district a platted lot of a minimum area of 10,000
square feet and a minimum width of 80 feet shall be required for one single family
dwelling.
Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility. All structures in the R-1 Zoning District
shall meet the requirements of the corner visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City
Code.
Subdivision 8. Easements. No structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be
located in dedicated public easements.
Subdivision 9. Building Lot Coverage. No lot or parcel in the R-1 Zoning
District shall have a lot coverage of more than 30 percent for a lot or parcel over 10,000
square feet in area, 35% for a lot or parcel between 5,000 square feet and 9,999 square
feet in area and 40% for a lot or parcel less than 5,000 square feet in area. This
requirement excludes swimming pools.
Subdivision 10. Impervious Surface. Total impervious surface on any lot
or parcel shall not exceed 50% of the lot or parcel area.
Subdivision 40 11. Principal Structures. Subject to the modifications in
Subdivision 12, below, principal structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by
the following requirements:
A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be
required for principal structures in the R-1 zoning district. Garages or other accessory
structures which are attached to the house or main structure shall also be governed by
these setback requirements, except for stair landings up to 25 square feet in size and for
handicapped ramps.
1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be
35 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. Open frontporches,
with no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front property line along a street right-
of-way line.
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
264
(6-30-04)
~ 11.21
(a.) In the case of a corner lot, the side with the narrower
street frontage shall be considered the front of the lot.
2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be 20 percent
of the lot depth.
3. Side Setback. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot
width at the minimum required front setback line. The distance between any part of a
structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements:
(a.) In the case of lots ha'.'ing a v.'idth of 100 feet or greater,
the side setback shall be 15 feet; (a.) In the case of lots havinQ a width of 100 feet or
Qreater, the side setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in heiQht shall be 15 feet. The side
setbacks for any structure Qreater than 15 feet in heioht shall be 15 feet plus one-half foot
for each additional one foot (or portion thereof) of structure heiQht over 15 feet. In the case
of additions to existino structures, these setback rules shall apply if the foundation size or
footprint of the structure is increased by 10% or more. If the foundation size or footprint is
not increased by 10% or more. vertical additions may be made without increasinQ existinQ
side setbacks.
(b.) In the case of lots having a 'Nidth greater than 65 feet
and less than 100 foet, the side yard setback shall be 12.5 feet; (b.) In the case of lots
havinQ a width greater than 65 feet and less than 100 feet, the side setbacks for structures
15 feet or less in heiQht shall be 12.5 feet. The side setbacks for any structure Qreater
than 15 feet in height shall be 12.5 feet plus one-half foot for each additional one foot (or
portion thereof) of structure heiQht over 15 feet. If the foundation size or footprint is not
increased bv 10% or more, vertical additions may be made without increasino existino side
setbacks.
(c.) In the case of lots having a 'Nidth of 65 feet or less, the
North or VVest side yard setback shall be 10 percent of the lot \".'idth, and the South or East
side yard setback shall be 20 percent of the lot width (up to 12.5 feet). (c.) In the case of
lots havinQ a width of 65 feet or less, the side setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in
height alono the north or west side shall be 10% of the lot width and alono the south or
east side shall be 20% of the lot width (up to 12.5 feet). The side setback for anvstructure
Qreater than 15 feet in heiQht alono the north or west side shall be 10% of the lot width and
alonQ the south or east side 20% of the lot width plus one-half foot for each additional two
feet (or portion thereof) of heiQht over 15 feet. If the foundation size or footprint is not
increased bv 10% or more, vertical additions may be made without increasing existing side
setbacks.
(d.) If a principal structure is greater than 40 feot in depth
along a side yard adjacent to another property that side yard setback shall increase by
one foot for each additional ten feet of structure depth or portion thereof. (d.) For any new
construction, whether a newhouse, addition or replacement throuoh a tear-down, any wall
longer than 32 feet in lenoth must be articulated, with a shift of a least 2 feet in depth, for
at least 8 feet in lenoth. for every 32 feet of wall.
