agenda packet (entire)
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
of the
City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
May 6, 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
PAGES
2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to
be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
discussion of these items unless a Council Member 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 - April 1, 2008
B. Approval of Check Registers:
1. City
2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority
C. Licenses:
1. General Business Licenses
2. Fireworks Permit - Americana Fireworks Display Company for Golden Valley
Days Art and Music Festival
3. Temporary Nonintoxicating Malt Liquor On-Sale Special Event Permit - Chester
Bird American Legion for Golden Valley Days Art and Music Festival
4. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Children's
HeartLink
5. Solicitor's License - Fund For Public Interest Research
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1. Planning Commission - March 10, 2008
2. Board of Zoning Appeals - February 26, 2008
3. Environmental Commission - March 24, 2008
4. Open Space and Recreation Commission - February 25,2008
5. Envision Connection Board of Directors - March 20,2008
6. Bassett Creek Water Management Commission - March 20, 2008
E. Letters, Emails and/or Petitions:
1. Letter from Golden Valley Historical Society Regarding Matching Funds
F. Proclamation for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Day and Month -
June 2008
G. Proclamation for Arbor Day and Month - May 2008
H. Approval of Requests for Beer and/or Wine at Brookview Park
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 PM
A. Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan Approval - PUD #105 - Xenia Ridge - 700
and 800 Xenia Avenue South
B. Public Hearing - Ordinance #397 - Amending Section 11.03 - Adding Definitions,
Amending Section 11.12 - Principal Structure on One Lot, Adoption of Section 11.47 -
1-394 Corridor Mixed Use Zoning District and Adoption of Section 11.48 - Site Plan
Review
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Authorizing Issuance and Sale of: $6,680,000 General Obligation Street Bonds,
Series 2008A and $750,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of
Indebtedness, Series 2008B 08-21 to 08-22
B. Announcements of Meetings
C. Mayor and Council Communications
7. ADJOURNMENT
alley
Memorandum
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
May 6, 2008
Agenda Item
3. B. 1. 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
Memorandum
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
May 6, 2008
Agenda Item
3. B. 2. Approval of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of check register for various vendor claims against the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority.
Attachments
Loose in agenda packet.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
alley
Memorandum
Inspections
763-593-8090 I 763-593-3997 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
May 6, 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.
#3325
Walgreens
5695 Duluth Street
Retail Sales Fireworks
$100.00
#3326
Menard's Golden Valley
6800 Wayzata Boulevard
Retail Sales Fireworks
$100.00
#3331
Baldy Sanitation
5906 Henry Street
1 Refuse Vehicle
$50.00
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the issuance of licenses as recommended by staff.
alley
Memorandum
Fire Department
763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax)
Executive Summary for Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
May 6, 2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 2. Fireworks Permit - Americana Fireworks Display Company for Golden Valley Days
Art and Music Festival
Prepared By
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections
Summary
The Americana Fireworks Display Company has submitted a fireworks permit application
requesting. approval to discharge aerial fireworks at the Golden Valley Days Art & Music
Festival during the evening of Friday, May 16, 2008 at 9:15 pm. A rain date is set for May 17,
2008 at 9:30 pm.
The location of the fireworks display will be at the northeast corner of Brookview Park.
Americana Fireworks Display Company has indicated that they need to maintain a 420-foot
radius to discharge 6-inch aerial display shells. The launch site will be in the same location as
in 2005, 2006 and 2007.
Due to public safety concerns over the last few years during this event staff will be installing
parking restrictions at the following locations. Western Avenue, Brookview Parkway to
Winnetka Avenue, restricting the south side; Harold Avenue, Winnetka Avenue to Ridgeway
Road, restricting the south side; Hanley Road, Ridgeway Road to Western Avenue,
restricting the west side; and all of Western Terrace.
Attachment
Location Map (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the fireworks display permit for Americana Fireworks Display Company to
discharge aerial fireworks at the Golden Valley Days Art & Music Festival on Friday, May 16,
2008 or on the rain date of Saturday, May 17,2008.
I
I
n LJ~\...'~i:O,,~::illr IIL/J::"- L~~," ~ Zw l ~!
I ___ N ",... _rr.. WIi COUNTRY CLUB DR
_,~UD 0 I ,-~~D I[}~ ~~
~~ < ~ ~ ( ~4
r:=:::__--~ 0 i QC . I; ~ _ ,-
--~~~~,,-~ ~~ CS r---:----~g~ -~ ~
-----_~. C:::::--. ~- _ _ = - w
~-~'~ --- ~
I -_, ~ - v
- ~~~~~, /'
-..:::::.:.:::-
I~~
w
II,! >-
Ie
1--......
~
I
v
~'J G
~~~
'~'U /
~
o~
<Q~O
I
~~
'--./
\>
I~~
~
~
w
Z
Z
~
c:: HAROLD AVE
~ mnffiID.l rrmo rnm
DIlIIJillIffi DIIill
-~ ~
.)..
~ ~
V iff
~
Qt
Z
I
I
o
!l
\)
a
I
LL- :,':<:.-.i-:<
)
c
c::
>-
w
I:;'
01
~
w
S
ic:
:I
No Parking Area
Not to Scale
Print Date: 5/1/08
Sources: N
Hennepin County Surveyors Office for A
Property Unes (2008).
City of Golden Valley for all other layers.
Valley Days Fireworks
Temporary Parking Restrictions
Hey
Memorandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8003/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
May 6, 2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 3. Temporary Nonintoxicating Malt Liquor On-Sale Special Event Permit - Chester Bird
American Legion for Golden Valley Days Art and Music Festival
Prepared By
Thomas Burt, City Manager
Summary
The Golden Valley Days Art and Music Festival continues to grow in its success. This year,
like last year, the Valley Days Committee has partnered with the Chester Bird American
Legion to sell beer on Saturday, May 17, 2008 from 12:30 to 8:30 pm at the City campus. The
sale of beer will be in a fenced area and monitored by American Legion staff. Their staff will
check ID's and issue wrist bands to identify people of legal age.
The City Code does provide for temporary sales of nonintoxicating malt liquor with Council
approval. The American Legion has provided liability insurance naming the City as an
additional insured in the amount of $1 ,000,000.
Attachment
Site Plan (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve a temporary nonintoxicating malt liquor license for the Chester Bird
American Legion on behalf of the Golden Valley Days Art and Music Festival on Saturday,
May 17, 2008 from 12:30 to 8:30 pm at the City campus.
Cf
II
~
d.
t
,-,
....Q
t'
~O
*
'15
C
A
~
MusIc:
S5'tfnQ
DANCL
tOlP'dP\Gn
z
w
>
<C
<t:
::c
t-
!.oJ
:z
:z
.....
:;J
,.r........--'
'''' ,
:o^ I
,fL.o ,
!~1i i
:J\\l :
"".)4._......-1
^
c:
X.
'" 0
5[]:
0- :JI.
VI t
d ::s
I.:l ~
i t
~ l
I ~
~ VI
~ I
*'-1
cf
.J
..i . ~"
<->Q!
<D
=-~Q
13 0
[] ffiO
ffi ciJ ~~ trvck 0
o [I]
o 0
Boo
(fI
(5)
1 ho.ndJ ap>
:r....5h(12)
~,. QU'\1e't 'ot'
.GI" chAdt'en's QllMs
!;;t)' Vehicle
P#.rl<1ng
Prepo.red by'
Peter Kno.eblE' 763-593-9325
~
~o
~.
f.:>.' "^-,4.
G
(l)
j;
.:t.
1-
d
a.
0.
u
:g
a..
\
..l' vrb
~~e
~~~
Bcr.U~Q" Al"cl'I
Ve\COl'lV Sign
<:rIC15,)
o
~
JCLrrk:o.de \..t'< ~Q(>.'
",f>.~
(,O\.-nt.~
~
~\)A
,
Hey
Memorandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8006 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
May 6, 2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 4. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Children's
HeartLink
Prepared By
Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant
Summary
Children's HeartLink sends volunteer medical teams to developing countries to provide heart
surgery for needy children and training for local staff. 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 3D-day waiting
period.
Attachments
Application for Exempt Permit (2 pages)
Letter from Children's HeartLink requesting waiver of 3D day waiting period (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice
requirement for Children's HeartLink.
i ~"-'" .......~~r-:=-~~-:, ,.-'/
, ' -'. f' /-" ,r-) l \. '\,< ,
',i \ 1'-::::..-' './
Minnesota La'~frf~MblingU
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~~,~OOjnpriz:es,?uringa calendar year.
Fee is 50 for
each event
. .........--.-..-...,.......,........,............
Page 1 of 2 6/07
For Board Use Only
Check# a e" '-II
$
.J-. l)o not attach a sales tax exempt status or federal ID employer numbers as they are not proof of nonprofit: status.
/
-Nonprofit Articles of Incorporation OR a current Certificate of Good Standing.
, 0 't have a copy? This certificate must be obtained each year from:
ecretary of State, Business Services Div., 180 State Office Building, S1. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-296-2803
Internal Revenue Service -IRS income tax exemption [501(c)) 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 10 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 both 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 your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate.
_Internal Revenue Service - proof previously submitted to Gambling Control Board
If you previously submitted proof of nonprofit status from the Internal Revenue Service, no attachment is required.
, -, ~J r.:l rj"~" \/'
'. : ,:::;:./ 'tJ
\;~:):""~,J * Gambling equipment for pull-tabs, tipboards, paddlewheels, and bingo (brrfg~' ~~U . "
\\,S. hard cards, and 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 dick on Ust of Ucensed Distributors, or call 651-639-4076.
3- A.O
~ ~ ~ q./Ll~07 M<li3'.
LU@y .tJ/-IJ I)OT~~~.A..e:6,-ro~
LG220 Application for Exempt Permit
tl~~IJ+g~'!Qf;Q<.lWRHIENTAgRNQWLaDGleNT
Page 2 of 2
6/07
If the gambling premises is within city limits,
the city must sign this application.
Check t"> the action that the city is taking on
this application.
The application is acknowledged with no waiting period.
_The application is acknowledged with a 30 day waiting
period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30
days (60 days for a 1st class city).
_The application is denied.
Print city name wolden l/all~
If the gambling premises is located in a township, both
the county and township must sign this application.
Check <V> the action that the county is taking on
this application.
_The application is acknowledged with no waiting period.
_The application is acknowledged with a 30 day waiting
period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30
days.
_The application is denied.
Print county name
On behalf of the county, I acknowledge this application.
Signature of county personnel receiving application
Title
Oate-1_'_
TOWNSHIP: On behalf of the township, I acknowledge that the
olT1anization is applying for exempted gambling activity within the
township limits. [A township has no statutory authority to approve
or deny an application [Minnesota Statute 349.213, subd. 2)]
Print township name
Signature of township official acknowledging application
Title Date ,
The information provided in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that
the financial report will be completed and returned ~ the Board within 30 days of the date of our gambling activity.
Chief executive officer's signature
Complete an application for each gambing activity:
. one day of gambling activity
. two or more consecutive days of gambling activity
. each day a raffle drawing is held
Send application with:
. a copy of your proof of nonprofit status, 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
Data privacy. This form will be made available
in aItemative format Q.e. large print, Braille) upon
request. The information requested on this
fonn (and any attactunents) will be used by !he
Gambling Control Board (Board) to determine
your qualifications to be involved in lawlld
gambling activities in Minnesota. You have the
right to refuse to supply !he information
requested; however, if you refuse to supply
this information, !he Board may not be able to
deteimine your qualifications and, as a
consequence, may refuse to issue you a
pennit If you supply the information requested,
Date :=s
11~/~
Financial report and recordkeeping
required
A financial report form and instructions will be
sent with your permit Within 30 days of the
activity date, complete and retum the financial
report form to the Gambling Control Board.
Questions?
Call the licensing Section of the Gambling
Control Board at 651-639-4076.
the Board will be able to process your
application. Your name and and your
orgarlzalion's name and address will be public
i1fonnation when received by !he Board. All
!he other i1fonnation you pro\Ade will be private
data untB the Board issues your pemit. When
!he Board issues your permit, al of the
i1fonnation provkIed to !he Board win become
public. If the Board does not issue a permit, al
information provided remains private, with the
exception of your name and your organization's
name and address wtich will remain public.
Private data are available to: Board members,
Board staff whose work requires access to
the information; Minnesota's Departmert of
Public Safety; Attorney General; Convnissioners
of Administration, FII1aI1Ce, and Revenue;
LegislativeAuditor, national and international
gambling regulatory agencies; anyone plI'SUant
to court order; other ildMduals.... ynd.. ..1l1l~
that are spedfically a~Pl'~ (i . .
federal law to have ~~'1tie infonnC!lion;
Individuals and ~ fotWhich law or legal
order authorizes a nilIJ~ or shcfflg -,0( , t.
information after this ~.(llice wasg~ ':and! '1
anyone.with your ~
I''''.
, ----
" -;
Children's
HeartLink
HEALIIIG HEARn
WORLDWIDE
Apri129th, 2008
Ms. Judy Nally
Administrative Assistant
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Rd.
Golden Valley. MN 55427
Dear Judy;
Children's HeartLink will host its 16th annual Golf Invitational at the Golden Valley
Country Club on Monday. June 16.2008. We respectfully request that the City Council
waive the customary 30-day waiting period for the exemption for lawful gambling permit
required for this type of event.
Sincerely.
..... . "'\ 1 t--.
.... \ ...: "-;1;/-1,-' .("-.;>
.......~....~, ..-
~. _.~.r \ ~..
....J:::<.'.". ..... .....
Beth Plaetz Lori
Events Manager
5075 Arcadia Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55436-2306 U.S,A. I 952-928-4860 P 1952-928-4859 f I www.childrensheal1Iink.org
Hey
Memorandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8002/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
May 6, 2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 5. Solicitor's License - Fund For Public Interest Research
Prepared By
Christine Columbus, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per City Code, any individual or group intending to go door-to-door within the City selling
products, taking orders or soliciting for business or donations must be licensed by the City to
do so.
Attachments
Peddler/Solicitor License Application (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the solicitor's license for Fund For Public Interest Research.
Application and fee must be submitted to the City Manager's Office the Wednesday prior to the City
Council Meeting. Council Meetings are normally held the first and third Tuesday of each month.
PEDDLER/SOLICITOR LICENSE APPLICATION
TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $ 5 D -
7800 Golden Valley Road Number. of Persons: \ 0
Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License Requested: 5ol-\ C-l"Tl 0Lr-
Enclose the sum of $-?Z) for Jo ,/"'" (number) peddlers/solicitors as required by City Code
of the City of Golden Valley and have complied with all the requirements of said Code necessary
for obtaining this license.
~..,1:::> ~ ~~w.c -:r::t.:)~t- ~
(Business or Individual Name to be Licensed)
\3 \ '3> -S-n+"3sT SE J :::x., I TE '34 t'\ \ U aJ~~) f"\.N 5'S'4l~
(Address, including City, State andrZip Code) ./
~ \"l.:.:: '~~..Jl: . .i~ c,t'Z- - 31q - 3303
(Telepnone Number, including Area Code)
NOW, THEREFORE, ~\J \ \::> lD Y M.AN hereby makes application for the
(ApplicanJ Name)
period of M~'( 1'01 through 6/30/!!j[, subject to the conditions and provisions of said City Code.
Principal Officer)
V/~~/bi~ -r~~-4<(~/~13
(Ph to ID Verification)
REQUIRED LICENSE INFORMATION
Applicant (if different from above):
Name
Address
(Include City, State and Zip Code)
Telephone Number (including area code)
Date of Birth (if an individual)
Business Name of Applicant
Address
(Include City, State and Zip Code)
Define Business
(Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, etc.; State of Incorporation)
Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate if soliciting donations. If more
space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific):~\,)CA-~ -t- ~ ~\T ~_
)::b~ ~-n()~s> ~ - \0 - ""1::>~"i\-
NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete
information regarding such change or modification.
If the Peddler or Solicitor is so engaged on behalf of an organization, supply:
Name of Organization ~~ ~~ \C- ~\"~1~~ ~~"A~
Address of Organization \:3>~ 5'1"1+ cST &E'. S.,--e 3\1 ,. (V\ \...,-\.l2I'\?DL./...5 f'\tJ
(Include City, State 'and Zip Code) 5:S4/ '-I
DefineBusiness ~"?~OA.J
(Corporation, Proprietorship, Partnership, etc.; State of Incorporation)
List the names and addresses of EACH person who will be peddling or soliciting on behalf
of said organization in the City, or, in the alternative, the name, address and telephone
number or numbers where a responsible person of said organization will maintain a list of
names and addresses of all persons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City:
..'
'L:E:"$?D ~s (bt..:8 ""?ETL-SOJJ ~ SA-\'"::t> DR..GA-~ \~T\O~ ~i I...C) \. ~
L\':s\ r:;:J;? ~S ~ ~TU=::-~'. l:::>^-"\J \ \:::> \1-:)'1 (V\;A~
\ 3)3 S"'J+\ 3\ SE "Sr'E' ~Ho
)
~\ ~o~t:>\.-\ ~,('-'\\.) 55 4 , ~1
~ 1'Z.. - '3>3 \ - ~Ljoo
(If more space is needed, attach additional sheets)
STATE OF InlfVNl5lrrfr )
) ss.
COUNTY OF IftN /V1!PIN )
1,~lD ({)-fMA-U
(Officerllndividual)
of m\ IZ-
(Name of Organization)
being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the foregoing information is true to his/her own
knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to such matters,
he/she believes them to be true.
. anUPrincipal Officer)
JUDITH A. NALLY
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
My Commission Expires Jan. 31,2010
(JffiJ 1; ,A u
L-r, ~
00r '5 b8'~cn81)
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 10, 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,
March 10,2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty,
Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development
Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
1. Approval of Minutes
February 25, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
McCarty referred to the second paragraph on page four and clarified that he would like
there to be no "stone requirements" in the proposed Mixed Use Ordinance. He added that
what he said about the "stone requirements" was just a suggestion or a compromise, but
not what he would prefer.
Waldhauser referred to the first sentence on page four and suggested that the second
"and" be replaced with the word "by".
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the
February 25, 2008 minutes with the above noted changes.
2. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision - SU09-12 -1017 Ravine Trail
Applicant: Thomas Hunt & Linda McCracken-Hunt
Address: 1017 Ravine Trail
Purpose: The Subdivision would create two separate lots.
Grimes referred to a location map and explained the applicant's proposal to divide their
property into two lots. He stated that the new lot will be created to the south of the existing
home and at this time the applicants are not proposing to build a second home on the
newly created lot.
Grimes discussed the subdivision requirements and noted that the proposed new lot will
be a corner lot so both street sides of the lot have to be 100 feet in width. Both lots also
have to be at least 10,000 square feet in size and meet setback requirements. In this
case, one lot will be approximately 13,000 square feet and the other will be approximately
16,000 square feet. He referred to site plans submitted by the applicants and discussed
the potential building area of the new lot, setback areas, preliminary grading plan, utility
plan and as-built survey of the existing property.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 10,2008
Page 2
Grimes stated that all of the subdivision and zoning requirements have been met for this
proposed subdivision and staff is recommending approval of this request. He added that
staff will also be working on a subdivision agreement for this property that will incorporate
City Engineer Jeff Oliver's comments regarding right-of-way permits, sanitary sewer
issues, grading and erosion controls plans, tree preservation, easements and park
dedication fees.