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
265
(6-30-04 )
9 11.21
B. Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R
1 Zoning District to exceed a height of two and a half stories or 30 feet as def.ined in the
City's building code, \\'hichever is less. No principal structure shall be erected in the R 1
Zonina District to exceed a heiaht of 28 feet for pitched roof houses and 25 feet for flat
roof houses except for those structures constructed prior to October 1, 2007. In the case
of structures construed prior to October 1, 2007, the buildina heiaht shall be 30 feet. The
buildina height is defined as follows: The vertical distance above grade to the hiahost roof
structure of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the averaae heiaht of the
hiahest aabla of a pitched or hipped roof. The measurement of arado shall be taken from
the hiahest adioininq side'JI.'alk or around surface ':lith a 5 foot horizontal distance of the
exterior 'Nail of the buildina where such sidewalk or ground surface is not more than 10
foet above grade. (Refor to Section 11.03, Definition 12 "Building Heiaht Determination"
for details on measurement.)
B. Heiaht Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the
R-1 Zonina District with a building heiaht exceedina 28 feet for pitched roof houses and 25
feet for flat roof houses.
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
265-1
(6-30-04 )
S 11.21
E. Each property is. limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of the
foIlO'.~:ing accessory structures: detached and attached garages, detached sheds,
greenhouses, and gazebos. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. E. Each
property is limited to a total of 1,000 SQuare feet of the followino acceSSOry structures:
detached and attached aaraaes, detached sheds, areenhouses and aazebos. Swimming
pools are not included in this reQuirement. No one detached accessory structure may be
laraer than 800 SQuare feet in area and any accessory structure over 120 SQuare feet in
area reQuires a buildino permit.
F. Size of Accessory Structures. No accessory structure shall be
larger in size than the principal structure. (See Subdivision 4.A(1)).
G. Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback
and location requirements for accessory structures. Setbacks shall be measured from the
property line to the pool's edge. Decks surrounding above ground pools shall meet
setback requirements.
H. Decks. Free standing decks or decks attached to accessory
buildings shall meet the same setback requirements for accessory buildings. (See
Subdivision 14.)
I. Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall
not be allowed in the front yard of a single family home.
J. Design. 1\11 accessory structures constructed after the construction
of the principal structure must be designed and constructed in a manner consistent 'Nith
the design and general appearance of the principal structure. J. Roof. Gambrel and
Mansard roofs are not permitted on any accessory buildino with a footprint of more than
120 SQuare feet.
Subdivision 4213. Pre-1982 Structures. For all existing structures
constructed in the R-1 zoning district prior to January 1, 1982, the following structure
setbacks shall be in effect.
A. Front Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be
no closer than 25 feet to the front yard property line.
8. Side Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be no
closer than three feet to the side yard property line.
C. Rear Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be
no closer than ten feet to the rear yard property line.
D. Accessory Structure. The structure setback for accessory
structures shall be no closer than three feet to the side or rear yard property lines. At the
discretion of the Director of Planning and Development, a property owner may be required
to move an accessory structure if it is located in a public easement area.
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
267
(6-30-04 )
S 11.21
Subdivision 14. Pre-2008 Structures. Heiqht and Side Setback of Pre-
2008 Structures. For all existinq structures constructed in the.R-1 Zoninq District prior to
January 1, 2008, if the side setback and height were compliant with the Zoninq Code at
the time a building permit was issued. the location and heiqht are considered conforminQ
to current ZoninQ Code. However. new construction and additions to such properties must
complv with current requirements of the Zoninq Code.
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
267 (cont.)
(6-30-04 )
Subdivision -1+ 18. Driveway Requirements. Driveways in the R-1
Zoning District are governed by the following provisions:
A. Materials. Driveways built or reconstructed on or after January 1,
2005 shall be constructed of concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers.
B. Setbacks. Driveways built on or after January 1, 2005 shall be
setback three (3) feet from a side yard property line, except for shared driveways used by
multiple property owners pursuant to a private easement.
C. Coverage. No more than fifty forty percent (W-% 40%) of the front
yard may be covered with concrete, bituminous pavement, stone or pavers.
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
269
(12-31-04)
ORDINANCE NO. 382, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amendments to Section 11.03 Regarding Definitions and Section 11.21,
Single Family Zoning District (R-1) Regarding Infill Housing Development
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code, Chapter 11, entitled "Land Use Regulation" (Zoning)
Section 11.03 Definitions is hereby amended to add the following:
8.5 "Average Grade" - The average ground elevation of a house or
structure taken at three points along a building line facing a street. If the house or
structure faces more than one street, the average grade shall be for all sides facing the
street.