Keysser asked where Wayzata Boulevard ends. Linda McCracken-Hunt, applicant,
referred to the location map and explained that the road on the south side of their
property has always been a frontage road and that it "dead-ends" slightly east of their
property .
Keysser asked if there are easements on the property for maintenance of the sound wall
and if the wall would affect any of the setback areas. Grimes said he is not aware of any
easements on this property. He stated that there is a significant amount of right-of-way for
the wall and the maintenance of the wall and it does not affect any of the setbacks.
Kluchka asked if there would be any impacts to this property as a result of the proposed
new infill ordinance. Grimes explained that the proposed infill ordinance does not affect
this subdivision request but if may have an affect when a new house is built.
McCarty asked Grimes if there is any concern about MnDOT possibly wanting additional
right-of-way in the future. Grimes stated that he has talked to MnDOT and they have said
that they have no concerns or additional needs regarding this property.
McCracken-Hunt confirmed that they have no agreements or easements with MnDOT so
they must have sufficient space to maintain the wall.
Keysser asked when the sound wall was built. Tom Hunt, applicant, stated he thought the
wall was built in 1990 or 1991.
Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Keysser closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of a minor subdivision of the property located at 1017 Ravine Trail with the
following conditions:
1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final
plat.
2. The recommendations found in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, dated
February 28, 2008 to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development shall
become a part of this approval.
3. A park dedication fee in an amount determined by the City Council shall be assessed at
the time of final plat approval.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 10, 2008
Page 3
4. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council
that include issues found in the City Engineer's memo dated February 28, 2008
3. Discussion Regarding Mixed Use Zoning District Language
Grimes reminded the Commissioners of their last discussion regarding the proposed
Mixed Use zoning district language. He stated that he thought it would be best to bring
the proposed ordinance to them one more time for discussion before they have a public
hearing.
Eck referred to page six and asked what "sustainable" means. Grimes stated that
"sustainable" is a fairly common term in planning. Waldhauser added that "sustainable" is
the same as "green" and "environmentally friendly" and that it is something that can be
sustained with minimal upkeep. Eck questioned if the average resident would understand
what "sustainable" means. Keysser suggested adding the word "sustainable" to the
definition section of the code. Grimes noted that "sustainable" development is also
addressed in the purpose section of the proposed new language. Hogeboom stated that
the most widely accepted definition of "sustainable" and the City's Comprehensive Plan
definition of "sustainable" is "development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". Keysser
questioned if that definition is too general or not technical enough. Waldhauser said she
would like the definition to be general, not technical.
Kluchka questioned if the definition should include "re-use". Cera stated that low-impact
development, energy efficiency, green space and re-usable materials are all part of
sustainability .
McCarty said he thinks the architecture and building industries will help foster the
"sustainability" language because "sustainable" is well understood throughout those
industries. Schmidgall stated that trying to define "sustainable" will make the language
clumsy. He agreed with McCarty that the term "sustainability" is well known in the
industry.
McCarty suggested leaving the language regarding sustainability as it is written and if it
turns out that people don't understand it the issue can be revisited. Hogeboom stated that
there is also a sustainable guidebook that staff will refer to when reviewing developments.
Kluchka suggested creating a brochure about sustainability that could be handed out with
development applications.
Eck referred to page seven and asked what "integrally colored" means. Schmidgall stated
that it means the color goes all the way through a material. McCarty stated that there are
many materials that are not integrally colored and he questioned the validity and intent of
the wording.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 10, 2008
Page 4
Cera suggested the language say material should be integrally colored where possible or
practical. Schmidgall suggested eliminating the sentence regarding integrally colored
materials. The Commissioners agreed to strike the language regarding integrally colored
materials.
Kluchka referred to Subdivision 3 on page two regarding permitted uses and said he
didn't capture that it was talking about multiple uses. He said he would like to make it less
confusing and more usable. Grimes noted that Subdivision 7 explains when mixed uses
are required.
Kluchka asked what the ordinance is trying not to allow. Cera stated that if a use is not
mixed then it will require a Conditional Use Permit. Grimes added that the ordinance also
states that if a development is over two acres in size it has to be mixed use.
Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 5 regarding live-work units and stated that she
doesn't agree that these types of units should maintain a generally residential character in
which the work space is subordinate to the residential use. She questioned why the City
would care if a live-work unit looks residential.
Kluchka asked what "neighborhood-oriented commercial services" means. Grimes said
those are businesses that serve a neighborhood. Kluchka said he thinks that is limiting.
Grimes suggested using the words "small-scale commercial services" instead.
Waldhauser suggested striking the words "and to provide neighborhood-oriented
commercial services". Keysser suggested also striking the word "larger" in Subdivision 5.
Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 5(0) regarding live-work units and questioned why
they would want to exclude wholesale and manufacturing businesses. Grimes stated that
live-work units are limited by the number of employees they can have so the words
"wholesale business and manufacturing business" could be stricken.
Cera questioned if a commercial food service business would need a Conditional Use
Permit. Grimes stated the City could require a Conditional Use Permit for any type of
business dealing with food but any time food is involved there is going to be some type of
license required by the City or the State.
Keysser suggested requiring all live-work units to have an association or covenants so
that the owners can restrict some of the issues that might arise. Grimes said he would
add language to the ordinance that requires live-work units to have covenants or rules
regarding their use.
Kluchka referred to Subdivision 5(0) and suggested striking the words "by appointment
only". Keysser thought those words would help limit traffic.
Keysser referred to Subdivision 5(F) regarding minimum height and questioned how a
restaurant would fit in. Waldhauser suggested the language regarding height say
"buildings occupying 5,000 square feet (rather than 10,000) or more must be two stories
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 10, 2008
Page 5
in height. Schmidgall said he doesn't think they can anticipate every development
scenario. The Commissioners agreed that it should be changed to 5,000 square feet.
Grimes referred to Subdivision 7(A) and suggested the words "in height subdistrict C" be
stricken. The Commissioners agreed.
Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 7(A) and asked what uses would be allowed by
saying development sites over two acres in size shall be mixed use. She said she thinks it
should be less than two acres. The Commissioners agreed to change the language to say
sites over one acre in size shall be mixed use. Kluchka said he would like to see some
examples or scenarios of the types of developments thatwould be allowed on sites over
one and two acres in size. Grimes stated the 1-394 Corridor Study has illustrations
showing which lots in the Corridor area are one or two acres in size.
Kluchka questioned if there will be any inclusion of on-street parking in this area. Grimes
said he doesn't think live-work units will create much traffic. Kluchka said he wants to be
sure that there are no "no parking" signs installed. Grimes explained that developers will
still have to follow the City's parking requirements. He added that the parking
requirements may have to be amended to allow for live-work units. Waldhauser said she
thinks developers will find a way to "squeeze in a ramp" or provide for parking some how.
McCarty referred to Subdivision 8(E)(2) requiring that 20% of the fayade facing the
primary street be faced with Kasota stone or other indigenous dolomitic limestone. He
said that he thought that language was stricken because the Planning Commission vote
at the last meeting was three to three. Waldhauser said she would like to keep the
language in the proposed ordinance for discussion purposes. She added that requiring
Kasota stone says the City has a clear intent and theme in the area. Kluchka said he likes
Kasota stone, but he would be willing to compromise with the word "stone" instead, but he
doesn't want the requirement removed completely. Keysser said he agrees that requiring
Kasota stone limits architectural freedom. Schmidgall asked if a developer could propose
using a different material. Grimes noted that Subdivision 9 allows for alternative
approaches to development standards with City Council approval. Cera said he thinks
there are two separate issues. One is requiring Kasota stone or just stone and the other is
having the language regarding requiring stone in the ordinance at all. Keysser suggested
the Commissioners vote on whether or not to remove the language regarding Kasota
stone.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Cera and motion failed to remove the language
regarding Kasota stone being required on 20% of the fayade facing the primary street.
Cera, Keysser and McCarty voted yes to remove the language, Eck, Kluchka, Schmidgall
and Waldhauser voted no.
Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 8(C)(3) regarding the display area behind windows
and suggested that area be required to be lighted. Cera said he would prefer not to
mandate lighting forenergy reasons. The Commissioners agreed not to require lighting in
display areas.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 10,2008
Page 6
McCarty said he would like consistency with the way numbers are written in the
ordinance. He said he would like the numbers one through nine spelled out and numbers
ten and higher can be figures. The Commissioners agreed.
Kluchka referred to Subdivision 8(M) regarding public art being encouraged. He said he
would like public art to be a requirement. Grimes stated that the language could be
changed to require public art in developments over two acres in size. Keysser said he
doesn't want to require public art, but he would like to keep the word "encourage" in the
ordinance.
Grimes explained that the next step in this process will be a public hearing at the April 14
Planning Commission meeting.
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Kluchka reported on the March 5, 2008 City Council meeting. He stated that the
ordinance allowing employee-only child care facilities was tabled because the City
Council did not want to limit child care facilities to "employee-only" child care facilities.
5. Other Business
Kluchka said he would like to volunteer for the Douglas Drive Corridor Study Scoping
Committee. The Planning Commission volunteers for this committee will be Kluchka,
Keysser and Waldhauser.
Keysser requested that email reminders be sent to the Commissioners regarding the
March 18 City Council meeting and the March 19 Board of Zoning Appeals special
meeting.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 pm.
Lester Eck, Secretary
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
February 26, 2008
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
February 26,2008 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Chair Boudreau-Landis called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Members, Boudreau-Landis, Morrissey, Segelbaum and Planning
Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom
and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Sell was absent
I. Approval of Minutes - January 22, 2008
MOVED by Morrissey, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to
approve the January 22, 2008 minutes as submitted.
II. The Petitions are:
2404 McNair Drive (08-02-02)
Cleon & Cheryl Wahlin, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 1 0(A)(1) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
. 7 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard (west) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage with living space above.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(b) Side Yard
Setback Requirements
. 1.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 11 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard (south) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage with living space above.
Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicant is
proposing to build a new two-stall garage with living space above. He stated that the
proposed garage would encroach into the front and side yard setback areas. He stated
that the hardships noted by the applicant are the lack of a two car garage and thefts
from cars occurring in her neighborhood. He added that no other variances have been
granted for this property in the past.
Segelbaum questioned if the thefts in the area could be considered a hardship.
Hogeboom stated that the single stall garage is the main hardship in this case but that
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
February 26, 2008
Page 2
the thefts add to the hardship. He showed the board a police report he pulled for this
property.
Segelbaum noted that the topography on the lot is also listed as a hardship on the
application. Hogeboom stated that the topography on the lot is another reason the
applicant is proposing to place the garage in the location shown.
Cheryl Wahlin, Applicant, stated that she doesn't want to focus on the thefts. The real
reason for the variances requested is because she wants a two-stall garage for
protection from the weather, general storage, motorcycle storage and protection from
theft. She explained that one of the factors driving the size of the proposed new garage
is that the existing dining room wall jogs out so in order to make the interior floor plan
work she has to place the garage further toward the front yard property line.
McCarty asked the applicant if she is proposing to keep the existing garage. Wahlin
said no. She referred to the survey of the property and explained that her intent is to get
an entryway into the garage and expand the size of the dining room.
Segelbaum asked the applicant if a possible alternative could be to extend the existing
garage into the side yard. Wahlin said it would be possible but then she'd be building
closer to the neighboring property and she was trying to be sensitive to that. She added
that there is also a fairly steep hill that wraps around the side of her existing garage.
Morrissey added that it could also be more difficult to build a driveway on the side of the
existing garage. Hogeboom noted that there is an 8-foot difference in topography on the
applicant's property.
Boudreau-Landis asked the applicant if she would consider keeping the proposed
dimensions of the new garage but sliding it back a bit further on the lot (into the existing
garage space) so she wouldn't need a front yard variance. Wahlin stated that sliding the
garage back would limit how they get in and out of the garage, it would not allow for an
entryway or stairs to the second floor and it would cut into the living room area.
Morrissey asked if this was an undersized lot. Hogeboom said it is smaller than some
other lots in the area.
McCarty said he is concerned about granting the front yard variance. He explained that
the Board has to look at actual hardships not cost, design or layout. He said he thinks
there are other ways to make this garage addition work and he would be more inclined
to grant a larger side yard variance rather than the requested front yard variance.
Morrissey stated she is concerned that if the proposed new garage were to be pushed
back into the existing garage area it would render the balance of the existing garage
unusable and not very functional. She said it would be helpful to her if the Board could
see the plans or get more information about the proposed addition.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
February 26, 2008
Page 3
Mark Williams, friend of the applicant, said that he's been helping Wahlin with her
proposed project. He stated that they had discussed sliding the proposed garage
further back on the lot but it causes problems with the layout of the dining room. He
agreed that having drawings of the proposed addition would help.
Wahlin said she is in a "catch 22" because she doesn't want to have architectural
drawings made until she knows she has a variance. Morrissey stated that the applicant
should be able to find an architect that can propose solutions that maybe won't require
variances.
Segelbaum stated he thinks the Board is hesitant to grant front yard variances and may
be more willing to grant a larger side yard variance request in this case.
Williams stated that currently there is no entrance door from the garage into the house.
McCarty questioned what is preventing an entrance door in the existing garage. Wahlin
explained that if there were an entrance door in the existing garage it would be in the
middle of the dining room.
Segelbaum asked if the existing garage floor is just a concrete slab. Wahlin said yes
and explained that the existing garage floor is deteriorating. She added that her
proposal is to excavate the area where the current garage is located in order to install a
new driveway that isn't as steep as the existing driveway.
Boudreau-Landis explained to the applicant that she has the option of tabling her
request until there is a full Board present or until she has more detailed plans or she
has the option to have the Board vote on her current request. Wahlin said she would
prefer to table her request. Williams said he feels confident that an architect can help
them draw plans that would work with a side yard variance and not a front yard
variance.
MOVED by Morrissey, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to table
the applicant's request for 90 days.
III. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm.
Chair
Mark Grimes, Staff Liaison
GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Minutes
March 24, 2008
Present: Commissioners Baker; Chand lee; Hill; Pawluk and St. Clair. Also
present were AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator; Mayor Linda
Loomis; and Lisa Nesbitt, Administrative Assistant.
Absent: CommissionerAnderson
1. Call to Order
Pawluk called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm.
2. Approval of Meetina Minutes - February 25. 2008
MOVED by St. Clair, seconded by Hill, and the motion carried unanimously to
approve the minutes of the February, 2008 meeting as amended to reflect the
correct meeting date for March.
3. Consultant Presentation
Lundstrom explained that due to the cost of the speaker from EFG (Scott
Harder), staff recommended that he speak at a joint meeting of the
Environmental, Planning, and Open Space and Recreation Commissions. He will
see if that can be arranged for the meeting in April.
4. 2008 Plan Development
Reviewed priorities identified last month. Pawluk will summarize in a one page
document. The document will be sent to Scott Harder prior to his meeting with
the Commissions so he can address the issues of interest.
6. Proaram/Proiect Updates
TMDL - A second year of data collection is necessary. Data collection will
start as soon as ice is out on the lake. A scope is being drawn up by the
Watershed for a TMDL on Wirth and Medicine Lake as well.
111- Point of Sale inspections are increasing. Mayor Loomis suggested
thatthe Utilities Supervisor, Dave Lemke, come to a commission meeting
to show an inspection video. Staff will arrange this meeting.
Private Development Updates - Lundstrom the Commissioners drawings
of the development at the Olympic Printing site (Xenia Ridge). They are
waiting for a tenant before starting construction. Mayor Loomis pointed out
that this is a LEED certified building.
Recycling Collection Options - A contract extension with Waste
Management was brought before the Council at the March 18th meeting.
Council had questions about the contract St. Louis Park just signed so
further discussion was tabled until the next Council/Manager meeting.
Minutes of the Environmental Commission
March 24, 2008
Page 2 of 2
Sweeny Branch Bank Stabilization Project - Banks along creek by Duck
Pond need to be stabilized first. It is approximately 80% done and then will
begin dredging the pond.
Natural Resource Management Plan - This was not approved at the
March 18th Council meeting due to budget constraints. It will be reviewed
again in 2009.
7. Commission Member Council Reports
Baker attended the March 18th Council meeting regarding residential
zoning.
8. Other Business
Chand lee questioned why the City doesn't have a presence at Valley
Days? Mayor Loomis explained the concern about staff resources at
private functions. It was suggested that displays and handouts be
available instead of having staff present.
Mayor Loomis reported that dates for Commission interview will be set at
the next Council meeting. She knows at least a couple of people have
applied for the Environmental Commission. It was requested that staff
bring to the next meeting, the list of current Commissioners' term dates.
9. Adiourn
MOVED by St. Clair, seconded by Hill, and the motion carried to adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm. The next scheduled meeting will be on
April 28, 2008 at 7:00 pm.
alley
OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Brookview Community Center
Monday, February 25,2008
7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Sandler called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Roger Bergman, Ken Graves, Kelly Kuebelbeck, Bob Mattison, Anne
Saffert, Jerry Sandler, Jim Vaughan, Rick Jacobson, Director of Parks and
Recreation; Sue Cook, Recreation Supervisor; and Sheila Van Sloun, Parks
and Recreation Administrative Assistant.
Absent:
Jim Johnson and Roger McConico.
III. AGENDA CHANGES OR ADDITIONS
No changes or additions.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 28, 2008
MOTION: Moved by Mattison and seconded by Bergman to approve the January
28th meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
V. RECREATION REPORT - Sue Cook
Cook gave details on the Youth Basketball Program which is co-sponsored with the
City of Crystal and runs late January through mid-March. The youth program is for
boys and girls in grades 2nd_6th, with the Mites program for grades K_1st. Cook said
the youth program has 36 teams total, 18 from each city. She also said the Mites
basketball program has 60 participants, 30 from each city.
Cook also coordinates the adult softball leagues. She said she had 16 teams in the
fall league and has 40 teams scheduled to play in the spring/summer league. Some
divisions are cooperatively run with New Hope, Crystal and Robbinsdale.
Cook said the spring/summer activities brochure is currently at the printer and
should be to Golden Valley residents the first week of March. She said registration
begins Thursday, March 13th.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Open Space and Recreation Commission
February 25, 2008
Page 2
Cook said for the second year, tennis will be offered this spring/summer through the
Twin City Tennis Camps. The program was very well received last summer and will
be offering many tennis camps and activities again this year.
Cook coordinated the entertainment for the Concerts-in-the-Park., which takes place
at Brookview Park beginning June 9th and running through August 11th. She said she
has 11 entertainers lined up this year.
Cook coordinates and organizes the Adopt-a-Park program. She said she currently
has two parks available and has over 400 volunteers.
Cook staffs and organizes activities at the Ronald B. Davis Community Center. She
currently has 7 staff members. She said her Adult Open Gyms are very well
attended. Activities that are offered at Davis include: Adult Open Basketball, Adult
Over 40 Basketball, Adult Open Volleyball, Family Gym Time, and Winter Break and
Spring Break Youth Open Gyms.
VI. 2009 BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS
Jacobson explained that the City Council is looking for input from the Open Space
and Recreation Commission regarding budget considerations. Jacobson gave an
introduction of the process and informed the Commission that discussion will take
place at future meetings.