Section 2. Section 11.03, definition number 12 "Building, Height of' is hereby
amended to read as follows:
12. "Building Height" - The vertical distance or height of a structure shall
be measured from the average grade at the front building line (street side) to the
average height of the highest pitched roof or the highest point of a flat roof structure.
The grade or average grade of a lot is established at the time of subdivision approval by
the City. If the grade or average grade was not established at the time of subdivision
approval by the City, the Director of Public Works shall establish the average grade
prior to construction of the structure. In the case where a house or structure has been
removed from a lot for the construction of a new house or structure, the average grade
for the new house or structure shall be no more than one foot higher than the grade or
average grade that existed for the house or structure that was removed. In the case of a
corner lot, the average grade is taken from all sides of the house or structure facing a
street.
Section 3. Section 11.21 Single Family Zoning District (R-1) is amended to add
the following and renumber the subsequent Subdivisions accordingly:
Subdivision 10. Impervious Surface. Total impervious surface on any lot or
parcel shall not exceed 50% of the lot or parcel area."
Section 4. The newly renumbered Subdivision 11 entitled Principal Structures
Subdivision 11 (A)(3)(a)(b)(c) and (d) (regarding side setbacks) is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(a.) In the case of lots having a width of 100 feet or greater, the side
setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in height shall be 15 feet. The side setbacks for
any structure greater than 15 feet in height shall be 15 feet plus one-half foot for each
additional one foot (or portion thereof) of structure height over 15 feet. In the case of
additions to existing structures, these setback rules shall apply if the foundation size or
footprint of the structure is increased by 10% or more.
If the foundation size or footprint is not increased by 10% or more, vertical additions
may be made without increasing existing side setbacks.
(b.) In the case of lots having a width greater than 65 feet and less than
100 feet, the side setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in height shall be 12.5 feet. The
side setbacks for any structure greater than 15 feet in height shall be 12.5 feet plus one-
half foot for each additional one foot (or portion thereof) of structure height over 15 feet.
If the foundation size or footprint is not increased by 10% or more, vertical additions
may be made without increasing existing side setbacks.
(c.) In the case of lots having a width of 65 feet or less, the side setbacks
for structures 15 feet or less in height along the north or west side shall be 10% of the
lot width and along the south or east side shall be 20% of the lot width (up to 12.5 feet).
The side setback for any structure greater than 15 feet in height along the north or west
side shall be 10% of the lot width and along the south or east side 20% of the lot width
plus one-half foot for each additional two feet (or portion thereof) of height over 15 feet.
If the foundation size or footprint is not increased by 10% or more, vertical additions
may be made without increasing existing side setbacks.
(d.) For any new construction, whether a new house, addition or
replacement through a tear-down, any wall longer than 32 feet in length must be
articulated, with a shift of a least 2 feet in depth, for at least 8 feet in length, for every 32
feet of wall.
Section 5. The newly renumbered Subdivision 11 entitled Principal Structures
Subdivision 11 (B) regarding Height Limitations is herby amended to read as follows:
B. Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1
Zoning District with a building height exceeding 28 feet for pitched roof houses and 25
feet for flat roof houses.
Section 6. The newly renumbered Subdivision 12 entitled Accessory Structures
Subdivision (E) is herby amended to read as follows:
E. Each property is limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of the following
accessory structures: detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses
and gazebos. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. No one detached
accessory structure may be larger than 800 square feet in area and any accessory
structure over 120 square feet in area requires a building permit.
Section 7. The newly renumbered Subdivision 12 entitled Accessory Structures
Subdivision (J) is herby amended to read as follows:
J. Roof. Gambrel and Mansard roofs are not permitted on any accessory
building with a footprint of more than 120 square feet.
Section 8. A new Subdivision 14 is hereby added as follows:
Subdivision 14. Height and Side Setback of Pre-2008 Structures. For
all existing structures constructed in the R-1 Zoning District prior to January 1, 2008, if
the side setback and height were compliant with the Zoning Code at the time a building
permit was issued, the location and height are considered conforming to current Zoning
Code. However, new construction and additions to such properties must comply with
current requirements of the Zoning Code.
Section 9. The newly renumbered Subdivision 18 entitled Driveway
Requirements is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Coverage. No more than 40% of the front yard may be covered with
concrete, bituminous pavement, stone or pavers.
Section 10. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 12.99
entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 11. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this 18th day of March, 2008.
IslLinda R. Loomis
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
IslSusan M. Virniq
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
alley
Memo nd m
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
March 18, 2008
Agenda Item
4. B. Continued Public Hearing - Ordinance #396 - Child Care Facilities in Business and
Professional Offices Zoning District
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
At the March 5, 2008 City Council meeting, staff requested the approval of an ordinance
amending the City Code, which would list employee-only child care facilities as a conditional
use in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. This proposed ordinance also
withdrew language from Chapter 11.45 of the City Code which allowed any child care facility
to exist in the Business and Professional Office Zoning District as a conditional use.
City staff and the Planning Commission intended to facilitate the process of establishing child
care facilities in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. However, language
limiting child care facilities to serve only those who are dependents of on-site employees is
restrictive to certain situations which may arise in the District. Therefore, staff supports the
Council's recommendation to allow all child care facilities to continue to be acknowledged as
conditional uses in the Business and Professional Office Zoning District. However, staff still
feels it necessary to remove the reference to child care facilities in its current location, and
place it as a ninth listed condition under Subdivision 7B of Chapter 11.45 of City Code.
Attachments
Memo to Planning Commission dated February 5,2008 (1 page)
Planning Commission Minutes dated February 11,2008 (1 page)
Underline/Overstrike pages showing amendments to Section 11.45 Business and
Professional Offices Zoning District (2 pages)
Ordinance #396, Amendment to Section 11.45 Listing Child Care Facilities as a Conditional
Use in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Ordinance #396, Amendment to Section 11.45 Listing Child Care Facilities
as a Conditional Use in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District.
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
February 5,2008
To:
Planning Commission
From:
Joe Hogeboom, Planner
Subject:
Child Care Services in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District
At the January 14, 2008 meeting of the Planning Commission, RHT Office LLC requested
preliminary approval for a Conditional Use Permit allowing an employee-only child care facility
to be located at 9400 Golden Valley Road. The site is located in the Business and Professional
Offices Zoning District. At the time, planning staff assumed that child care facilities were not a
specified conditional use in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District, since such a
provision was not listed under Section 11.45, Subdivision 7, Paragraph B of City Code.
Upon further examination of the Zoning Code, staff discovered child care facilities are, in fact,
permissible conditional uses in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. The
language of the Chapter reads as follows:
"Without limiting generality and foregoing, such uses may include Child Care Facilities
as defined in this chapter."
The above clause is listed in Section11.45, Subdivision 7, Paragraph A of City Code. To create
a more well-structured document, staff is recommending removing the above clause from
Paragraph A and creating a new item in Paragraph B that specifically lists employee-only child
care facilities as a conditional use. Staff feels that child care facilities that serve employee
dependents are compatible to the overall uses contained in the Business and Professional
Offices Zoning District. Amending the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District to
include this change will instill uniformity throughout the City's zoning districts with regard to
child care opportunities.
Staff asks for your support in amending Section 11.45, Subdivision 7 of City Code to relocate
language pertaining to child care from Paragraph A to Paragraph B.
Attachments:
Section 11.45 Business and Professional Offices Zoning District showing proposed language
revision (5 pages)
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 11, 2008
Page 7
3. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding Employee
Only Daycare Facilities in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning
District
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To amend the language in the Business and Professional Offices
Zoning District to list employee-only daycare centers as a Conditional
Use.
Hogeboom reminded the Commission that at their meeting last month they reviewed a
Conditional Use Permit to allow an employee only daycare center to operate in a property
zoned Business and Professional Offices. At that meeting the Commission directed staff
to amend the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District to include daycare
centers as a conditional use. Hogeboom stated that after that meeting staff realized
daycare centers were already allowed as a conditional use in the Business and
Professional Offices Zoning District, the language was just in a different section of the
code so this public hearing is to recommend that the daycare center language be moved
to the section that lists the uses allowed as a conditional use.
Keysser asked if the Planning Commission would still review daycare center proposals.
Hogeboom said yes, because a daycare center would still need to apply for a Conditional
Use Permit.
Waldhauser asked why it is limited to employee-only daycare centers. Hogeboom stated
that limiting daycare centers to employee-only centers in the Business and Professional
Offices Zoning District would provide consistency with the other zoning districts and that
other types of daycare centers are better suited to the Commercial Zoning District.
Keysser said he wants to encourage employee-only daycare centers. The Commissioners
agreed.