VII. PARK SYSTEM PLAN/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Jacobson said there is nothing new to report. He said an updated version will be
available at the April meeting. A Community Open House is scheduled for Thursday,
May 1 st at City Hall for the residents to review all chapters of the City
Comprehensive Plan.
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Regional Trail
Jacobson explained that Three Rivers Park District hosted an open house
on Tuesday, January 29th at Brookview. He said 25-30 people showed up
to view plans of the trail and have their questions answered.
B. Annual Deer Survey
Jacobson said the objectives of the deer management program were met
this winter. He said the aerial deer survey resulted in a count of 117 in
2007 and 68 on January 22, 2008.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Bergman and seconded by Vaughan to adjourn at 8:30 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
Envision Connection Project
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2008
Present: Jim Heidelberg, Helene Johnson, Linda Loomis, Philip Lund, Dean Penk, and
Blair Tremere
Absent: Marshall Tanick and Luke Weisberg (GVCEF Representative)
Guest: Sharon Glover Staff: Jeanne Andre
The meeting began at 7:07 pm in the Council Conference Room.
Approval of Minutes
PenklHeidelberg moved to approve the minutes of February 28,2008, as presented.
Motion carried.
Golden Valley Connects Outreach
Communications Working Group - The group hasn't met again.
Concert in the Park MC coordination and Ice Cream Social - DeDe Scanlon is now
working with Marshall Tanick to recruit the American Legion and/or VFW to co-sponsor
a concert event, but they have not had good luck. The Board discussed continuing
these discussions with the American LegionNFW and perhaps also approaching the
Optimists. Linda Loomis will check with Riva Kupritz about serving as coordinator for
planning the Ice Cream Social. Jim Heidelberg volunteered to contact the ice cream
supplier at Sebastian Joe's about a repeat event for 2008.
Speaker's Bureau - Philip Lund reviewed the comments from the Bridge Builders
about the script for the Speaker's-Bureau-In-A-Box. Philip and Blair Tremere will rework
the script and review the handouts that relate to the presentation to get ready for
another sample presentation incorporating the suggestions. The Board discussed using
focus groups to fine-tune the presentation and perhaps presenting it to a joint meeting
of Golden Valley Boards and Commissions. The focus of the discussion was whether it
would be better to use the annual appreciation dinner for this purpose or a separate
special meeting. Mayor Loomis suggested waiting for a joint meeting in the fall, as the
Connection Project Board and other advisory groups have a hectic schedule for the first
half of the year. Other names for the speaker's bureau were suggested, including
Connection Ambassadors, Connection Communicators, and Speakers Squad or Team.
Philip Lund distributed the Intermedia Arts booklet on its speaker's bureau and Blair
Tremere suggested that members look at the Metropolitan Council Web Site to see how
they present their speaker's bureau.
Bridge Building Activities
Quarterlv Meeting - The meeting was well attended and a number of small sparks are
taking off, including the After School Success Program at the Library and the Hwy 55
Lilac Planting project. Dwight Townes scheduled a meeting with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation landscape designer, who recommended planning up front
for the entire Hwy 55 corridor in Golden Valley and selecting the north part of Brookview
Park and Golf Course for phase one planting in the fall of 2008. The scope of the project
would require 50-100 volunteers for a Saturday planting event. The Board suggested
recruiting volunteers at the Golden Valley Festival. The community component of the
Bridge Builder Meeting was a tour of the Police Department, which was well received.
The group suggested having the next meeting on May 31 or in early June. Possible
Envision Connection Project
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2008 - Page 2
venues include the Boy Scout Headquarters, PRISM, the Humane Society, the NW
YMCA or the American Legion.
Fundraisina for Bridae Builder Activities and Criteria for Grants - Jeanne Andre
will draft a letter, for the Board to review at its next meeting, to send to the Golden
Valley Community Events Fund about possible joint corporate fund raising. Luke
Weisberg suggested sending this letter in June, as a follow-up to the May festival. It will
include the list of possible events for which funding would be solicited.
Golden Valley Days Booth
Philip Lund reported that he has been in touch with 13 groups about having a booth at
Golden Valley Days. Some other groups or organizations are also interested in
participating including PRISM, and the NW YMCA. The set-up will be similar to last
year, except that the area may need to expand if more groups are added. Philip has
asked for more picnic tables for the center area, and afternoon lemonade in addition to
the morning coffee. The group would like to have helium balloons to attract folks to the
Envision booth as in past years.
Community Awards
The Board discussed options for an award program and its role in the process. The
conclusion was to allow ongoing nominations, with no specific deadline or competive
process. The Board would serve in an advisory capacity, recommending worthy people
and projects to the Council. The focus of the awards would be initiatives that promote
the community vision as outlined in the Vision Guide. They asked staff to work on an
outline for a program following these parameters.
Recruitment of Members to the Executive Board
Philip Lund introduced Sharon Glover, who he recruited to serve on the Board. The
members introduced themselves and Ms. Glover shared her background and
experience with the Board. She expressed an interest in serving. Chair Loomis will
follow up on the appointment process.
League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) Conference Session on Community Visioning
Helene Johnson reported that the state LMC conference in June plans to have a
session on cities in various stages of community visioning with a panel including each of
the cities. Golden Valley has been suggested as an example of a city in the
implementation stage. She inquired if Linda Loomis and Philip Lund would be available
to represent the Connection Project. Linda and Philip agreed to check their calendars.
Other members may attend to provide support and interact with the audience after the
session.
Future Meetings
The next meeting will be on April 17. The Board also noted that the May 15 meeting will
conflict with the Optimist's Annual Gala. The members will evaluate this conflict at the
next meeting.
The meeting ended at 9:05 pm.
Jeanne Andre, Assistant City Manager
The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) was called to order at 11:30 a.m.,
Thursday, March 20, 2008 at Golden Valley City Hall by Chair Welch. Ms. Herbert conducted roll call.
Roll Call
Crystal
Golden Valley
Medicine Lake
Minneapolis
Minnetonka
New Hope
Plymouth
Robbinsdale
St. Louis Park
Commissioner Pauline Langsdorf, Secretary
Not represented
Commissioner Cheri Templeman
Commissioner Michael Welch, Chair
Not represented
Commissioner Daniel Stauner
Commissioner Ginny Black, Vice Chair
Commissioner Karla Peterson
Commissioner Manuel Jordan
Counsel
Engineer
Recorder
Charlie LeFevere
Len Kremer
Amy Herbert
Note: Commissioners Linda Loomis (Golden Valley] and Kris Sundberg (Minnetonka) arrived
after roll call.
Also present: Laura Adler, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of St. Louis Park
Brooke Asleson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Lane Christianson, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Minneapolis
Jack Frost, Metropolitan Councll
Lee Gustafson, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Minnetonka
Dave Hanson, Alternate Commissioner, City of Golden Valley
Denise Leezer, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Tom Mathisen, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Crystal
Bob Moberg, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Pymouth
Jeff Oliver, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Golden Valley
Stu Stockhaus, Alternate Commissioner, City of Crystal
Liz Stout, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Minnetonka
Elizabeth Thornton, Alternate Commissioner, City of Plymouth
Brian Vlach, Three Rivers Park District
Chair Welch requested that items 3E. - Discussion of BCWMC Meeting Logistics, 5D - Army Corps
Permitting of Future CIP Projects, and 5M - 2007 Lake Water Quality Study for Westwood and Crane
Lakes - be deferred to the April BCWMC meeting. [Ms. Sundberg arrived.) Ms. Black moved to approve
the amended agenda. Ms. Templeman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Chair
Welch removed the rmandal statement from the Consent Agenda. Ms. Black moved to approve the
amended Consent Agenda. Ms. Templeman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (City
of Golden Valley was absent from the vote]. (Ms. Loomis arrived).
#248746 vI
Page 1
BCWMC March 20, 2008 Meeting Minutes
A. Presentation of the February 21st BCWMC meeting minutes. The February 21st minutes were
approved as part of the Consent Agenda.
B. Presentation of the Financial Statement. Chair Welch requested that the financial report be
removed from the Consent Agenda because he wanted to clarify to the Commission that the
March financial report and the 2007 fiscal year-end imancial report were included in the meeting
packet. Ms. Loomis announced she handed out a revised March imancial statement. She said the
revised report contains the project reimbursements that the BCMWC has received from the
Minnesota Ballpark Authority and the MPCA. Chair Welch announced that the Commission
receives and files the financial report.
The general and construction account balances reported in the March 2008 Financial Report are
as follows:
Checking Account Balance
TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE
603,709.02
603,709.02
Construction Account Balance
Investment Balance (CP due 3-24-08)
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT BALANCE
-Less: Reserved for CIP projects
Construction cash! investments available for projects
1,834,008.48
494,568.89
2,328,577.37
3,412,900.73
1,084,323.36
C. Presentation of Invoices for Payment ApprovaL
Invoices:
i. Kennedy & Graven - Legal Services through January 31, 2008 - invoice for the
amount of$2,107.68.
ii. Barr Engineering Company - February Engineering Services - invoice for the
amount of $33,155.59.
iii. Amy Herbert - February Recording Administrator Services - invoice for the
amount of $3,204.00.
iv. Michael Welch - Reimbursement of Meeting Expenses - invoice for the
amount of$40.70.
v. City of Golden Valley - Reimbursement for Sweeney Lake Branch Channel
Restoration Work - invoice for the amount of $119,681.82.
Ms. Loomis moved to approve all of the invoices. Ms. Black seconded the motion. By call of roll, the
motion carried unanimously.
D. Discussion of Recording Administrator Contract. Ms. Black moved to approve an amended contract
for Recording Services with the hourly fee for services increased from $50 an hour to $55 an hour. Ms.
Templeman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
E. Discussion of BCWMC Meeting Logistics. Deferred to April meeting.
#248746 vI
BCWMC March 20, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Page 2
No New Business
A. Sweeney Lake TMDL Phase II Contract with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA). Mr. Kremer stated that the original scope of work for the Sweeney Lake TMDL
planned for the possibility of needing a second year of data. He said that a second year of data will
be needed due to the unusual weather conditions last year. Chair Welch asked what would happen
if this year is also an unusual year in terms of rain conditions. Mr. Kremer said in that case a third
year of data may be necessary.
Chair Welch said the contract is ready today and asked Mr. LeFevere to comment. Mr. LeFevere
said the contract is what the Commission was expecting and said the Commission doesn't need a
companion contract with SEH since the f"lrst contract with SEH covered Phase 2 in the event
Phase 2 needed to happen. Ms. Aselson emphasized that work cannot be done on the project until
the Department of Administration signs the contract, which will take approximately two weeks
from today.
Ms. Black moved that the Commission enter into the contract with the MPCA. Ms. Templeman
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Chair Welch directed Ms. Herbert to
invite Ron Leaf of SEH to the April meeting to present an update on the Sweeney Lake TMDL
Study.
Ms. Black raised the concern that the Sweeny Lake TMDL study information hosted on SEH's
Web site may not be accessible in future years and suggested the Commission f"lnd a way to move
that information onto the Commission's Web site. Chair Welch directed Ms. Herbert to discuss
the topic with Ron Leaf. Ms. Asleson mentioned that the MPCA's Web site links to TMDL project
Web sites created and maintained by the MPCA.
B. Wirth Lake TMDL Update. Mr. Kremer reported that Ms. Asleson provided comments to Barr
today regarding the Wirth Lake TMDL study work plan. He said the comments included a
suggestion to add references to past work completed on Wirth Lake and suggestions for a couple
of modif"lcations in the way the work would be done. Mr. Kremer remarked that the modif"lcations
can be made. He said that all the modeling and all the data collected to-date will be put on a CD so
that the CD can go out with the request for proposals so contractors can use that information
whlle developing their proposals.
Ms. Black said the phosphorus goal is listed as 30 micrograms per litre in the Wirth Lake
Management Plan prepared by the BCWMC. She said the MPCA sets the goal at 40 micrograms
per litre and she asked which goal the Wirth TMDL is trying to reach. Mr. Kremer said the
TMDL follows the state's goal [40 micrograms per litre]. Mr. Kremer commented that the
Commission should in the future revisit the goals that it has set for all of the waterbodies.
Ms. Black agreed that more bullet points are needed in the work plan to reference what studies
were done when and by whom. Chair Welch commented that under Task 2 the language states
that the modeling will be developed to address all the impairments. He pointed out that the Wirth
#248746 vI
BCWMC March 20, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Page 3
Lake TMDL is a nutrient TMDL and commented that the language should be refined to make
that point clear. Mr. Kremer said the Commission should decide how to send out the work plan
for proposals.
Ms. Black said that on the bottom of the second page there is a discussion about communication
but she said it does not mention communication with the cities, the Commission, or the
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. She asked if that should be added. Mr. Kremer said yes.
Ms. Asleson stated that there can be other communications about the TMDL besides just a TMDL
Web site such as a quarterly TMDL newsletter. Chair Welch directed that the work plan specify
the entities that need to be kept in the loop regarding the Wirth Lake TMDL - the BCWMC, the
MS4s, and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. Ms. Black moved to approve the Wirth
Lake TMDL Study work plan with the amendments discussed today and with Barr and the
MPCA working together to respond to the work plan comments. Chair Welch seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Chair Welch explained that the BCWMC could decide to run the TMDL and to conduct the
request for proposal (RFP) process or could decide to hand the completed work plan over to the
MPCA to let it conduct the RFP process and to select from its pool of contractors. Ms. Asleson said
that having another organization take the lead on the project means that she would have a contact
person from that organization that knows as much about the project, if not more, than she does
and who she can contact and work directly with.
Ms. Black asked what the Commission's role would be if the MPCA takes the lead in the Wirth
Lake TMDL study and the RFP process. Ms. Asleson said it would be a partnership although
contractually it would be the MPCA controlling the process. She said the stakeholder process and
the process of determining the stakeholder contribution would be a place where the MPCA would
expect the Commission to step up in its role and playa more significant process.
Mr. Kremer mentioned that the Wirth Lake TMDL Study is much simpler than the Sweeney Lake
TMDL, which means that the leader of the Wirth TMDL has a lot less responsibility than the
leader of the Sweeney Lake TMDL study. Ms. Sundberg asked if the Commission takes the lead
would it mean that Barr would take on that role. Mr. Kremer said not necessarily because the
Commission could take the lead and then bid that piece of the project out also. Ms. Black said if
the Commission takes the lead she would prefer that the Commission Engineer takes the lead.
Chair Welch agreed.
Mr. Stockhaus asked ifthere is a cost difference between the different alternatives. Mr. Kremer
said those cost differences aren't yet known. Mr. LeFevere remarked that more or less the costs of
the Commission's staff time would be under the MPCA grant. He said if the MPCA takes the lead
then Barr's time won't be paid for under the MPCA grant so there would be some cost savings to
the Commission for Barr to take the lead.
Ms. Asleson said the MPCA doesn't typically add in additional labor costs for outside
collaboration.
Ms. Loomis asked if there would be a benefit to having a state agency as the project lead in terms
of working with MnlDOT as an MS4.
Mr. Jordan said his understanding is that there are two different issues being discussed by the
Commission: one, the imandal impacts to the Commission by its decision on who takes the project
lead and two, the enforcement implications.
#248746 vI
BCWMC March 20, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Page 4
Mr. Hanson commented that its seemed to him that the Commission would want to keep more
control over the TMDL by taking the lead.
Ms. Black moved to approve the MPCA to take the lead of the Wirth Lake TMDL study. Ms.
Loomis seconded the motion. Cbair Welch stated he was in favor of the BCWMC leading the
Wirth Lake TMDL. The motion carried with seven votes in favor [Cities of Golden Valley,
Medicine Lake, Minnetonka, New Hope, Plymouth, and Robbinsdale] and two votes against
[Cities of Minneapolis and Crystal].
C. Medicine Lake TMDL Update. Chair Welch explained that the Commission had asked Barr to
work with the Three Rivers Park District to revise the work plan. He said the revised work plan
has been distributed to the Commission. He said that today the Commission is deciding whether to
approve the work plan and also who will take the lead on the Medicine Lake TMDL study.
Mr. Kremer said Barr did receive comments on the Medicine Lake TMDL work plan the day
after the Commission's meeting packet was mailed out. He said Mr. Vlach requested that the
work plan provide more information on the work previously completed so that the bidders on the
project would have a better understanding of what has been done. Mr. Kremer said that all of the
data and analysis will be put on CD to accompany the request for proposals so the bidders can
consider the information for their proposals. He said that Barr and the Three Rivers Park
District agree that additional public information meetings should be included beyond the seven
meetings previously included in the work plan.
Chair Welch asked if there are any issues that still need to be worked out between Barr and the
Three Rivers Park District on the work plan. Mr. Vlach responded that the Three Rivers Park
District had comments regarding the implementation plan and wanted to make sure there isn't a
duplication of effort in preparing the implementation plan. He asked Ms. Asleson if an
implementation plan would be a legally binding portion ofthe TMDL study. Ms. Asleson said the
Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) does not approve implementation plans but the MPCA
does require an implementation plan be done within a year after the EP A has approved the
TMDL. She said nothing in the implementation plan is legally enforceable by the EP A or the
MPCA. Mr. Vlach said he thinks the implementation plans already compiled by the various cities
could be assembled and added as an attachment to the TMDL work plan without much
additional effort and that this action would satisfy the Three Rivers Park District's concerns
regarding the implementation plan.
Ms. Black asked about the CIP tables included in the Commission's Watershed Management Plan
and asked if those tables already have the Medicine Lake implementation measures already
pulled together. Mr. Kremer said yes and that the BCWMC would not need to do a major or
minor plan amendment to implement some of those features. He said that when information on
the Medicine Lake TMDL is sent to bidders, the information will refer them back to the
Watershed Management Plan as potential implementation features. Ms. Black asked if the Plan is
listed in the Medicine Lake TMDL work plan as a reference. Mr. Kremer said he didn't think so
but that it would be added.
Ms. Black asked how the margin of safety will be addressed. Mr. Kremer said the margin of
safety will be addressed as part of the TMDL.
Chair Welch commented that the phosphorus levels during May and September were above 60
micrograms per litre, which isn't close to the goal of 40 micrograms per litre, meaning there is
work to be done. He also commented that the MPCA has set aside $50,000 for tbe Medicine Lake
TMDL and that amount has not changed over the last couple of months.
#248746 vl
BCWMC March 20, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Page 5
Ms. Black moved that the MPCA send the request for proposals and also take the lead on the
Medicine Lake TMDL. Ms. Peterson seconded the motion.
Mr. Moberg asked that the Commission send the revised work plan to the member cities for
review and comment.
Mr. Mathisen asked if the Commission is sure it isn't giving up more control than benefits it
thinks it is gaining by not having Barr take the lead. He said that by having the MPCA take the
lead it introduces a third-party into the coordination. He suggested having Barr take the lead in
one TMDL and the MPCA taking it in another instead of putting all of the eggs in one basket.
Ms. Asleson commented that regardless of whether the MPCA takes the lead or not, it has the
authority to say that a TMDL is not approvable.
Ms. Black said she would be more comfortable with the Commission taking the lead if the
Commission had a point person, which it doesn't.
Mr. Gustafson said the BCWMC has been conducting studies for 30-plus years without a point
person so to him that should have no bearing on the decision. He said the MPCA's $50,000 cap
does concern him and he supports the MPCA taking the lead on the Medicine Lake TMDL study
because he sees an inconsistency in the fact that the MPCA will spend over $200,000 on the
Sweeney Lake TMDL but only $50,000 on the Medicine Lake TMDL.
Mr. Gustafson asked the Commission to request the MPCA to forward to the Commission the
final total costs of the Sweeney Lake, Medicine Lake, and Wirth Lake TMDL studies. Ms.
Asleson said the costs would be part of the contracts.
Ms. Black reiterated her motion. She said her motion was to submit this work plan to the MPCA
for review and approval and to contract with whomever they decide to carry out the work plan
and to send the work plan to the other MS4s for review and comment. The motion carried
unanimously.
D. Army Corps of Engineers Permitting of Future CIP Projects; Status of West Medicine
Lake Permit. Deferred to April meeting.
E. Amendment to Contract with City of Plymouth for Curlyleaf Pondweed Spot Treatment
of Medicine Lake in 2008. Mr. Moberg said the City of Plymouth has received conf'rrmation
from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that it has approved a grant for the project in
the amount of $20,000. He said that the City does not yet know the extent of the costs for the spot
treatment. Mr. LeFevere commented that the contract could be amended so the Commission is
agreeing to pay the costs incurred by the city for the 2008 spot treatment of Medicine Lake less the
funds from the DNR grant. Ms. Black moved to approve that contract amendment. Chair Welch
seconded the motion. The motion carried with seven votes in favor [Cities of Crystal, Medicine
Lake, Minneapolis, New Hope, Plymouth, and Robbinsdale] and two votes against [Cities of
Golden Valley and Minnetonka].
F. Contract with Metropolitan Council for 2008 CAMP Program. Ms. Black moved to enter
into the contract with the Metropolitan Council for the 2008 CAMP program. Ms. Loomis
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
G. Administrator Proposals. Ms. Black reported that the Administrator Committee interviewed
#248746 vI
BCWMC Marcb 20, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Page 6
two firms, Springsted and DeYoung, and liked both of them. Ms. Loomis said she dido't have a
preference between the two and that the difference between the two in their cost estimates was
only $85. Ms. Templeman mentioned that as part of the Administrator Committee she had
reviewed the nine proposals the Commission received and she had ranked Springsted as the
number one candidate. Ms. Langsdorf said she has had professional experiences with two of the
members of Springsted and she would be very comfortable with Springsted based on her
experience with those individuals. Ms. Black moved that the Commission go with Springsted for
the BCWMC operational analysis. Ms. Templeman seconded the motion. The motion carried with
eight votes in favor [Cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, Medicine Lake, Minneapolis, Minnetonka,
New Hope, Plymouth, and Robbinsdale] and one vote against [City of St. Louis Park].
Chair Welch said the Administrator Committee will have an agreement in principal with
Springsted and would have that put in contract form for the next meeting. Mr. LeFevere said the
Commission and Springsted should have a common expectation of what work will be done. Ms.
Black said that the Administrator Committee should therefore hold a meeting with Springsted to
finalize the work plan before the contract is signed. Ms. Black moved to approve sending a letter
to member cities regarding the selection. Ms. Loomis seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously. Chair Welch directed Ms. Herbert to notify the other applicants. Ms. Black handed
out to the Commission a draft a letter to the cities regarding the selection and asked the
commissioners to review and comment by Tuesday, March 25th.
B. T AC Recommendations from March 6th T AC Meeting:
L Additional Sampling of the Main Stem Associated with Fecal Coliform
Impairment. Mr. Kremer said the sampling for the Fecal coliform would cost
approximately $7,800. He said the sampling would take place in May, June, July, August,
and September and would hopefully identify the Fecal coliform sources in the watershed.
Mr. Moberg asked for clarification on whether Plymouth Creek is part of Basset Creek.
Mr. Kremer said it is not. Ms. Asleson said Plymouth Creek is not on the impaired waters
list. Ms. Black moved to approve that the MPCA sample biota and fish in the Main Stem
and that the Commission conduct sampling for Fecal coliform and E. coli in the Main
Stem. The motion carried unanimously.
ii. Capital Improvements Program. Chair Welch asked for a ballpark cost of the
Plymouth Creek restoration project. Mr. Kremer said $750,000. He said it would cost
approximately $12,000 to conduct the feasibility report for the project and to apply for the
permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and the DNR. Chair Welch asked how long it
would take to put the feasibility report together. Mr. Kremer said it would take
approximately 60 days. He said the Commission will discuss the permitting for these
restoration projects at the April Commission meeting. Ms. Black moved that the feasibility
study and the preliminary plan be completed. Ms. Peterson seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously.
iii. Ramada Pond. Mr. Gustafson explained that the City of Minnetonka tried to do the
project but it couldn't get the easements. He said the project would be easy to do but the
easements are an issue. Chair Welch moved that Barr investigate the issues with the
easements and the permits for the project and to evaluate what would be involved to put a
feasibility study together. Ms. Black seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
iv. Reimbursement for Wetland Mitigation Costs Incurred as Part of CIP Projects.
Mr. Kremer stated that in the Commission's Joint Powers Agreement there is a
requirement that the local community is responsible for acquiring all right of way. He
#248746 vI
BCWMC Marcl120, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Page 7
explained that the issue is that if a project is going iu on a wetland is the cost of mitigating
the wetland impacts a right-of-way cost or is it a project cost. He said the Commission
needs to reach a decision on whether it will help the cities with a project sited in a wetland
or not. Mr. Moberg said the TAC would like the Commission to take a position on that
issue. Ms. Loomis moved that the Commission Engineer and Attorney prepare a memo on
the topic for the next Commission meeting. Ms. Black seconded the motion. Chair Welch
asked the cost for preparing the memo. Mr. Kremer responded approximately $500. The
motion carried unanimously.
I. Discuss Review of Golden Valley and Minnetonka Surface Water Management Plans.
Chair Welch explained that Barr Engineering prepared the local surface water management plans
for the cities of Golden VaDey and Minnetonka so the Commission would want another party to
conduct the review of the plans. Mr. Kremer recommended that Ms. Herbert send the
Commission's surface water management plan requirements and a request for cost estimates to
three qualified consultants. Mr. Gustafson said the TAC can give Ms. Herbert a list of three or
four consultants. Ms. Black moved that the TAC and Ms. Herbert pull together a list of three
contractors and send out a request for a cost estimate of professional services for review of local
surface water management plans. Ms. Loomis seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
J. Review 2007 Budget. Review deferred to April meeting. Ms. Loomis recommended that the
BCWMC Budget Committee meet prior to the April Commission meeting. Chair Welch directed
Ms. Herbert to coordinate the meeting along with the Administrator Committee meeting. Chair
Welch directed the Commission staff to submit the anticipated 2009 costs for legal, engineering,
and administrative services.
K. Discuss 2007 Annual Report Process. Ms. Loomis moved that Commission staff move forward
with preparing the annual report. Ms. Black seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
L. Review Final Version of BCWMC Education Grant Contract. Ms. Loomis moved to approve the
{'mal version of the BCWMC's Education Grant contract. Ms. Black seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously.
M. 2007 Lake Water Quality Study: Westwood Lake and Crane Lake. Deferred to April meeting.
A. Citizen Input on Non-agenda Items: No Citizen Input.
B. Chair: No Chair Communications.
C. Commissioners: No Commissioner Communications.
D. Committees: Ms. Langsdorf announced the Education Committee is participating in the
Environmental Quality Fair tonight at Sunset Hills Elementary. She stated that she has handed
out the instructions on checking out the BCWMC Education Exhibits. She asked everyone to
please make sure aD pieces are returned after borrowing the exhibits. Ms. Langsdorf also
requested maps of each city showing where the Bassett Creek Watershed boundaries in the city so
the maps can be used in the education displays. She commented that if the individual cities don't
want to cover the cost of creating the map that the Education Committee can cover the cost. Mr.
Oliver commented that the Commission Engineer should have the aerial photos.
#248746 vI
BCWMC Mareh 20, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Page 8
E~ Counsel*
F. Engineer: No Engineer communications.
Ms. Loomis moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Black seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at
2:28 p.m.
Michael Welch, Chair
Date
Amy Herbert, Recorder
Date
Pauline Langsdorf, Secretary Date
#248746 vI
BCWMC March 20, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Page 9
2007-2008
'Boara Of V ire c tors
Xenneth :}{uver
Presid"ent
:Nancy .Jlzzam
')rice Presid"ent
Vona{a 5lnderson
Secretary / 'Treasurer
Jerry 'Breth
VirectOr
Joanne 'Breth
Virector
John Co{we{{
Virector
'Betty Crews
Virector
Jon :}{orliey
Virector
(j{oria Johnson
Virector
Leone Johnson
Virector
'Eawara Joraan
Director
Von .Minor
Virector
'Rovert Provost
Virector
Immeaiate 'Past Presw
Iona Sc/iu{{er
Virector
Cathy YvaUiJiauser
Director
.Mike J'reiverg
City Counci{
Representative
Virector
4p~
1 ~ <l1oti
{Jo{den Ya{{ey J-(istorica{ Society
7800 (jo{{;{en )laffey 'Road:, (joWn )laffey, :M.innesota 55427
April 10, 2008
Mayor Linda Loomis, Mayor
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Dear Mayor Loomis,
I am pleased to report to you that the members and friends of the
Golden Valley Historical Society have successfully matched the $7,500.00
matching challenge of the Golden Valley City Council. The total as ofthis
date raised through their donations has reached over $7,800.00.
On the behalf of our Society members, I wish to thank you and the
members of the Golden Valley City Council for your continued support of
our organization and it's mission. That mission is to find, preserve and to
educate the heritage of the City of Golden Valley. The Society's Historic
Church at 6731 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, has been preserved by
the Society for the future use as a museum for the citizens of Golden Valley
in which the archives of the Society may be displayed.
I would appreciate your forwarding the $7,500.00 match grant to our
business address above. Thank you.
cc: Sue Virnig, Finance Director
City of Golden Valley
From: Eric Goerner [mailto:prspecialist@tcpride.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25,20086:32 PM
To: Loomis, Linda
Subject: Request for Twin Cities GLBT Pride Celebration Proclamation
March 26, 2008
Mayor Linda Loomis
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
RE: Twin Cities GLBT Pride Celebration
Dear Linda Loomis:
The Twin Cities Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender Pride Celebration (Pride) is a nonprofit
community group that meets year-round to plan the nation's third largest Pride Celebration. In 2007,
our events drew an estimated attendance of approximately 450,000 people.
I am writing today to request an official Proclamation for the Pride Celebration.
2008 marks the 36th anniversary of Pride events in the Twin Cities. In 1972, at the risk of being
arrested, a small group of activists gathered in Minneapolis' Loring Park for a picnic and short march
down Nicollet Mall. Over the following three decades, the event has grown to become a celebration
of the history and accomplishments of the local Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender (GLBT)
community, and has become the third largest Pride Celebration in the United States.
I would like to request an Official Proclamation designating June 27-29 as GLBT Pride Days/June
as GLBT Pride Month. At the following link (http://www.tcpride.orQ/downloads/2008Pride
Proclamation.pdf), please find proposed text, which is based on our 2007 Proclamation from the City
of Saint Paul. Please send Golden Valley's Official Proclamation to the attention of Chris Taykalo,
Twin Cities Pride, P.O. Box 2104 Loop Station, Minneapolis, MN, 55402.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us. Any mail
correspondence may be sent to the address at the bottom of this page.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours in Pride,
Christopher Taykalo
Public Relations Director
pr@tcpride.orQ
(m) 651/341-7275
Eric Goerner
Public Relations Specialist
prspecialist@tcpride.orQ
(m) 952/200-9051
GLBT PridelTwin Cities
P.O. Box 2104 Loop Station
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612/305-6900
www.tcpride.orQ
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PROCLAMATION FOR GA V, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL AND
TRANSGENDER PRIDE DAYS - JUNE 27-29, 2008
AND
GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL AND
TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH - JUNE 2008
WHEREAS, Golden Valley is a city richly endowed with a great diversity of
people, cultures, lifestyles and languages; and
WHEREAS, the strength of a democratic society must be based upon equal
participation without prejudice of all people in the social, economic and political
activities of the community; and
WHEREAS, members of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender
community have made significant contributions toward the enhancement of our quality
of life through active involvement in the economic and political activities of the
community; and
WHEREAS, 2008 is the 36th Anniversary of the first Twin Cities Pride Celebration
and the 39th anniversary of Stonewall; and
WHEREAS, our commemoration of these events underscores our determination
to support, preserve and advance the civil rights guaranteed for all Americans;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Linda R. Loomis, Mayor of the City of Golden Valley,
do hereby proclaim June 1 through June 30,2008 to be Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual,
Transgender Pride Month and June 27-29,2008 to be Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual,
Transgender Pride Days in the City of Golden Valley.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the great
seal of the City of Golden Valley to be affixed this 6th day of May, 2008.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
alley
Memora dum
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
May 6, 2008
Agenda Item
3. G. Proclamation for Arbor Day and Arbor Month
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Summary
The City of Golden Valley was recently awarded the 2007 Tree City USA Award. It is the
twenty-first year Golden Valley has received this national recognition. Tree City USA
recognizes communities that have proven their commitment to an effective, ongoing
community forestry program. Tree City USA is sponsored in cooperation with the National
Association of State Foresters and the USDA Forest Service.
To become a Tree City USA, a community must meet four standards:
1. Operate a forestry department,
2. have a tree ordinance,
3. manage a comprehensive community forestry program, and
4. observe Arbor Day.
This year's Arbor Day activities will be celebrated with the fifth grade class of Good Shepherd
Catholic School located at 135 Jersey Avenue South on May 15 at 12:30 pm. The event will
include a small presentation at the school about the value of urban trees. Staff will award
prizes to the winners of the Arbor Day poster contest followed by a recitation of the City's
Arbor Day Proclamation.
The fifth grade class will plant trees on school grounds. When the event has concluded, staff
will provide packaged tree seedlings for each of the fifth grade students to take home and
plant.
Attachments
Proclamation for Arbor Day - May 15, 2008 and Arbor Month - May 2008 (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt a Proclamation for May 15, 2008 as Arbor Day and May 2008 as Arbor
Month in the City of Golden Valley.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PROCLAMATION FOR
ARBOR DAY - MAY 15, 2008
AND
ARBOR MONTH - MAY 2008
WHEREAS, Golden Valley's urban forest treasures were a significant attraction
to early settlers because of their usefulness and the beautiful environment they
provided; and
WHEREAS, trees are an increasingly vital resource in Golden Valley today,
enriching our lives by purifying air and water, helping conserve soil and energy, serving
as recreational settings, providing habitat for wildlife of all kinds, and making our
community more livable; and
WHEREAS, trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our
homes, fuel for our fires and countless other wood products; and
WHEREAS, trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic
vitality of business areas, and beautify our community; and
WHEREAS, trees, wherever they are planted, are a source of warmth and
security; and
WHEREAS, Golden Valley has been recognized as a Tree City USA by the
National Arbor Day Foundation and desires to continue its urban forestry efforts;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Linda R. Loomis, Mayor of the City of Golden Valley, do
hereby proclaim May 15, 2008 as Arbor Day and Mayas Arbor Month in the City of
Golden Valley, and I urge all citizens to support efforts to protect our trees and
woodlands and to support our City's urban forestry program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, I urge all citizens to become more aware ofthe
importance of trees to their well-being, and to plant, nurture, protect, and wisely use
Golden Valley's great treasure of trees.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the great
seal of the City of Golden Valley to be affixed this 6th day of May 2008.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
alley
Memorandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8006/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
May 6, 2008
Agenda Item
3. H. Approval of Requests for Beer and/or Wine at Brookview Park
Prepared By
Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per City Code Section 10.83, Subd. 2 I. "No person shall possess, display, consume or
use alcoholic beverages on any City park property, unless permission is granted by the
Council." As part of the application process for a Facilities Use Permit to use the large and
small picnic shelters at Brookview Park the applicant has the option to pay an additional $8
to be able to serve beer and/or wine. Attached is a list of the individuals and/or organizations
who have requested that option.
Attachment
Beer and/or Wine Request List (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the requests for beer and/or wine at Brookview Park as recommended by
staff.
BEER AND/OR WINE REQUEST LIST
NUMBER CC
IN DATE
INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION DATE TIME GROUP SHELTER BEER OR WINE APPROVED
Juliet Mock 05-10 11 am - 4 pm 60 large beer & wine 05-06-08
Sheryl Marlone 05-31 11 am - 4 pm 50 large beer & wine 05-06-08
Claire Cahill 06-06 5 pm - dusk 80 large beer & wine 05-06-08
Minntech 06-11 5 pm - dusk 60 large beer & wine 05-06-08
Diane McCunn 06-12 5 pm - dusk 50 small beer & wine 05-06-08
Terri Rogich/Michelle Roberts 06-13 11 am - 4 pm 100 large beer & wine 05-06-08
Spanish Society 06-28 5 pm - dusk 100 large beer & wine 05-06-08
Amy Mosier 07 -04 5 pm - dusk 20 small beer & wine 05-06-08
Paula Deziel 07 -05 5 pm - dusk 50 large beer & wine 05-06-08
Rosella Morgan 07 -18 5 pm - dusk ? large beer & wine 05-06-08
Nancy Cooper 07 -26 11 am - dusk 75-100 large beer & wine 05-06-08
Mel Foster Company 08-14 11 am - dusk 200 large beer & wine 05-06-08
Nancy Cooper 08-23 11 am - dusk 75-100 large beer & wine 05-06-08
Bill Weiner 09-07 11 am - 4 pm 75 large beer & wine 05-06-08
Network Instruments 09-13 11 am - 4 pm 75 large beer & wine 05-06-08
Ruby Nelson 09-13 5 pm - dusk 60 large beer & wine 05-06-08
~lley
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
May 6, 2008
"60 Days" Deadline: May 30, 2008
Agenda Item
4. A. Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan Approval - PUD #105 - Xenia Ridge - 700 and
800 Xenia Avenue South
Prepared By
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Summary
At the April 14, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held an informal public
hearing on Xenia Ridge - PUD No.1 05. At the hearing, two persons spoke. Their comments
are outlined in the attached minutes from the meeting. A presentation was made by
representatives from Opus. After questioning by the Commission, the Commission
unanimously voted to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plan with the conditions that
are listed in my memo to the Planning Commission dated April 9, 2008.
On April 21, 2008, City staff met with Opus representatives to further discuss the traffic
management plan and other traffic related issues. As a result of this meeting, the Travel
Demand Management Plan and information attached to this plan will be amended to reflect
new information. With the addition of this new information, City staff believes that a revised
Travel Demand Management Plan and supplemental information provides the City with the
information needed to monitor and manage traffic generated from the Opus development
taking into consideration the other traffic generators in the area.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
April 14, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes (6 pages)
Applicant's Narrative dated December 4, 2007 (2 pages)
Letter from Ericka Miller, Opus, dated February 29, 2008 (1 page)
Memo to Planning Commission dated April 9, 2008 (4 pages)
Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated April 7, 2008 (8 pages)
Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated April 7, 2008 (2 pages)
Xenia Ridge Travel Demand Management Plan (24 pages, loose in agenda packet)
Color Renderings (4 pages, loose in agenda packet)
Site Plans (24 oversized pages, loose in agenda packet)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the preliminary design plan, Xenia Ridge, PUD No. 105, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The Xenia Ridge plan packet consisting of 24 sheets and prepared by Opus Northwest,
L.L.C. shall become a part of this approval. These plans sheets are listed on Sheet
Number CS and include the preliminary plat, site plan, grading plan, landscape plan and
floor plans.
2. Lighting plans must meet the requirements of the City's lighting code. Prior to approval of
building permits for the site, the proposed Photometric Site Plan will be further reviewed
to insure compliance with the plan.
3. The final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved by the Building Board of Review.
4. The findings and recommendations in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and dated April 7, 2008 shall become a part of this
recommendation. This includes Opus signing an agreement with the City of Golden Valley
that would agree to payment of special assessments for street and other public
improvements. Opus would also waive their right to appeal special assessments as part
of this agreement.
5. The findings and recommendations in the memo from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal
to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Zoning and dated April 7, 2008 shall become a
part of this recommendation.
6. The preliminary PUD plan for Xenia Ridge is consistent with the intent and purpose
provision of the PUD chapter of the zoning code and other planning and development
principles adhered to by the City.
B 8 6100 \~\
61:110
220
VI'
1ft
<, 225
~.
~ 245
;3:
108
116
200
20ii
340
300
2Ui
3lIII
.
400
700
! VI. [ I
I Subject Properties I.
~
l.AUllEL.6VE
o
o
o
o
SOIl
o
00
0000
11\....
.\8)
INTERSTATE 394
EB IJ94 TO 5B HWYl00 S
INTERSTATE 394
B
l~~:'J
5410
$ 'M~
we 1394 to PARK PLACE lllV}S
sa HWV10<fs ToW1l1394
394 HOV LN ,
o
o
o
o 6105
o
o
o
900
6224 6210
o
6010
5920
28
PARK pLACE BLVD S TO WB 1394
M~ ~:d\'''&l AtclMS x c(lP'.f'\'~9* {C~ LO!)jS GIS ~IOB
o
$\911
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 14, 2008
regular meeting of the Planning Co ,:mission was held at the Golden Valley
all, Council Chambers, 7800 G en Valley Road, Golden Valley,
, on Monday, April 14, 2008 ,chair Keysser called the meetin to order
Those present wer
McCarty, Schmidgall a
Development Mark Grimes,
Assistant Lisa Wittman.
ser, Kluchka,
irector of Planning and
om and Administrative
1. Approval of Minutes
Eck referred to page tw nd noted that t second senten .ould read "Schmidgall
stated that it means color goes all the ay 'through' a mate
Eck referred e fifth paragraph on pag five and noted that the word
should be" ropose".
MO D by Schmidgall, seconded by Klu ka and motion carried unanimously to
prove the March 10, 2008 minutes with. e above noted corrections.
2. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plan Review -- Planned Unit
Development - Xenia Ridge - PUD 105
Applicant: Opus Northwest, LLC
Address: 700 and 800 Xenia Avenue South
Purpose: To allow for the construction of approximately 279,000 square
feet of office space and approximately 11,300 square feet of
retail space
Grimes stated that Opus is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow
for the construction of a mixed use development on the northwest corner of Golden
Hills Drive and Xenia Avenue South. He noted that the development will consist of
approximately 279,000 square feet of office space, 11,300 square feet of
retail/restaurant space and a fairly large parking ramp which will include 60 spaces
for bicycle parking.
Grimes referred to a location map and stated that that this property is the former
Olympic printing site and it is the last large site in the Golden Hills Redevelopment
district.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 14, 2008
Page 2
Grimes stated that the property is designated Mixed Use on the General Land Use
Plan map and it is zoned Industrial but it will be rezoned to Mixed Use in the future.
He added that he believes this proposal will be consistent with the proposed new
Mixed Use Zoning District.
Grimes referred to City Engineer Jeff Oliver's memo and noted that the proposed
Traffic Management Plan will be also be reviewed by the City of 8t. Louis Park. He
added that Mr. Oliver would also like to see the installation of a mechanism to
count cars entering and leaving the ramp. He said that overall the proposed plans
seem to work well but it depends on a number of improvements being made on
Golden Hills Drive and Xenia Avenue in order to provide enough capacity in the
future. He explained that the applicant will be assessed for the street
improvements and they are also requesting tax increment financing to help with the
improvements.
Keysser asked Grimes to address the parking variance being requested. Grimes
explained that the applicant originally had planned to meet the parking
requirements but when the traffic plan was done they feel that the 90 less parking
spaces they've proposed will be adequate based on national parking studies. He
stated that generally, Golden Valley likes to see fewer parking spaces if possible
and he feels confident that the proposed amount of parking will work.
Kluchka asked Grimes if the proposed new Mixed Use Zoning District should be
approved by the City Council before this PUD is approved. Grimes said no
because this mixed use proposal is being handled through the PUD.
Keysser asked if there is anything in this PUD proposal that would not fit in with the
proposed new Mixed Use Zoning District. Grimes said he didn't think so.
Waldhauser noted that the building materials would not conform to the proposed
new Mixed Use Zoning District requirements. Grimes explained that the proposal
has to be reviewed using the ordinances that are in effect now because it is difficult
to start reviewing plans under one set of rules and finish reviewing them under a
different set of rules.
David Menke, Vice President of Development for Opus, stated that they have been
working on this proposal for approximately six months and they've incorporated the
input they've received from the neighborhood and city staff into their proposal. He
referred to a site plan and explained that the 5.8 acre site includes office space,
retail space and office condo space. He stated that the corner of Golden Hills Drive
and Xenia Avenue will be viewed as the "front door" of the building and they are
maximizing the green space on the site by having 1,092 parking spaces versus the
1,180 spaces required by the zoning code. He added that they are proposing to
construct a LEED certified building and one of the qualifications is to have fewer
parking spaces than required. He explained that the City's parking requirements
calculate the number of parking spaces based on gross square footage, but that
they are calculating the number of parking spaces based on rentable square
footage.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 14, 2008
Page 3
Menke referred to drawings of the proposed site and buildings and discussed the
layout of the buildings, the sidewalk connectivity and access to the site. He stated
that the buildings will be constructed of architectural, pre-cast panels and glass
curtains with a prominent top on the building to call attention to the front door. He
noted that there will be balconies on the southeast and southwest corners of the
office building and a patio on the north side.
Waldhauser asked if they are proposing a covered entry way on the front side of
the building. Menke said yes and referred to the drawings and pointed out the
entrance and covered area. He discussed the parking for the retail space and
noted that the retail building will help screen a large portion of the parking ramp.
Keysser asked if the office condos were above the retail space or if they were
going to be located in the main office building. Menke said the office condos will be
located above the retail space. He discussed the LEED certification process and
said that they are seeking the gold level of LEED certification (second highest
level) which is tough to do with a multi-tenant building. He discussed solar
orientation, storm water management, water use conservation, under-floor air
ductwork, bicycle parking, locker rooms and state-of-the-art conference rooms. He
referred to the traffic management plan and discussed trails, biking and walking in
the area.
Damon Farber, landscape architect for the project, referred to a drawing of the site
and discussed the vision. He noted that the pond and green space on the corner
will form a gateway and be a visual focus. He said that one very important element
in the design of the site was to make the buildings part of the neighborhood and
respecting the issues in the City. He discussed the series of sidewalks and trails
and noted that the west side of the parking ramp will be a "green wall". He
discussed the plaza area intended to invite the neighborhood in and create a true
sense of place.
Keysser referred to the top on the building and asked if that element will screen the
mechanicals on the roof. Menke said it will provide some screening.
Keysser referred to the building materials on the north wall and asked why it isn't
going to be curtain glass like the other sides. Menke said that is a quieter side of
the building so they wanted to make it less reflective and they wanted to call more
attention to the front.
Cera asked about the timeline of the project. Menke said they would like to begin
construction as soon as possible. He added that it is a challenging market and they
are working on pre-leasing the tenant space.
Keysser asked what type of retail use they envision in this space. Menke said it will
be service based retail. He said they received strong feedback from the
neighborhood that they would like to see some food based businesses.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 14, 2008
Page 4
Keysser asked about the potential size of the individual office condos. Menke said
they could be any size from as small as 1,500 square feet.
Kluchka asked how the West End development in St. Louis Park is impacting this
project. Menke said they are very confident about their retail space but that they
would like to be first to construct their office space.
Keysser asked if any thought had been given to building a small hotel on the site.
Menke stated that their early discussions included a hotel but they believe the
highest and best use for this site is retail and office.
Waldhauser asked Menke if they had considered wrapping the retail space around
the south end of the building. Menke said they had considered that option but it
would take out some of the parking spaces and they felt the area being proposed
for retail was the prime location.
McCarty asked if the office condo users will be able to use the facilities in the other
office building. Menke said yes.
Kluchka referred to the proposed patio on the north side of the building and asked
if that could be made into a more prominent entry. Menke said they wanted to have
the strong entrance element in the front. He said they wanted something in the
back to be a gathering area but not necessarily an entrance. He added that there
are also security issues with having another entrance. Kluchka said he feels there
is no entrance approach to the neighborhood on the north and he would like that
area to feel more approachable. Menke said they could explore the idea of an
entrance on the north but the feedback they got from the neighborhood was that
they wanted a quieter feel on that side of the building. Grimes added that the
applicant received clear direction from the City Council that they wanted the
emphasis of the building to be at the Xenia Avenue/Golden Hills Drive corner.
Waldhauser said she thinks the north side of the building is very attractive and
even though the patio area is not an official entrance it works well and looks like
the back of an apartment building and not just like the back of an office building.
Keysser asked if the retail businesses would have evening and weekend hours
and not just the same hours as the office tenants. Menke said the retail businesses
will have evening and weekend hours and that they will be able to dictate their own
hours.
McCarty asked if this project has room for growth or expansion upwards. Menke
said no.
Keysser referred to the requirement in the proposed new Mixed Use zoning district
regarding 20% of the front fayade being Kasota stone or another type of limestone
and asked how that requirement would have affected this project. Menke said he
thinks the plans would have been similar to what is being proposed. He added that
natural stone has maintenance issues and that some of the pre-cast materials are
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 14, 2008
Page 5
indistinguishable from Kasota stone. Keysser said he thinks the proposed building
is very attractive even though it is not "stone".
Kluchka asked if there will be any screening on the east elevation of the parking
ramp. Menke said yes. There will be an ornamental type of screening with cables
and vines.
Keysser opened the public hearing.
Dr. Arnold Leonard, 5212 Colonial Drive, said he would like to address the traffic
congestion in the area. He said with the recently completed apartment building at
Turners Crossroad north of the fire station, Colonnade, Allianz and now Opus their
neighborhood is boxed in. He said he would like to see access from the Glenwood
Avenue intersection with TH 100 to 1-394. This would allow better access to
downtown Minneapolis. He said there could be signs posted and the speed limits
could be decreased but the City should take responsibility to change the access on
Highway 100 going east so people in the area are satisfied.
Keysser asked Grimes why MnDOT won't open access to 1-394. Grimes said that
MnDOT has stated that opening access to 1-394 is a safety issue. He stated that
staff can ask MnDOT again about the issue, but he is not sure how they will
respond.
Dan Steinberg, 1033 Sumter Avenue South, said he likes the idea of looking at
something other than plywood on this site but his concern is also the traffic. He
suggested asking the County to widen Xenia to four lanes. Grimes explained that
Xenia is a city street, not a county street and that the City recently reconstructed
Xenia in an effort to control the traffic. Steinberg said he realized the street was
just rebuilt but with the West End development in St. Louis Park everyone is going
to try to get to Xenia and 1-394. Grimes explained that Golden Valley and St. Louis
Park are working on a bicycle and pedestrian study in this area in order to make it
as safe as possible.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public
hearing.
Kluchkaasked Grimes to address the traffic issues. Grimes explained that this
proposal is obviously going to create more trips and that is why the City is requiring
a traffic management plan and improvements to the streets. He stated that traffic
studies have been done with the previous proposals on this site and that staff feels
with the improvements being proposed it will be adequate for the traffic in the area.
He stated that the Golden Hills/Xenia intersection is the biggest concern because
of the car, bus and pedestrian traffic and that during peak hours itwill be
congested but future development has been factored into all the City's plans.
Cera referred to the proposed traffic management plan and questioned the
difference in the trip generation numbers in this plan compared to previous
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 14, 2008
Page 6
proposals. Grimes stated that many of the trips are peak hour trips and even with
the additional trips there still is the capacity to handle all of the additional traffic.
Waldhauser asked if the goal of 7% for non-motorized and transit trips is a good
goal. Grimes stated that Allianz has the same goal in their traffic management
plan. Keysser said it is hard to have more pedestrian trips with a multi-tenant
building. Grimes noted that Opus is proposing several things that he thinks will
increase the number of pedestrian trips beyond their goal. Menke added that the
LEED threshold is 5%.
Kluchka said he is concerned about the amount of parking and he finds it
interesting that LEED requirements want less parking. Menke said the requirement
of 4 parking spaces per 1,000 rentable square feet of office space is a ratio that is
pretty tried and true.
Keysser asked if the office condos will have an association. Menke said yes.
Eck said this seems to be a very well planned and thought out project.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the Preliminary Plans for Xenia Ridge PUD 105 with the
following conditions:
1. The Xenia Ridge plan packet consisting of 24 sheets and prepared by Opus
Northwest, L.L.C. shall become a part of this approval. These plans sheets are
listed on Sheet Number CS and include the preliminary plat, site plan, grading
plan, landscape plan and floor plans.
2. Lighting plans must meet the requirements of the City's lighting code. Prior to
approval of building permits for the site, the proposed Photometric Site Plan will
be further reviewed to ensure compliance with the plan.
3. The final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved by the Building Board of
Review.
4. The findings and recommendations in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver,
PE, to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and dated April 7, 2008 shall become a
part of this recommendation. This includes Opus signing an agreement with the
City of Golden Valley that would agree to payment of special assessments for
street and other public improvements. Opus would also waive their right to
appeal special assessments as part of this agreement.
5. The findings and recommendations in the memo from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire
Marshal to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Zoning and dated April?, 2008
shall become a part of this recommendation.
6. The preliminary PUD plan for Xenia Ridge is consistent with the intent and
purpose provision of the PUD chapter of the zoning code and other planning and
development principles adhered to by the City.
, QPUS@
Xenia Ridge
Narrative
PUD Application
December 4, 2007
*Changes reflect updated
plans submitted 2-29-08
Xenia Ridge is a 6 acre, mixed use office and retail development to be located at 700/800 Xenia
Avenue, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Designed and developed by Opus Northwest, L.L.C., ("Opus")
Xenia Ridge will offer state of the art office and retail space conveniently located along 1-394 and
Xenia Avenue, providing convenient access, high visibility and close proximity toa wide variety of
related retail amenities. These features, combined with Opus' plans to develop Xenia Ridge as a Gold-
Certified Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED Project) will make it one of the
premier office and retail projects in the Twin Cities.
278,842* 11,300*
The mixed-use development will consist of over;.;;:!65,eoo-square feet of Class A office and::fe;ooo-
square feet of retail providing a unique blend of uses that will be attractive not only to the tenants
within the project, but to the surrounding residential community as well.
PUD Goals
Opus has been working in close collaboration with the City to develop a project that responds to the
stated goals within the PUD ordinance. The following describes some of these planning concepts as
well as the overall development:
~ Development Overview And Architectural Character
The site consists of three primary structures: an 8 story office building, a parking ramp, and a
retail/office condominium structure.
The office building consists of 265,000 square feet and will be located on the northern third of
the property with its access oriented in an east-west direction. This location on the site allows the
building to frame the balance of the development with its front door along its southern fa'tade.
The office building's exterior materials will consist of a slightly reflective green glass with buff
colored architectural precast and metal accents. Each elevation of the building responds to the
site. The south face will contain a greater percentage of glass than any of the other elevations
allowing for maximum natural light into the building. The eastern fa'tade provides views of the
Minneapolis skyline and the north and west facades are softer in appearance with ribbon glass
and architectural precast in response to the wooded neighborhood they face. The building has
comer balconies on three sides. The south f8'tade also has a bold metal accent at its roofline
which will serve as screening for necessary mechanical equipment.
The parking ramp is situated on the site along the western border adjacent to the rail line and
industrial properties providing a natural buffer to these areas. The retail and office
condominiums will integrate along the eastern face of the parking ramp, providing a two story
element that frames the project's central court and gathering area. A continuous metal structure
between the retail and office condominiums provides not only a sheltered sidewalk for the
retailers, but also functions as an exterior balcony for the office users above.
, OP,US@
~ LEED Certification
Opus plans to seek Gold Certification under the LEED for Core and Shell category. Many of the
LEED requirements and goals will provide direct benefit to not only the users of space within the
building, but to the public as a whole. A few of the sustainable features Opus will incorporate
into the building include: onsite stormwater design and retention, high efficiency mechanical
systems, solar orientation of the office building, water use conservation through restricted flow
fixtures, bicycle storage, public transportation via onsite bus stop, under floor air distribution
(UFAD) providing tenants individual temperature control, and easier planning and layout of
space, significant diversion of construction waste from landfills to recycling programs, and
redevelopment of a brownfield site.
~ Landscaping
The heavily landscaped site is intended to compliment the surrounding area and create a
pedestrian-friendly destination for not only the office and retail tenants but the surrounding
residential neighborhood as well. The site includes a prominent water feature at the southeast
comer running along Xenia Avenue with a combination of both natural vegetation and hardscape.
This area will serve as a common gathering spot for the development and the community at large.
The property will be entirely flanked by sidewalks and/or walking paths providing easy and
intuitive pedestrian connections throughout. Additionally, the project will enjoy connections to
the City trail systems. These two trails pass along the project's border to the east and south.
~ Access and Traffic
The primary access point for office tenants will be along Golden Hills Drive, which serves as the
entry point for the parking deck. Secondary access, primarily for retail customers, will also take
place along Golden Hills Drive while a right-in and right-out access point will exist along Xenia
A venue. Finally, a single access point will exist along Laurel Avenue for loading and service
purposes only. This entrance and dock area has been strategically located between the parking
ramp and office tower so as to provide maximum screening from Laurel Avenue.
Pedestrian traffic between the office building and retail will enjoy a covered connection along the
retail frontage and office building's main entrance. Tenants, visitors and the general public will
also be able to enjoy the common green space and seating areas provided throughout the site.
A new MTC bus stop has been planned and incorporated into the site along Golden Hills Drive at
the southern portion of the property.
~ Parking and Maintenance
The parking requirement of 4 spaces per 1,000 rentable square feet has been met under the
submitted site plan. This was accomplished by incorporating on-grade parking plus five (5)
stories of decked parking. * (See.letter from Ericka ~Hller-Opus regarding parki~g
varlance)
A Reciprocal Easement Agreement will govern the use, operations, maintenance, repair design
and construction of the project and create the necessary easements for parking, access, utilities,
signage, construction, etc.
THE OPUS GROUP
OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C.
A member of The Opus Group
10350 Bren Road West
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Phone 952-656-4444
Fax 952-656-4529
, OPUS@
ARC HIT E C T S
CON T R ACT 0 R S
D EVE LOP E R S
WWW.opUScorp.com
February 29, 2008
Sent Via Courier
Mr. Mark Grimes
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
RE: 700 and 800 Xenia, Golden Valley - Xenia Ridge PUD Applicationll-394 Overlay Zoning District
Ordinance
Dear Mark,
Please find enclosed a Memo dated February 11, 2008 from Mark Anderson and me regarding changes to the
Preliminary POD application. Also enclosed are the revised plans based on the changes noted.
I would like to draw your attention to the change in parking. We are asking for a variance on the City's
requirement of 4 parking spaces per 1,000 gross square feet. Instead, we would propose a parking ratio of 4
parking spaces per 1,000 rentable square feet. The Traffic Demand Management Plan that has been drafted
(you should receive this today or Monday) suggests that the Institute of Transportation and Engineers (ITE)
analysis shows that only approximately 745 stalls will be used during an average weekday and with a total of
1,092 parking stalls we should be able to more than accommodate our tenants and visitors. Additionally, as
you know, the City of Golden Valley has in place an aggressive plan that requires owners to encourage
alternative forms of transportation (as outlined in the TDMP). We feel this is a good faith effort to begin that
process. Finally, we feel this will enhance our efforts to obtain the Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) certification we are seeking as alternative transportation is also one of the goals the LEED
certification encourages.
If you have any questions or need anything further, please feel free to contact meat 952-656-4643.
~Mt-
Ericka Miller
Sr. Manager - Real Estate Development
Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Encls.
Cc: David Menke
Thomas Shaver
David Hunt
Beth Duyvejonck
Jerome Ryan
Ryan Siemers
Mark Anderson
Al Daspin
THE OPUS GROUP: Atlanta. Austin . Boca Raton . Chicago . Columbus . Dallas. Denver. Houston. Indianapolis. Kansas City . Los Angeles. Milwaukee . Minneapolis
Naples. Orange County . Orlando. Pensacola. Philadelphia. Phoenix. Portland. Sacramento. San Diego. San Francisco. Seattle. St. Louis. Tampa. Washington, D.C.
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
April 9, 2009
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Plan for Xenia Ridge--PUD No. 105, Opus Northwest, L.L.C., Applicant
Introduction and Background
Opus Northwest has applied for Preliminary PUD Plan for the construction of a mixed use
development at the northwest corner of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive. The existing
buildings on this site are currently vacant and will soon be torn down. The site is about 5.9
acres. The proposed construction will include an 8 story, 279,000 sq. ft. of Class A office space
and about 11,300 sq. ft. of retail, service and restaurant space. There will also be a a"level
parking deck structure for approximately 1100 vehicles and ao bikes.
The site has been known as the Olympic Printing site because.the printing company was
located on the block for many years. Over the past couple of years, there have been proposals
for the redevelopment of the site that included office, residential and retail uses. Due to
changes in the housing and office market, these plans did not work out. Opus, a large national
developer and builder, has now acquired the rights to develop the site. They believe that this is
a great location for an office building with retail due to its closeness to downtown Minneapolis,
the freeway system and other high quality buildings in the area.
The property is currently designated on the General Land Use Plan map for Mixed Use and on
the Zoning Map as Light Industrial (including office). (A proposal to create a new mixed use
zoning category will be going forward to the Planning Commission and City Council starting
with an informal public hearing before the Planning Commission on April 14, 2008. Final
approval of the new zoning district could be before the City Council in Mayor June 2008.) The
proposed Opus mixed use development is consistent with the proposed mixed use general
land use plan designation, existing Light Industrial zoning and the proposed mixed use zoning
district. This site is also within the Golden Hills Redevelopment area that was established by
the City Council back in the 1984 to encourage high quality development near the freeway
intersection of Xenia Avenue and 1-394. The Xenia Ridge site is one of the last redevelopment
opportunities within the redevelopment area. The Redevelopment Plan states that the
recommended land uses for Olympic Printing site is medium to high density offices with
structured parking. Service uses are also a recommended land use. The proposed Xenia
Ridge development appears to be consistent the redevelopment plan.
1
PUD Process
City staff has reviewed this application for a PUD and it has been determined that the
application is complete. The applicant has submitted all information that is necessary to
accompany the preliminary plan stage of the PUD application. Also, the applicant has had a
pre-application meeting with City staff and held a neighborhood meeting in late 2007 in order
to introduce the development to those living in the area. At the neighborhood meeting,
comments were made and Opus has taken those comments into consideration when
developing their plans. Also, the staff has determined that the proposed Opus development is
consistent with the intent and purpose provision of the PUD chapter of the zoning code.
The PUD process consists of two stages. The first stage is the review and approval of the
Preliminary PUD plan. The Planning Commission is charged with reviewing the materials
submitted by the applicant and holding an informal public hearing on the application. After the
informal public hearing, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the preliminary
plan to the City Council. The Planning Commission must determine if the application is
consistent with the intent and purpose provision of the PUD requirements and principles and
standards adhered to by the City. The Planning Commission may recommend changes,
conditions or modifications to the preliminary PUD plan.
After receiving the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council holds a
public hearing on the preliminary plan. If the preliminary plan is approved by the City Council,
the applicant may then apply for the Final PUD Plan. The approval of the final plan also
requires an informal public hearing before the Planning Commission and a recommendation
from the Planning Commission. After receiving the recommendation of the Planning
Commission, the City Council holds a public hearing and then makes the final decision on the
approval of the final PUD plan. Generally, the approval of a PUD from preliminary plan
approval to final plan approval takes 3 to 6 months.
Review of Preliminary PUD Plan for Xenia Ridge
Opus applied for the Xenia Ridge PUD in December 2007. They were originally scheduled to
be heard in January 2008 but Opus requested a delay in order to review financing plans and to
make changes to the site plan based on comments received from City staff. A couple of weeks
ago, Opus said that they were ready to begin the review process.
Opus has submitted a thick set of plans for the site that have been reviewed by staff. City
Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, has written a detailed memo to me dated April 7, 2008, listing the
findings and concerns of the Public Works Department. His recommendations will be made a
part of the recommendations found at the end of this memo. I will not repeat what Mr. Oliver
states in his memo. However, I want to highlight several of his points.
There will have to be several improvements made to the street system adjoining this property
in order to accommodate the added traffic from this development and other anticipated
development in the area. The improvements included will be paid for by a combination of
assessments to benefiting property owners in the area and tax increment financing. Without
these improvements, City staff would not recommend approval of the Opus development.
The attached Travel Demand Management Plan is an important tool that the City has to
require that owners of buildings in the area to take responsibility for peak hour traffic. This plan
will have to be reviewed by the Joint Task Force consisting of representations from the Golden
Valley and St. Louis Park City Councils in order to ensure that reasonable access and flow of
2
traffic is maintained in the area. With the changes recommended by Mr. Oliver, the Travel
Demand Management Plan is acceptable.
Mr. Oliver's memo highlights the importance of trails and sidewalks in the area. The proposed
sidewalk and trail system proposed by Opus will compliment the existing pedestrian ways in
the area and allow for easier and safer pedestrian access to businesses along with
opportunities for exercise for residents and employees.
Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson has written a memo to me dated April 7, 2008 that address
issues important to the Public Safety Department. Mr. Anderson has told me that he is
confident that the comments raised in his memo will be incorporated in the final plans for the
PUD. These comments will also be made a part of my recommendation of approval.
I am attaching a copy of the PUD Narrative that was prepared by Opus and dated December
4,2007. This gives a good overview ofthe project and describes the building. There have
been a couple of small changes since this was written in December. First, the building space
includes 278,842 sq. ft. of Class A office space and 11,300 sq. ft. of retail and restaurant
space. (This number has increased from the original numbers of 265,000 sq. ft. of office space
and 10,000 sq. ft. of retail space.) Second, Opus would like provide 90 fewer parking spaces
than would be required by the City's parking chapter of the zoning code. (See attached letter
from Ericka Miller, Senior Manager with Opus to Mark Grimes dated February 29,2008.)
Opus contends that the Travel Demand Management Plan illustrates that this reduction of
parking will still leave more than adequate parking spaces based on the parking requirements
found in the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Parking Generation manual (2004).
(The memo addressing parking is the final memo attached to the Travel Demand Management
Plan dated February 2008.) Overall, this is a reduction of about 7% in parking over what the
code requires. If they are short on parking, the owner of the building would have to add more
spaces or restrict parking demand. On-street parking would not be an option.
As noted in the site plans, there will be 60 bike parking spaces on the first level of parking
deck. The City Code requires that there be bike parking at the rate of 5% of car parking. In this
case, the number of bike spaces exceeds the 5%.
Overall, the staff is pleased with the layout of the site. Opus has proposed a good pedestrian
circulation system throughout the site which they will maintain. They have also provided plaza
space at the corner of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive that will be used by employees in
the area and residents of the area. It is hoped that some of the retail in the Opus building will
attract employees and neighbors of the area. The water feature and landscaping of the site
should make it inviting space. As shown on the plans, there is seating proposed around the
pond and in front of the stores. The overall landscape plan appears to be well thought out. It
will have to receive final approval from the Building Board of Review.
The building is proposed to receive the Gold Certification from the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEE D) program. This means that it is being designed to a high level in
terms of energy efficiency and incorporates many sustainable features such as water use
conservation, on-site storm water design and retention and redevelopment of a brownfield site.
The building is proposed to be eight stories in height. This is two stories less than the tallest
Allianz building to the south along 1-394. Because of the substantial distance (over 300 ft.) of
this proposed building to the closest residential apartment to the northeast and northwest, this
eight story building should not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The building is
well designed with good materials. The parking deck is also well designed with the use of
3
quality materials. Opus has a good track record in terms of construction of quality buildings
and the maintenance of the buildings.
Recommended Action
Staff believes that the preliminary PUD plan for the Xenia Ridge mixed use development
should be approved. Opus has submitted plans that show a well thought out plan that includes
public spaces, sidewalks and trails, a mix of Uses and a building that will receive LEED
certification. Opus has committed to help pay their fair share to improve the existing street
system in order that traffic will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service during
peak hours. A travel demand management plan has been submitted that commits Opus to help
reduce peak hour traffic by various means. The recommended approvals have the following
conditions:
1. The Xenia Ridge plan packet consisting of 24 sheets and prepared by Opus Northwest,
L.L.C. shall become a part of this approval. These plans sheets are listed on Sheet Number
CS and include the preliminary plat, site plan, grading plan, landscape plan and floor plans.
2. Lighting plans must meet the requirements of the City's lighting code. Prior to approval of
building permits for the site, the proposed Photometric Site Plan will be further reviewed to
insure compliance with the plan.
3. The final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved by the Building Board of Review.
4. The findings and recommendations in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and dated April 7, 2008 shall become a part of this
recommendation. This includes Opus signing an agreement with the City of Golden Valley
that would agree to payment of special assessments for street and other public
improvements. Opus would also waive their right to appeal special assessments as part of
this agreement.
5. The findings and recommendations in the memo from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal to
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Zoning and dated April 7, 2008 shall become a part
of this recommendation.
6. The preliminary PUD plan for Xenia Ridge is consistent with the intent and purpose
provision of the PUD chapter of the zoning code and other planning and development
principles adhered to by the City.
Attachments
Applicant's Narrative dated December 4, 2007 (2 pages)
Letter from Ericka Miller, Opus, dated February 29, 2008 (1 page)
Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated April 7, 2008 (8 pages)
Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated April 7, 2008 (2 pages)
Xenia Ridge Travel Demand Management Plan (24 pages)
Color Renderings (4 pages)
Site Plans (24 oversized pages)
4
I,
alley
Public Works
763.593.8030 /763.593.3988 (fax)
Date:
April 7, 2008
(0~@~1I
From:
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Enginee~
Xenia Ridge, P.U.D. 105 ((Jj
To:
Subject:
Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) for
Xenia Ridge, a proposed office and retail development and a six story parking ramp.
The proposed PUD is located west of Xenia Avenue, North of Golden Hills Drive and
South of Laurel Avenue.
Public Improvements:
The City of Golden Valley is in the process of developing plans and specifications for a
public improvement project to modify Xenia Avenue, Golden Hills Drive and Laurel
Avenue in the vicinity of this development. These improvements include the installation
of turn lanes, medians, traffic signal modifications, storm drainage improvements and
utility modifications to accommodate this PUD and other existing and potential
development in the area.
This development will be subject to special assessments for the proposed public
improvement projects. These special assessments will be for benefits received by the
subject property for the street improvements, as well as for utility costs directly
attributed to this PUD. By entering into the PUD agreement with the City, the developer
agrees to waive their right to appeal the special assessments.
The developer also agrees to provide access to this site as may be needed for the
public improvement project.
Preliminary Plat and Site Plan:
The preliminary plat submitted by the developer includes the dedication of easements
and additional street right-of-way for the public improvement project as previously
discussed. The City of Golden Valley reserves the right to require additional easement
and right-of-way dedication on this site as construction plans are finalized. The
G:\Developments - Private\Xenia Ridge\PrePUD 040708.doc
developer will be required to dedicate any additional easements and right-of-way
determined necessary at no cost to the City.
There is an existing 60 foot wide easement for drainage purposes, originally dedicated
to the Minnesota Highway Department, along the western boundary of the proposed
PUD. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) vacated the storm sewer
within this easement as Trunk Highway 12 was upgraded to Interstate 394. Following
the vacation of the storm sewer, the pipe and the easement rights reverted to the City of
Golden Valley. Because the developer is proposing removal and replacement of the
storm sewer within the easement, the easement must be vacated as part of the PUD
approval and rededicated as shown on the preliminary plat. The developer must submit
an application for vacation of this drainage easement as part of the final PUD submittal.
The proposed site plan includes the construction of sidewalks and trails around the
perimeter of the PUD. The concrete sidewalks parallel to Xenia Avenue, Golden Hills
Drive and Laurel Avenues will be owned by the City of Golden Valley and maintained by
the developer. The maintenance requirements for these sidewalks will be included in
the development agreement for the PUD.
The City sidewalks must be located within walkway easements as shown on the
preliminary plat. The developer must submit legal descriptions for these walkway
easements with the submittal for the final PUD. The City will prepare the easement
documents for signing by the developer. The easement documents must be signed and
be ready for recording prior to approval of the final PUD.
The concrete sidewalks paralleling Golden Hills Drive, Xenia Avenue and Laurel
Avenue can be constructed by the developer, or as part of the City's public
improvement project. These walks should be installed near the end of the construction
sequencing of the two projects in order to minimize the risk of damaging the walks. The
City reserves the right to include the sidewalks in its project as construction progresses.
If the City constructs the sidewalks the costs will be specially assessed to this PUD.
The site plan indicates a piece of proposed sidewalk parallel and south of the Xenia
Avenue site access that directs pedestrians towards Xenia Avenue. There will riot be a
crosswalk installed at this location and encouraging pedestrians to cross at this location
creates a significant hazard. Therefore, this portion of proposed sidewalk must be
eliminated from the plans.
The bituminous trail along the western property boundary will be owned and maintained
by the developer. The winter maintenance of this trail must be consistent with the
maintenance of the public sidewalk system.
The PUD plans indicate that the bituminous trail along the west side of the site will enter
the adjacent railroad right-of-way at Laurel Avenue. The developer must obtain an
easement from the railroad for this trail, or modify the plans to stay within the
boundaries of the PUD.
G:\Developments - Private\Xenia Ridge\PrePUD 040708.doc
2
Access to the proposed PUD will be provided from Golden Hills Drive, Xenia Avenue
and Laurel Avenue. There are two access points from Golden Hills Drive. The first
driveway, located in the southwest corner of the site, provides full access into the
parking ramp. Because of the width of this driveway a center median should be installed
to separate the incoming and outgoing traffic at this driveway location.
The second access point from Golden Hills Drive is located approximately 260 feet west
of Xenia Avenue. The driveway will be limited to right-in/right-out access for westbound
traffic.
The Xenia Avenue access will also be limited to right-in/right-out turns for southbound
traffic on Xenia Avenue.
A full site access is proposed from Laurel Avenue in the northwest corner of the site.
This access will provide access into the parking ramp, but will also be the primary
service access to the site. It appears that in order to access the loading dock area ofthe
office building a truck must pull into the parking ramp and then back out towards the
loading dock. The developer must demonstrate that this truck maneuver is possible and
practical for all anticipated delivery vehicles, including full length semi trucks.
Based upon the plans submitted, it appears that access to the upper levels of the
parking ramp is only available from the south. The developer must clarify the circulation
and access patterns for the parking ramp and provide full parking access from all ramp
entrances.
The right-in/right-out access points from Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive are the
primary access points to the office building drop off and the parking lot in front of the
retail space. It appears that traffic entering the site from Golden Hills Drive wishing to
access the office building drop off will have a difficult left turn at the north-end ofthe
proposed median. The radius on the median should be reviewed, and be modified as
needed, to provide sufficient turning radius for cars and light delivery vehicles.
In addition, signing and striping must be installed in the vicinity of the drop off loop to
provide counter-clockwise circulation only. This should include prohibition of traffic
turning left into the loop after exiting the parking ramp.
All work performed by the developer within public street right-of-ways must comply with
the City's Right-of-Way Management Ordinance and be built consistent with City
standards and specifications.
G:\Developments - Private\Xenia Ridge\PrePUD 040708.doc
3
Travel Demand Management Plan:
The developer has submitted a Travel Demand Management Plan (TDMP) for the
proposed PUD. In order to minimize the impacts that traffic generated from this PUD
has on peak traffic periods, the developer has agreed to develop and implement an
incentive program to promote alternate modes of transportation. These measures
include providing bike lockers and shower facilities, promoting transit and car-pooling
incentives, flexible work schedules, scheduling truck deliveries for off-peak times,
designating a staff member to serve as Commuter Benefits Coordinator, conducting
commuter surveys and participating the formation of a Travel Management
Organization.
As with other office developments within the Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive area,
traffic generation during peak hours is a concern. As discussed above, the TDMP
outlines specific approaches to reducing the peak hour traffic flows to and from the
PUD. In order to provide the ability to further analyze trip generation in the future if
capacity issues develop in this area, the developer must provide the ability for the City
to monitor the traffic in and out of the parking ramp. This capability has been provided at
the Allianz parking ramp and has been included in recent discussions with the owners of
the Colonnade site. The final PUD plans must include specific information regarding a
traffic counting system.
Utility Plan:
The proposed PUD will receive sanitary sewer and water service from extensions of
existing facilities into the site. Adequate capacity is available in the City sanitary sewer
and water systems to accommodate this development.
The proposed sanitary sewer service into the site is acceptable as shown on the utility
plan. This service extension includes work within the right-of-way of Xenia Avenue as
part of the City's public improvement project, and extension of the service into the PUD
by the developer. The developer will be responsible for the construction costs for the
sewer service included in the City project. In addition, the developer will be responsible
for the maintenance of the sewer service from the City's main in Xenia Avenue into
each of the proposed buildings.
There are three existing sanitary sewer services to this site that will not be used
following development. These services will be removed as part of the City's public
improvement project, with all costs specially assessed to the developer.
The proposed water supply system shown on the utility plan must be modified to include
a looped watermain through the site. This loop should utilize the existing 10 inch
diameter pipe previously installed by the City near the Xenia Avenue site entrance, and
connect to the existing 8 inch diameter pipe near the southeast corner of the site. This
watermain loop must not pass beneath the commercial portion of the development as
G:\Developments - Private\Xenia Ridge\PrePUD 040708.doc
4
currently shown on the plans, and must include individual metered services to each of
the buildings.
The developer must remove the existing 6 inch diameter cast iron hydrant lead that
parallels Xenia Avenue. The new hydrant lead should be a 6 inch diameter ductile iron
pipe.
All watermains within the PUD will be owned and maintained by the developer.
Maintenance guidelines and requirements will be outlined in the development
agreement for the PUD.
The watermain loop, and all hydrant leads on site must be within 20 foot wide drainage
and utility easements as shown on the preliminary plat. The illustrated easements must
be revised to be consistent with the watermain loop discussed above.
Grading, Drainaae and Erosion Control:
This proposed PUD is located within the Sweeney Lake subdistrict of the Bassett Creek
Watershed. Therefore, the development is subject to the Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission's (BCWMC) Requirements for Improvements and
Development Proposals, including the non-degradation requirements. The plans for the
PUD must be approved by the BCWMC prior to final approval of the development.
The proposed development includes the construction of a nutrient and sediment
removal pond in the southeast corner of the site. Based upon the information submitted
it appears that this pond is adequately sized to provide water quality treatment for its
watershed. The discharge from this pond will flow into the existing storm sewer system
in Xenia Avenue, and northwards to the Sweeney Branch of Bassett Creek.
The existing storm sewer located along the western site boundary will be removed and
replaced as previously discussed in this review. The plans for relocating this storm
sewer must be modified to utilize reinforced concrete pipe for this storm sewer.
Due to the size of this development, the developer will be required to obtain a general
storm water discharge permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The
developer must submit a copy of this permit application to the Public Works Department
when the application is made, and a copy of the permit must be provided after it is
issued.
The developer will be required to obtain a City of Golden Valley Grading, Drainage and
Erosion Control Permit for this proposed project. This permit must be obtained prior to
the start of any work on site.
G:\Developrnents - Private\Xenia Ridge\PrePUD 040708.doc
5
Tree Preservation:
This proposed PUD is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. However, due
to the absence of tress on the site a Tree Preservation Permit will not be required. The
development will be required to comply with the City's minimum landscape standards.
Summary and Recommendations:
Public Works staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for the
proposed Xenia Ridge Planned Unit Development subject to the comments contained in
this review. A summary of the major issues to be addressed is as follows. However,
additional points to be addressed are included within the text of this report.
1) The developer must complete an application for easement vacation that runs
concurrently with the PUD Final Plan approval for the drainage easement along
the western edge of the site.
2) The portion of proposed sidewalk parallel to and south of the Xenia Avenue site
access must be removed from the plans.
3) The plans be modified so the asphalt trail in the northwest corner of the site be
located entirely within the subject property, or an easement be acquired from the
railroad for the trail as proposed.
4) The developer must demonstrate the need for the width of the site access in the
southwest corner of the site and include a center median in the driveway to
separate traffic.
5) The developer must address the truck turning and site access issues for
deliveries to the office building at the north access to the parking ramp as
discussed in this review.
6) The site plans must be modified to clarify the site circulation, signing and turning
radii in the vicinity of the office building drop off area and the eastern access
point to the parking ramp.
7) The developer must include ramp metering for all three access points to the
parking ramp, with details provided with the final PUD submittal.
8) The developer must modify the utility plan to incorporate the watermain loop and
other revisions discussed within this review.
G:\Developments - Private\Xenia Ridge\PrePUD 040708.doc
6
9) The PUD is subject to the review and comment of the Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission.
10)The developer must obtain the proper permits from the City of Golden Valley and
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and any other required permits not
specifically discussed, prior to the start of work on site.
The approval of this PUD is also subject to the review and comments of other City staff.
C: Mike Kotila, SEH
Jupe Hale, WSB
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections
Gary Johnson, Building Official
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal
Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator
Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
G:\Developments - Private\Xenia Ridge\PrePUD 040708.doc
7
..
..
-------------------------------------~
I
.'
i
I
J
I
I
!
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
{
i
I
I
I
I
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
I
I
j
I
I
i
I
{
I
I
,
I
!
I
j
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
I
I
I
"
I
I
"
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
--_.../
--.
"""""
'fttl....,.;_~
1If;I;'
lZ/WIJ}
a~
--
iii ~$l.tR
-.
J. l((.~~
.r~l> <l?~""",,"', I'l:<"ij! ;:t,l", 1lo- ,,~~ <>t
"OIOif,;.."".....:>tiw "'~.....".;.~._.
t:'~".",4"_
-~
. OPUS.
Opy:I~ld
Opua.l.LC.
&~'O
m.~I-ol.....
XENIA RIDGE
---
---....
-
-
-
-
---. .
.
-
-
.
-
..
..
..
~
~~.~
~
- I~~
-
GOi!leHVAUe', ~
~._._-----~
__ _---1
::=::?iliMffJ'f'U/LLS' DJ?
1'__
GROUND FLOOR
SITE PLAN
ffi
rmB
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
XENIA RIDGE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
Opus Northwest, LLC
Figure 2
CON$\Jl.TJNQ CllOOl'. [NC
0076333
January 2008
alley
Public Safety
Memorandum
Fire Department
763-593-8055/763-512-2497 (fax)
To:
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning & Zoning
From:
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal
Subject: PUD #105 - Xenia Ridge, 700-800 Xenia Avenue South- Revised Submittal
Date: April 7, 2008
Cc: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections
Jeff Oliver, City Engineer
The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the re-submittal of the proposed development
located at 700-800 Xenia Avenue South. Listed below are the additional or modified comments for
this proposed site development:
1. The location and installation of all new fire hydrants located in this development shall not be
obstructed in any manner or by any materials including, but not limited to, landscaping,
electrical equipment, gas meters and other means that would hinder the fire department
operation.
2. The location of the parking ramp structure shall have an access road around the building in
accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code. If the fire department access road cannot be
installed, an approved alternate means of fire protection or safeguards will be required. Fire
protection or safeguards include, but are not limited to, fire suppression systems, Class I
standpipes, fire alarm systems, and any other fire suppression or safeguard approved by the
code official.
3. The fire department access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of the fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving during the
construction phase and the completion of this development.
4. The landscaping materials that are designed for this site shall not be placed or kept near fire
hydrants, fire department connections, post indicator valves or other fire protection and control
valves in a manner that would prevent such equipment or fire hydrants from being immediately
deterred or hindered from gaining immediate access.
5. The post indicator valves for the fire suppression water supply system for each building and
parking ramp shall be protected by the requirements listed in the Minnesota State Fire Code
under "Vehicle Impact Protection." The post indicator valves shall also be distanced away
from the buildings in accordance with recognized standards.
6. The proposed retail concept for this site shall be designed in accordance with the Minnesota
State Fire Code.
7. The parking ramp concept for the proposed site shall be designed in accordance with the
Minnesota State Fire Code. Additional safeguards and fire protection equipment will be
required for this proposed site.
8. The proposed high-rise building for this site shall be designed in accordance with the Fire and
Building Codes and the high-rise occupancy requirements including, but not limited to, fire
department communication systems, elevator master control boards and other items indicated
in the Minnesota State Fire Code.
9. The fire department will require a rapid-entry lock box for this proposed site. This rapid-entry
lock box will be installed on all fire department access exterior entry doors and each tenant
space identified in the retail side of this plan.
10. The fire suppression system and standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with the
Minnesota State Fire Code and other recognized fire code standards.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 763-593-8065.
hlley
Memorand m
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
May 6, 2008
Agenda Item
4. 8. Public Hearing - Ordinance #397 - Amending Section 11.03 - Adding Definitions,
Amending Section 11.12 - Principal Structure on One Lot, Adoption of Section 11.47 - 1-394
Corridor Mixed Use Zoning District and Adoption of Section 11.48 - Site Plan Review
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
Upon the suggestion of the 1-394 Corridor Study, staff is recommending the approval of
Ordinance #397, creating the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District by amending City Code. The
District, which requires integrating development of compatible land uses strategically, has
language that has been specifically derived for the 1-394 Corridor. The creation of the 1-394
Mixed Use Zoning District will facilitate the separate process of rezoning properties within the
Corridor boundaries.
In December of 2007, the Land Use Plan Map was changed to reflect 1-394 Mixed Use
Zoning. State law requires zoning designations to be compatible with land use categories.
Staff and the Planning Commission have worked to refine the language of the 1-394 Mixed
Use Zoning District. After an extensive review period, the final draft of the 1-394 Mixed Use
Zoning District has been recommended to you by the Planning Commission. Director of
Planning and Development Mark Grimes has since revised the language contained in Section
11.48 Subdivision 4(A) and (8) to better reflect the intent of the Planning Commission.
Attachment
Memo to Planning Commission dated April 9, 2008 (1 page)
Planning Commission Minutes dated April 14, 2008 (3 pages)
Ordinance #397, Amending Section 11.03 - Adding Definitions, Amending Section 11.12 -
Principal Structure on One Lot, Adoption of Section 11.47 - 1-394 Corridor Mixed Use Zoning
District and Adoption of Section 11.48 - Site Plan Review (11 pages)
Location Map (1 page, loose in agenda packet)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Ordinance #397, Amending Section 11.03 - Adding Definitions, Amending
Section 11.12 - Principal Structure on One Lot, Adoption of Section 11.47 - 1-394 Corridor
Mixed Use Zoning District and Adoption of Section 11.48 - Site Plan Review.
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
April 9, 2008
To:
Planning Commission
From:
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Informal Public Hearing: Amendment to the City Code Adding the 1-394 Mixed
Use Zoning District
Subject:
After extensive review of the language contained within the proposed 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning
District, the Planning Department requests your recommendation of approval of the creation of
the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District (Section 11.47 of City Code.) It is the intent of the City to
ultimately rezone the properties located in the 1-394 Corridor Study Area with this zoning
classification.
In December, 2007, the Land Use Plan Map was changed to reflect the 1-394 Mixed Use
Zoning District. State law requires zoning designations to comply with land use categories. The
adoption of the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District will facilitate this process. These changes
reflect recommendations made by the 1-394 Corridor Study Report. The report and its findings
were presented to the Planning Commission in February 2007. At that time, affected property
owners were also informed of the findings. Since that time, with the direction of the Planning
Commission, staff have revised various language contained in the Ordinance.
Staff asks for your support in recommending adoption of an ordinance amending City Code to
add the 1-394 Mixed-Use Zoning District.
Attachments:
March 10, 2008 Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes (4 pages)
Memo from Joe Hogeboom dated March 11, 2008 (2 pages)
Proposed Ordinance related to Mixed-Use Zoning District (11 pages)
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 14, 2008
Page 7
3. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Adopting the
Mixed Use Zoning District for the 1-394 Corridor area
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To adopt the 1-394 Corridor Mixed Use. Zoning District
Hogeboom reminded the Planning Commission that the General Land Use Plan
map was amended in December of 2007 to re-designate the properties in the 1-394
Corridor study area to Mixed Use. He referred to the proposed new Mixed Use
zoning district language and noted that he added a definition for sustainable
development as directed and incorporated the changes the Commissioners
suggested the last time they reviewed it.
Keysser asked how non-conforming properties will be treated. Hogeboom
explained that this public hearing is to adopt the zoning district language and that
the properties themselves will be rezoned to Mixed Use in the future. Grimes
explained that all non-conforming properties will be allowed to remain as is.
Kluchka said he likes the proposed new definition for sustainable development.
Cera said he didn't like the language about environmental degradation because it
leaves a loophole. Hogeboom said it is difficult to come up with an objective
definition for sustainable development. Cera said he would rather have no
definition than the new one being proposed. Schmidgall said he likes the definition
that was used in the comprehensive plan. McCarty said he thinks the people that
will use this ordinance will know what sustainable means. The Commissioners
agreed to use the definition used in the comprehensive plan as follows:
Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs.
Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 7(C)(2) regarding minimum density and
suggested the language in the parentheses be struck. The Commissioners agreed.
Cera referred to Subdivision 7(D) regarding maximum floor area ratio and asked
what the 0.6 means. Grimes explained that properties with a floor area ratio over
0.6 means that they have to have a traffic management plan.
McCarty referred to Subdivision 8(E)(2) regarding building materials and stated he
doesn't think they need to require at least 20% of the fayade facing the primary
street be faced with Kasota stone or other indigenous dolomitic limestone because
he doesn't want to limit architectural freedom. Grimes noted that Subdivision 9
regarding alternative approaches to development standards allows for some
flexibility .
Schmidgall said he likes the stone requirement because it "sets the bar" a little
higher. McCarty said he doesn't want every building to look the same. Keysser
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 14, 2008
Page 8
agreed with McCarty and said he does not want design limits or criteria. Kluchka
said they can't assume that every developer is going to build something nice. He
added that if the language regarding building materials is left in the ordinance then
they can be sure there is a certain level of quality. Keysser stated that requiring
20% of the front fayade to be stone does not guarantee quality, it just guarantees a
certain look. Waldhauser suggested the language say stone or an equivalent
quality product.
Grimes referred to Section 11.48, Subdivision (4)(A) regarding site plan application
and pointed out that there is a site plan review process for building plans which do
not involve a variance or conditional use. Keysser said he would like the Planning
Commission to have a design review function for whatever materials a developer
proposes. Waldhauser said she thought they were trying to avoid being a design
board. Keysser said he thinks some of the requirements could be taken out of
Subdivision 8(E). Grimes explained that the City also has a Building Board of
Review that reviews site plans as well. Keysser said he would like to take out the
building materials requirements and have the Planning Commission have the
authority to review development standards. Kluchka said he wants to ensure
quality, not necessarily design. McCarty asked who is going to define quality and
aesthetics. He suggested not reviewing design standards at all. Grimes reiterated
that there is a site plan review process in the proposed new ordinance.
Keysser opened the public hearing.
Steve Fichtel, 435 Idaho Avenue North, stated that there will be quite a few
existing developments such as the Golden Hills Office Park that will become non-
conforming. Grimes stated developments that are in a PUD will be considered
conforming.
Fichtel said he has a concern about this ordinance not encouraging re-use or re-
adaptive use of buildings. McCarty noted that the language regarding sustainable
development somewhat addresses that issue.
Fichtel said that the more accommodations that are made for cars the more
prevalent cars become and he doesn't think on-street parking is being encouraged.
Grimes stated that the availability of on-street parking depends on the street. He
noted that this proposed ordinance puts parking areas in the back of the buildings
but that the City would encourage on-street parking where it is feasible.
Fichtel referred to Subdivision 6(G) regarding maximum impervious coverage and
noted that it says in this subdivision that the maximum impervious coverage is 65%
but later in a different subdivision it says that 15% of the site has to be green. He
questioned if those two amounts should total 1 00%. Waldhauser agreed that the
gap in those numbers should be addressed. Grimes explained that the 15%
requirement is required open space, not green space so it could consist of a plaza,
park, play area, trails, etc.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 14, 2008
Page 9
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public
hearing.
Kluchka referred to the parking requirements and said that it seems to say that the
City really wants parking to be on the side or to the rear of buildings. He said he
wants the City to allow and encourage on-street parking. Grimes stated that if a
street is wide enough the City won't limit on-street parking. Cera suggested adding
the words "off-street" to the first sentence in Subdivision 8(G).
Kluchka asked if the Planning Commission could get the City Attorney's opinion on
whether or not they have the ability to say no to a project based on design
requirements. Grimes said he would have the City Attorney write an opinion.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to
recommend the Adoption the Mixed Use Zoning District for the 1-394 Corridor area
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No other meetings were discussed.
5. Other Business
Keysser reminded the Commissioners that they can sign up for the GTS land use
workshops
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 pm.
Lester Eck, Secretary
ORDINANCE NO. 397, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
AMENDING SECTION 11.03 - ADDING DEFINITIONS
AMENDING SECTION 11.12 - PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON ONE LOT
ADOPTION OF SECTION 11.47 - 1-394 CORRIDOR MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT
ADOPTION OF SECTION 11.48 - SITE PLAN REVIEW
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. Section 11.03 is amended by adding the following as new paragraphs in
alphabetical order and renumbering the remaining paragraphs:
"Display Window" - A window at street level, typically part of a storefront facade,
used to display merchandise.
"Live-Work Unit" - A dwelling unit in combination with a shop, office, studio, or other
work space within the same building, where the resident occupant both lives and works.
"Park" - An open space with natural vegetation and landscaping, which may include
recreational facilities, designed to serve the recreation needs of the residents of the
community.
"Play Area" - A small park developed primarily for use by children, which typically
contains play equipment, seating, and may include other facilities such as basketball or
tennis courts.
"Plaza" - An open space that is generally open to the public and used for passive
recreational activities and relaxation. Plazas are areas typically provided with amenities
such as seating, paving, water features, public art, shade trees, grass and other
landscaping.
"Sustainable Development" - Development 'JJhich engages diverse stakeholders in
respectful and open decision making processes, expresses values that have been adopted
by the community, focuses on long term land use issues, works to'.vard equitable
distribution of resources, and is socially acceptable to its surroundings and to the
community as a 'Nhole. Sustainable development must minimize environmental degradation
and meet or exceed standards set forth by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Sustainable development must prove its ability to be compatible for current
and future uses. Development that meets the needs of the present without compromisino
the abilitv of future oenerations to meet their own needs.
Section 2. Section 11.12 of the City Code is hereby amended by changing it to read
as follows:
SECTION 11.12. PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON ONE LOT. In all of the zoning
distriots, Except for properties within the 1-394 Mixed Use Zonino District or reoulated under
the Planned Unit Development Reoulations of this Chapter. every principal structure
erected in the City after the effective date of this section (October 3, 1991) shall be located
on a separate lot and in no case shall there be more than one principal structure on a lot.
Section 3. A new Section 11.47 entitled 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District, is hereby
adopted to read as follows:
SECTION 11.47.1-394 MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT.
Subdivision 1. Purpose. The City of Golden Valley has undertaken a study
of the 1-394 Corridor with the intent of improving the area's cohesiveness, attractiveness,
and sustainability. The purpose of the 1-394 Mixed Use ("MU") Zoning District is to
implement the principles and recommendations of the 1-394 Corridor Study. The principles
are as follows:
A. Enable the corridor to evolve toward a diverse mix of land uses,
including residential as well as commercial and industrial.
B. Maximize integration rather than separation of land uses, where
appropriate.
C. Maintain the corridor as an employment center.
D. Improve the visual coherence and attractiveness of the corridor.
E. Improve connectivity for all modes of transportation.
F. Foster neighborhood-serving retail and services.
G. Maintain or improve the functioning of intersections and highway
interchanges.
H. Foster sustainable development and work to establish a balance
between urban and natural systems.
The District includes specific standards for building form, height, bulk and placement in
order to encourage development that is varied, visually appealing, accessible to non-
motorized transportation and pedestrian-oriented. It is designed to complement the
standards of the 1-394 Overlay District.
Subdivision 2. District Established. Properties shall be established within
the 1-394 MU Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of
this Chapter. The district thus established anq/or any subsequent changes to such district
shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this
Chapter.
Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the
1-394 MY Mixed Use Zoninq District:
A. Multiple Dwelling (three or more units)
B. Elderly and Handicapped Housing
C. All permitted uses in the Commercial Zoning District, provided that
such uses are combined with other permitted or conditional uses within a mixed-use
building, and that the gross floor area occupied by any such single use shall not exceed
10,000 square feet.
D. Class I and III Restaurants
E. Business and professional offices, provided that the gross floor area
occupied by the use(s) on any lot shall not exceed 10,000 square feet.
F. Medical clinics
G. Live-work units
H. All uses permitted in the Institutional Zoning Districts, 1-1 through 1-3
I. Child Care Facilities
J. Adult Day Care Centers
K. Structured parking accessory to any permitted use
Subdivision 4. Conditional Uses.
A. Class II Restaurants
B. Any permitted use in the Commercial zoninQ district commercial use
or restaurant in a free-standing building.
C. Any permitted or conditional use allowed in the Commercial zoninQ
district commercial use occupying more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area.
D. Business and professional offices occupying more than 10,000
square feet on any zoning lot. The City Council may establish a maximum amount of office
development that will be permitted on any zoning lot, based upon traffic studies as required
by the 1-394 Overlay Zoning District, using appropriate minimum Levels of Service.
E. Research and development laboratories
F. Convenience stores, including the sale of gasoline.
G. Drive-in or drive-through facilities accessory to any permitted or
conditional use.
H. Buildings exceeding the height limits specified in Subdivision 6(D).
Subdivision 5. Standards for Live-Work Units. The purpose of a live-work
unit is to provide a transitional use type between a home occupation and a larger
commercial enterprise., and to provide neighborhood oriented commercial services, v:hile
maintaining a generally residential character in '.vhich the 'Nork space is subordinate to the
residential use.
A. The work space may be located on any floor of the building, but
businesses serving the public shall generally be located on the first floor for accessibility.
Office or studio spaces or other low-traffic activities may be located on upper floors or
basements.
B. The dwelling unit component shall maintain a separate entrance
located on the front or side facade and accessible from the primary abutting public street.
c. The work space component of the unit shall not exceed thirty (30)
percent of the total gross floor area of the unit.
Q C. A total of two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for a
live-work unit, located to the rear of the unit, or in an underground or enclosed space.
e. D. The business component of the building may include offices,
small service establishments, home crafts which are typically considered accessory to a
dwelling unit, or limited retailing (by appointment only) associated with fine arts, crafts, or
personal services. It may not include a '::holesale business, a manufacturing business, a
commercial food service requiring a license, a limousine business or auto service or repair
for any vehicles other than those registered to residents of the property.
f. E. The business of the live-work unit must be conducted by a person
who resides in the dwelling unit. The business shall not employ more than two workers on-
site at anyone time who live outside of the live-work unit.
F. All buildinQs that permit live-work units shall adopt rules to reQulate
their operations in order to ensure that live-work units function harmoniouslv with other
livinQ units within the buildinQ.
Subdivision 6. Dimensional Standards.
A. Minimum front yard setback, buildings:
1. Nonresidential or mixed uses facing an R-1 zoning district
across a public street: 75 feet (measured from right-of-way)
2. Residential uses facing an R-1 zoning district across a public
street: 30 feet.
3. Buildings with residential uses at ground level: 10 feet from
edge of right-of-way.
4. Buildings with nonresidential uses at ground level: no
minimum setback.
5. All setbacks shall be landscaped according to the standards
of Subdivision 8 hereof.
B. Front, side and rear yard setbacks, surface parking: at least 15 feet,
landscaped according to the standards of Subdivision 8 hereof.
C. Side and rear yard setbacks, buildings:
1. Adjoining an R-1 or R-2 zoning district: 50 feet
2. Adjoining any other district: 10 feet
D. Maximum height: three height subdistricts, designated as "A"
through "C" are established, as shown on Figure 1. Maximum height shall not exceed the
following except by Conditional Use Permit:
1. Subdistrict A (Low): three stories
2. Subdistrict B (Medium): six stories
3. Subdistrict C (High): 10 stories
E. Transitional height. Buildings or portions of buildings located within
75 feet of a residential district boundary shall not exceed the maximum height permitted
within that residential district.
F. Minimum height. 2 stories. Buildinos occupying 10.000 5.000
square feet or more must be two stories in heioht. A one-story wing or section of a taller
building may be permitted if it comprises no more than 25% of the length of the fayade.
G. Maximum impervious coverage. The maximum impervious
coverage is 65%.
Subdivision 7. Density and Mix of Uses. Mix of uses, minimum densities
and floor area ratios are established to ensure that new development or redevelopment
achieves the goals of the 1-394 Corridor Study and contributes to a lively, pedestrian-
oriented environment.
A. Required mix of uses. Development sites over 2 one acres in size iR
height subdistrict C shall include at least two use types from the following categories:
1. Residential
2. Commercial
3. Office
4. Other, including studios and other live-work uses
B. Required open space. Development sites over twe one acres in size
shall reserve at least 15% of the site as ~ designed and landscaped open space, consisting
ef-a plaza, green, park, play area, trail or parkway or combination thereof.
C. Minimum density, residential development
1. If housing is part of a mixed use development, no minimum
density is required.
2. Freestanding residential buildings shall be developed at a
minimum density of 15 units per net residential acre, with the exception of buildings or
portions of buildings located within 75 feet of a residential district boundary (no minimum
density applies in this transitional area).
D. Maximum floor area ratio. Non-residential and mixed uses: 0.6
except by Conditional Use.
Subdivision 8. Development Standards. This section establishes objective
development standards for all uses within the District. Standards are intended to encourage
creative and sustainable approaches to development, and therefore allow some degree of
flexibility in that some are mandatory and others are suggested:
A. Building placement. Buildings shall be placed close to the adjacent
primary street where practicable. Primary streets include: Laurel Avenue and the north-
south streets of Xenia, Colorado, Hampshire, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.
(Additional primary streets may be established in the future.) Parking and services uses
should be located in the interior of the site in order to create a vibrant pedestrian
environment, slow traffic, and increase the visual interest and attractiveness of the area.
B. Building design. Building facades over 30 feet in length shall be
visually divided into smaller increments by architectural elements such as recesses,
openings, variation in materials or details. Building tops shall be defined with the use of
architectural details such as cornices, parapets, contrasting materials or varied window or
roof shapes. Buildings should have a defined base, middle and top, and employ elements
that relate to the human scale and appeal to the pedestrian, such as awnings, windows or
arcades.
C. Transparency. Views into and out of nonresidential buildings shall
be provided to enliven the streetscape and enhance security.
1. Where nonresidential uses occupy the ground floor level,
window and door openings shall comprise at least 60% of the length and 30% of the area
of the ground floor fa9ade facing the primary street and shall be located between three and
eight feet above the adjacent grade level. Window and door or balcony openings shall
comprise at least 15% of upper stories and side and rear facades.
2. Where residential uses occupy the ground floor level, window
and door openings shall comprise at least 20% of the primary fa9ade and 15% of each side
and rear fa9ade.
3. Window and door openings shall be clear or slightly tinted to
allow unobstructed views into and out of buildings. Views shall not be blocked between
three and eight feet above grade by storage, shelving mechanical equipment or other visual
barriers. Display windows, if designed to provide equivalent visual interest, may be
considered as an alternative approach as provided in Subdivision 8. The display area
behind the window shall be at least four feet deep and shall be used to display
merchandise.
D. Building entrances. Building entrances shall be provided on the
primary street on which the building fronts, in addition to any entrances from rear or side
parking areas. Street entrances shall be lighted and defined by means of a canopy, portico,
recess, or other architectural details.
E. Building materials.
1. Exterior wall finish. Exterior wall surfaces of all buildings,
excluding those portions of foundation walls extending above finished grade, shall be faced
with glass, exterior cement plaster (stucco), natural stone, brick, architectural concrete,
non-corrugated metal, or an equivalent or better. Use of masonry and other durable
materials is preferred. Except for gl3ss, all exterior wall material shall be inteqrallv colored.
all color shall be integral to the exterior 'Nail finish material.
2. At least 20% of the fac;ade facing the primary street shall be
faced with Kasota stone or other indigenous dolomitic limestone.
3. When used as architectural trim, up to 15% of the exterior
wall surface of a building elevation may be wood, metal, exterior insulation finish system
(EIFS) or other equivalent materials as approved by the Director of Planning and
Development.
4. Fac;ade treatment. All building facades shall be constructed
with materials of equivalent levels of quality to those used on the front fac;ade, except
where a fac;ade is not visible to the public.
F. Building colors. Bright or primary colors shall be limited to 15% of all
street-facing facades and roofs, except when used in public art or on an awning.
G. Parking location. Off-street Pparking shall be located to the side and
rear of buildings to the maximum extent feasible. Off-street Pparking within front yard
setbacks between buildings and the primary street shall be limited to a maximum depth of
40 feet. On-street parkinq will be encouraqed where appropriate and feasible.
H. Parking screening. Parking areas shall be screened from public
streets, sidewalks and paths by a landscaped frontage strip at least five feet wide. If a
parking area contains over 100 spaces, the frontage strip shall be increased to eight feet in
width.
1. Within the frontage strip, screening shall consist of either a
masonry wall, berm or hedge or combination that forms a screen a minimum of 3.5 and a
maximum of four feet in height, and not less than 50% opaque on a year-round basis.
2. Trees shall be planted at a minimum of one deciduous tree
per 50 feet within the frontage strip.
I. Structured parking. The ground floor facade of any parking structure
abutting any public street or walkway shall be designed and architecturally detailed in a
manner consistent with adjacent commercial or office buildings.
1. Upper floors shall be designed so that sloped floors typical of
parking structures do not dominate the appearance of the fac;ade.
2. Entrance drives to structured parking (including underground
parking) shall be located and designed to minimize interference with pedestrian movement.
Pedestrian walks should be continued across driveways.
3. The appearance of structured parking entrances shall be
minimized so that they do not dominate the street frontage of a building. Possible
techniques include recessing the entry; extending portions of the structure over the entry;
using screening and landscaping to soften the appearance of the entry; using the smallest
curb cut and driveway possible; and subordinating the parking entrance (compared to the
pedestrian entrance) in terms of size, prominence, location and design emphasis.
J. Pedestrian circulation.
1. Sidewalks shall be required along all street frontages, and
sidewalk and trail design shall be consistent with the City of Golden Valley Public Sidewalk
and Trail Policy.
2. A well-defined pedestrian path shall be provided from the
sidewalk to each principal customer/resident entrance of a building. Walkways shall be
located so that the distance between street and entrance is minimized. Walkways shall be
at least six feet in width, and shall be distinguished through pavement material from the
surrounding parking lot. Walkways shall be landscaped for at least 50% of their length with
trees, shrubs, flower beds and/or planter pots.
3. Sidewalks of at least six feet in width shall be provided along
all building facades that abut public parking areas.
4. Sidewalks shall be maintained by the adjacent property
owner.
K. Drive-through facilities.
1. Drive-through elements shall not be located between the front
fac;ade of the principal building and the street. No service shall be rendered, deliveries
made or sales conducted within the required front yard, although tables may be provided
for customer use.
2. Site design shall accommodate a logical and safe vehicle and
pedestrian circulation pattern. Adequate queuing lane space shall be provided, without
interfering with on-site parking/circulation.
3. Drive-through canopies and other structures, where present,
shall be constructed from the same materials as the primary building, and with a similar
level of architectural quality and detailing.
4. Sound from any speakers used on the premises shall not be
audible above a level of normal conversation at the boundary of any surrounding residential
district or on any residential property.
L. Outdoor seating and service areas. Outdoor seating and garbage
receptacles are encouraged within front, side or rear setback areas, and temporary seating
may be permitted within rights-of-way, provided that sidewalks remain clear to a width of
five feet. Service windows for serving food and beverages may be permitted as part of any
building fa9ade. Garbage receptacles shall be maintained by the property owner.
M. Public art. Public art is encouraged as a component of new
development 'Nithin the I 394.
Subdivision 9. Alternative Approaches to Development Standards.
Although many of the development standards in this Section are mandatory, there may be
other ways to achieve the same design objective. The City may permit alternative
approaches that, in its determination, meet the intent of the development standards equally
well or when specific physical conditions of the site or building would make compliance
infeasible or inappropriate.
Section 4. A new Section 11.48 entitled Site Plan Review, is hereby adopted to read
as follows:
SECTION 11.48. SITE PLAN REVIEW.
Subdivision 1. Purpose. Site plan review standards are established to
promote development that is compatible with nearby properties, neighborhood character
and natural features, and consistent with the comprehensive plan and/or area plans
adopted by the City Council. The regulations in this Section are intended to minimize
pedestrian and vehicular conflict, to promote public safety, and to encourage a high quality
of development. The regulations recognize the unique character of land and development
throughout the City and the need for flexibility in site plan review.
Subdivision 2. When .Required. Within the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District,
site plan approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit for any proposed
construction or issuance of a zoning certificate for any proposed use, with the following
exceptions:
A. Construction or alteration of an accessory structure. single family
dwelling or accessory building;
B. A use within an existing building that has received site plan
approval, if the establishment of the use does not alter the approved site plan for the
property.
C. Proposed modifications that are strictly related to the interior of the
building.
D. Modifications, additions, or enlargements to a building which do not
increase the gross floor area by more than 500 square feet or 10%, whichever is less, and
which do not require a variance from the provisions of this ordinance.
E. Alteration or expansion of an existing parking lot that results in a
change of no greater than 10% of the total number of parking spaces.
F. Grading or site preparation that results in minor modifications to the
existing site, as approved by the City Engineer.
Subdivision 3. Required Information. All site plans shall be drawn to scale
and shall contain all the following information, except to the extent specifically waived in
writing by the Director of Planning and Development:
A. Project name, location, developer, and designer of the project.
B. Evidence of ownership or an interest in the property.
C. Property dimensions and boundaries.
D. The existing and intended use of the property and all structures
upon it, including floor area, number of dwelling units proposed, parking, circulation,
landscaping, signage, and stormwater management and snow storage facilities.
E. Any other information deemed necessary by the Director of
Planning and Development.
Subdivision 4. Site Plan Application. Applications for site plan approval
shall be made on forms provided by the City.
A. Site and building plans '/.'hich do not involve a variance or
conditional use, and do not involve other matters requiring consideration by the Planning
Commission or City Council may be approved by the Director of Planning and
Development. I\n administrative review shall be completed 'Nithin 30 days of receipt of
complete plans, and the applicant v:i11 be notified by mail. I\dministrative decisions may bo
appealed to the Planning Commission.
B. Site or building plans involving a conditional use, or other matters
requiring consideration by the Planning Commission shall be reviewed by that body. The
Planning Commission shall make findings and recommendations to the City Council.
A. Site or buildinQ plans shall be approved bv the PlanninQ Commission. The
approval shall be completed within 30 days of receipt of complete plans. The applicant shall
be notified bv U.S. mail of the decision of the Planning Commission. Within 30 days of the
decision of the PlanninQ Commission. the applicant may file a written appeal of the decision
to the Director of PlanninQ and Development, thereby appealinQ the PlanninQ Commission
decision to the City Council. The City Council shall. within 30 days from the date of such
appeal. make its findinqs and determinations with respect to the appeal and serve written
notice to the appellant bv U.S. mail.
B. All developments that require 1) a variance and 2) site and buildinq
plan review shall obtain the variance prior to starting the buildinq or site plan review
process. C. Site or building plans involving a variance shall be revielNed deoided by the
Board of Zoning Appeals.
Subdivision 5. Site Plan Review Standards. Site plans shall be reviewed
with reference to:
A. Conformance to the applicable standards of the City Code and other
city requirements
B. Where applicable, consistency with the development standards and
objectives established for the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning Distriot or specific areas or districts
in the Comprehensive Plan or other area plans adopted by the City.
Section 5. 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 6. This Ordinance shall take effect atter its publication as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this 6th day of May, 2008.
IslLinda R. Loomis
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
IslSusan M. Virniq
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
hlley
Memorandu
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
May 6, 2008
Agenda Item
6. A. Authorizing Issuance and Sale of: $6,680,000 General Obligation Street Bonds, Series
2008A and $750,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series
2008B
Prepared By
Susan Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The proceeds of the $6,680,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2008A, will
finance the non-MSA street and driveway projects included in the 2008 Pavement
Management Program. This project has already been approved by the City Council. The
street improvement bonds will have a term of twenty years and an estimated net interest rate
of 4.02%. The debt service on these bonds will be repaid from tax levies and special
assessments levied against benefited properties.
The proceeds of the $750,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates, Series 2008B, will
finance public works and public safety equipment included in the 2008-2012 CIP. The
equipment certificates will have a term of three years and an estimated net interest rate of
2.89%. The debt service on the certificates will be repaid from annual tax levies.
If approved, the sale date of all bond issues will be Tuesday, June 3,2008 with Council
approval scheduled for that evening.
Attachments
Resolution Authorizing Issuance and Sale of $6,680,000 General Obligation Improvement
Bonds, Series 2008A (1 page)
Resolution Authorizing Issuance and Sale of $750,000 General Obligation Equipment
Certificates, Series 2008B (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Issuance and Sale of $6,680,000 General Obligation
Improvement Bonds, Series 2008A.
Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Issuance and Sale of $750,000 General Obligation
Equipment Certificates, Series 2008B.
Resolution 08-21
May 6, 2008
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $6,680,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2008A
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the
City), as follows:
SECTION 1. PURPOSE. It is hereby determined to be in the best interests of the City to
issue its General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2008A, in the principal amount of
$6,680,000 (the Bonds), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475, to finance
various street improvement projects in the City.
SECTION 2. TERMS OF PROPOSAL. Springsted Incorporated, financial consultant to the
City, has presented to this Council a form of Terms of Proposal for the Bonds which is
attached hereto and hereby approved and shall be placed on file by the Clerk. Each and all
of the provisions of the Terms of Proposal are hereby adopted as the terms and conditions
of the Bonds and of the sale thereof. Springsted Incorporated is hereby authorized,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2, paragraph (9), to solicit
proposals for the Bonds on behalf of the City on a negotiated basis.
SECTION 3. SALE MEETING. This Council shall meet at the time and place shown in the
Terms of Proposal, for the purpose of considering proposals for the purchase of the Bonds
and of taking such action thereon as may be in the best interests of the City.
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.
Resolution 08-22
May 6, 2008
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $750,000 GENERAL
OBLIGATION EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS, SERIES 2008B
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the
City), as follows:
SECTION 1. PURPOSE. It is hereby determined to be in the best interests of the City to
issue its General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2008B, in the
principal amount of $750,000 (the Bonds), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
412.301 and Chapter 475, to finance various items of capital equipment.
SECTION 2. TERMS OF PROPOSAL. Springsted Incorporated, financial consultant to the
City, has presented to this Council a form of Terms of Proposal for the Bonds which is
attached hereto and hereby approved and shall be placed on file by the Clerk. Each and all
of the provisions of the Terms of Proposal are hereby adopted as the terms and conditions
of the Bonds and of the sale thereof. Springsted Incorporated is hereby authorized,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2, paragraph (9), to solicit
proposals for the Bonds on behalf of the City on a negotiated basis.
SECTION 3. SALE MEETING. This Council shall meet at the time and place shown in the
Terms of Proposal, for the purpose of considering proposals for the purchase of the Bonds
and of taking such action thereon as may be in the best interests of the City.
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.