Cera asked about the zoning of existing daycare centers. Grimes stated that most of the
regular daycare centers in Golden Valley are located in churches in the Institutional
Zoning District.
Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Keysser closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval to amend the language in the Business and Professional Offices
Zoning District to list employee-only daycare centers as a Conditional Use.
- Short Recess-
9 11.45
Subdivision 6. Lot Area.
No building or other structure located in this zoning district shall be located on a
parcel of land that is less than one acre in area or less than 100 feet in width.
Source: Ordinance No. 541
Effective Date: 5-8-81
Subdivision 7. Conditional Uses.
A. Conditions. In addition to those uses specifically classified and permitted
within this district, there are certain uses which may be allowed in a Business
and Professional Offices District because of their unusual characteristics or
the service they provide to the public. These conditional uses require
particular considerations as to their proper location in relation to adjacent
established or intended uses, or to the planned development of the City. The
conditions controlling the location and operation of such conditional uses are
established under Section 11.80 of this Chapter. V.'ithout limiting thc
generality of the foregoing, such uses m<:lY include Child Care F<:Icilities <:IS
defined in this Ch<:lpter.
Source: Ordinance No. 712
Effective Date: 6~23-88
B. Authority. The Council shall have the authority, after having received the
recommendations of the Planning Commission, to permit the following types
of the conditional uses of land or structures, or both, within a Business and
Professional Offices District, if the Council finds that the proposed location
and establishment of any such use will be desirable or necessary to the
public convenience or welfare and will be harmonious and compatible with
other uses adjacent to and in the vicinity of the selected site.
Source: Ordinance No. 541
Effective Date: 5-8-81
1. Buildings exceeding three (3) stories in height, subject to the provisions
of Subdivision 5, Subparagraph A, Item 2, and Subparagraph B. above,
and all other applicable provisions of this Chapter.
Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 11-28-91
2. Recreational facilities such as ballfields, swimming pools and playgrounds.
3. Daytime activity centers and/or other facilities providing school and/or
training for retarded or handicapped people.
4. Financial institutions, including drive-in facilities.
5. Limited retail services within a professional office building.
Source: Ordinance No. 541
Effective Date: 5-8-81
6. Heliports, as herein defined.
Golden Valley City Code
Page 3 of 5
9 11.45
7. Other uses which, in the opinion of the Council, are compatible with the
uses specifically described above.
Source: Ordinance No. 643
Effective Date: 11-16-84
8. Adult Day Care Center.
Source: Ordinance No. 264, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 12-13-02
9. Child care facilities.
Subdivision 8. Permitted Uses.
The following uses are permitted in the Business and Professional Office District:
A. Offices
B. Essential Services - Class I.
Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 11-28-91
Subdivision 9. Accessory Uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in this Zoning District:
A. Essential Services - Class I.
B. Accessory Structures. The following regulations and setbacks shall be
required for accessory structures in this Zoning District:
1. Location. A Detached accessory structure 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 as the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an
existing principal structure that would create a situation where an
existing garage or accessory structure would not be completely to the
rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the
principal structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory
structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is
at least 10 feet of separation between the existing principal structure
with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure.
Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory structure as
long as the 10 feet of separation can be met.
2. Front setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the
required setback for this Zoning District from the front property line
along a street right-of-way line.
Golden Valley City Code
Page 4 of 5
ORDINANCE NO. 396, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amendment to Section 11.45 Listing Employee Only Child Care Facilities as a
Conditional Use in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains:
Section 1. City Code Section 11.45, entitled "Business and Professional Offices
Zoning District" Subd. 7(A) by deleting the last sentence and amending it to read:
A. Conditions. In addition to those uses specifically classified and permitted
within this district, there are certain uses which may be allowed in a Business and
Professional Offices District because of their unusual characteristics or the service they
provide to the public. These conditional uses require particular considerations as to
their proper location in relation to adjacent established or intended uses, or to the
planned development of the City. The conditions controlling the location and operation
of such conditional uses are established under Section 11.80 of this Chapter.
Section 2. City Code Section 11.45, entitled "Business and Professional Offices
Zoning District" Subd. 7(B) by adding number 9 as follows:
9. Child care facilities. provided that said facilities serve only the dependents of
persons employed on the same premises as are other\".'ise permitted by this chapter.
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99
entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and atter its passage and
publication as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this 18th day of March, 2008.
Is/Linda R. Loomis
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Is/Susan M. Virniq
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk