The URL can be used to link to this page

01-12-09 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, January 12, 2009 7pm 1. Approval of Minutes a. December 8, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Surface Water Management Plan Element a. Applicant: City of Golden Valley b. Purpose: To recommend approval the Surface Water Management Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan 3. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - 721 Hampshire Avenue South - CU-124 a. Applicant: Imola Motorsports, Kevin Tan b. Address: 721 Hampshire Avenue South c. Purpose: To allow an auto repair/maintenance business in the Mixed Use zoning district 4. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Paved Surface/Patio Setback Requirements in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District c. Applicant: City of Golden Valley d. Purpose: To amend the R-1 Single Family Zoning District in regard to paved surface/patio setback requirements 5. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding Definition of "Building Height" a. Applicant: City of Golden Valley b. Purpose: To amend the definition of Building Height in the City Code 6. Short Recess 7. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 8. Other Business 9. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72- 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 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, December 8,2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. 1. Approval of Minutes November 24, 2008 Regular Planning Com Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, KI Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planni Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative As Eck referred to his question on the first page he would like Virnig's answer clarified. Grime as follows: Eck asked about the recyclin scheduled for the Brookview parking ling fund and said the sentence be changed ussed a one-time repair d by the recycling fund. MOVED by Eck, seconded by the November 24 minutes wit arried unanimously to approve correction. 2. Informal Public Island Ave e Rhode Island Avenue North allow three existing lots to be consolidated into one new lot to a survey of the property and explained that the applicant is onsolidate three existing lots into one new lot. The size of the propose w lot will be approximately 23,000 square feet. He stated that the existing home was built on the far west edge of the property and has virtually no rear yard setback area. Because of this, the applicant received a variance to allow for the construction of a garage which is not located comp>letely to the rear of the house as the zoning code requires. He added that the existing garage will remain and will continue to be used for the new house being constructed. Grimes explained that the reason the applicant is required to consolidate these lots is because he wants to build a new house on the property but the City does not want the new house to be constructed over the existing property lines. He added that the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2008 Page 2 applicant will not be issued a certificate of occupancy for the new house until the existing house is demolished. Grimes referred to the City Engineer's staff report and explained that the City requires that street right-of-ways be 60 feet in width. The existing street right-of-way for Rhode Island Avenue is 40 feet wide so the City is requiring a 10-foot roadway easement be dedicated across the subject property in addition to a 1 O-foot wide drainage and utility easement. Grimes stated that this lot consolidation will eliminate the various pr this lot. In the future the property owner will have enough room f that would meet current zoning code requirements. However, stated that he has no plans to subdivide the property into d Avenue eet. Grimes eet. He added d Avenue shown on ts Id be taken from the of-way area. Waldhauser referred to the 40 feet of existing right-of-wa . and asked if that is measured from the curb or from the explained that the easement will be measured to t that there will be 20-feet of additional easeme the applicant's property. In the future, additio other side of the street to get the 60 feet of r Keysser referred to the new home c applicant was allowed to start co consolidation request. He ask was not approved. Grimes ag this proposal is a benefit ~ allowing the applicant t nd questioned why the G~':;i'pe approval of this lot appen to the new house if this request r is out of sync but said he felt that d sta thought there wouldn't be any issues ruction process. , Keysser asked if newly built home w applicant is m . re created from this property in the future if the setback requirements. Grimes said yes, the back requirements. the house across the street from the subject property until W n the existing home was built. Peter Ralph, applicant stated that built in 1928 and that it is his understanding that it was the original the area. McCarty asked if the north 1/3 of Lot 2 belongs to the property owner to the north. Grimes said yes. Schmidgall referred to the survey of the property and noted that the house to the north is sitting right on a property line. Grimes stated that if and when that property owner to the north wants to do anything to his property that house will have to be brought into conformance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8,2008 Page 3 Grimes noted that the applicant could legally build three homes on this property because right now there are three legally platted lots of record. Keysser asked the applicant if he is considering possibly splitting this property into two lots in the future. Ralph said he is building the new house in such a way that the lot could be split into two lots in the future, but that is not in his immediate plans. McCarty asked if there is work space above the existing garage. Ralph said there is just storage space above the garage. McCarty asked if the storage space counts in figuring the total amount of accessory structure space. Grimes said Iy the footprint of the accessory structure is counted. 3. ink fence property to the Keysser opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no Keysser closed the public hearing. Kluchka referred to the survey of the property and asked that appears to go through the house to north. Key north is not included in this request. Waldhauser stated that this request seems p Schmidgall said he was a little startl has already started. Grimes reiter to begin before the proper app straightforward and almost ad uction on the new house ilYIIIIS%pnstruction would not be allowed n granted but in this case it is very , ature. "!ji" Kluchka urged the appl' house is demolished. they can and that the building materials when the existing e planning on recycling and reusing what will be very "green". MOVED by C recommend a at 1425 aldhauser and motion carried unanimously to 1I0w three existing lots to be consolidated into one new lot nue North on of Resolution No. 08-01 Finding that the Redevelopment the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Project Area Conforms to the omprehensive Plan Grimes explained that the Planning Commission considering the Douglas Drive Redevelopment project area is one of the implementation tools in the Douglas Drive Corridor Study process. He added that the HRA has drafted the Plan and now the Planning Commission and the City Council need to review it. Keysser stated that adopting this redevelopment plan opens the door to various types of assistance such as tax increment financing or tax abatement for example. Grimes agreed. He referred to the Applewood Pointe senior housing proposal at the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2008 Page 4 corner of Golden Valley Road and Douglas which is in this proposed redevelopment area and stated that at this point that proposal is on hold per the applicant's request. He explained that one of the ways United Properties (Applewood Pointe) is hoping to finance their project is through Tax Increment Financing and in order to do that this redevelopment plan has to be established. Cera referred to the map of the proposed redevelopment area and asked why it did not go all the way south to Highway 55. Hogeboom stated that the redevelopment area map focused on the most likely areas of redevelopment. Keysser noted that including the area all the way to Highway 55 in the redevelopment uld then include the former Homesteader restaurant property at the corne 55 and Douglas. posed a.He e City did not unities in the mend the boundaries Kluchka asked if the Douglas Drive Corridor Study Com . area. Grimes said that the HRA defined the proposed re explained that the plan started with the Applewood Point limit the plan to just that specific area because the Douglas Drive Corridor. He added that the Cit of the redevelopment area in the future. McCarty questioned if the proposed re further to the north. Kluchka said he Corridor Study area included in thO principles listed in the redevelo asked how TIF districts are d used. Grimes stated that said he thinks it would Douglas Drive Corridor hould also be expanded e entire Douglas Drive Ian because the goals and appropriate for the entire corridor. He rea was larger if TIF could still be e to be in a redevelopment area. Kluchka est interest to include as much of the elopment plan was written in reaction to the it makes it look like that project already has all the eds from the City when it doesn't. He said he agrees that ap should include the entire Douglas Drive Corridor area. ds like the Planning Commission agrees with the redevelopment p and that they would like the HRA to consider changing the the entire Douglas Drive Corridor study area. McCarty said he is not comfortable having language regarding Applewood Pointe in the redevelopment plan at all. Grimes explained that the Planning Commission's options are to table the redevelopment plan review and ask for more information from the HRA or recommend approval of the redevelopment plan noting the issues that have been discussed regarding expanding the boundaries of the map and removing the language regarding the Applewood Pointe proposal. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8,2008 Page 5 Keysser said he would like to recommend approval of the redevelopment plan with the items they've discussed noted. Schmidgall stated that the items they've discussed are significant changes and he would rather vote to table the redevelopment plan review. McCarty agreed and said he would like to see the plan again with the proposed changes. Kluchka agreed that it would send a stronger message to say no to this plan and review it again with the proposed changes. Waldhauser questioned if adding more properties to the redevelopment map would mean that more properties would be eligible for TIF and it might affect the property values. 5. iewin Grimes suggested the Planning Commission table the redevel order to understand better why it was done the way it was. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and moti table consideration of Resolution No. 08-01 finding<~~at th the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Project Area con'Ei: Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commissi the Applewood Pointe proposal removed and to include the full Douglas Drive Corridor Stu n . ously to ent Plan for e s language regarding t area be expanded Reports on Meeti Council, Board using and Redevelopment Authority, City als and other Meetings Schmidgall stated reported that the re tabled to the attendanc . ed the December 2 City Council meeting. He t for the property at 3335 Scott Avenue North was ouncil meeting because the applicant was not in 6. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8 pm. alley mo dum Public Works 763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax) Date: January 12, 2009 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development From: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Subject: Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment Surface Water Management Plan Element A final draft of the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) has been completed. All of the appropriate agencies have reviewed the SWMP including the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC), Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Board of Soil and Water Resources, Metropolitan Council and adjacent cities. The majority of the comments received were related to technical data, clarification and the addition of reference materials. The SWMP has met the requirements of the Minnesota Statutes 103B.235, Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410, and the requirements of the two watershed organizations with jurisdiction in the City. According to Minnesota Statutes 103B.235, Subd. 4, once the SWMP has been approved by the watershed organizations, the City must adopt and implement the SWMP within 120 days of their approval. The watersheds completed their approval on September 18, 2008. Therefore, in order for the SWMP process to meet the requirements of the law, the plan will have to be treated as a separate document and be approved prior to the schedule for the remaining chapters of the comprehensive plan. The Executive Summary of the SWMP is attached. The complete plan can be viewed on the City's website (http://www.cLQolden-vallev.mn.us/zoning/compplan.htm). Staff recommends approval of the Surface Water Management Plan chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. C: Jeff Oliver, City Engineer G:\Surface Water Mgmt Plan\2008 SWMP\Memo Plannnig Commission.docx Chapter 10 ..,..Surface Water ............ ............ -"-.-... -"-"-.-_...~....-_-_-_-~_..._",-..._... "'~J'f'J" ^-"'_~J'c^-^-^" ,,-^-^.^-^-^-^-^.AJ'..A.A.A.....AA.^-^-^-^-AA.^ ^A.A.A."'_ AA.A................ ...................................... ..._...,......-._10.,........"......_10. ..._........................................... ......". ^ A'" ............_................................................................... .........,. . Introduction · Goals and Policies · Implementation Acknowledgements City Council Linda R. Loomis, Mayor Mike Freiberg Paula Pentel DeDe Scanlon Bob Shaffer Planning Commission David Cera Les Eck Don Keysser - Chair John Kluchka Dean McCarty Steve Schmidgall Cathy Waldhauser Environmental Commission Tracy Anderson Richard Baker Ryan Chandlee Dawn Hill Jon Pawluk Siah St. Clair City Staff Thomas Burt, City Manager Jeanne Andre, Assistant City Manager Mark Grimes, AICP, Director of Planning and Development Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Jeff Oliver, City Engineer Al Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Cheryl Weiler, Communications Coordinator Kristi Bucher, Graphic Designer Consultant Karen Chandler, Tim Brown, Jennifer Koehler, Alicia Duncan; Barr Engineering Co. Table of Contents Contents 1. Introduction Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) ...............................................................10-1 Regulatory History and Background..........................................................................10-3 How the SWMP is Organized .....................................................................................10-5 2. Goals and Policies Water Quality of Lakes and Streams.......................................................................... 10-7 Water Quality of Storm Water Runoff .......................................................................10-9 Illicit Discharge Detgection and Elimination ............................................................10-10 Streams....................................................................................................................... 10-11 Flood Control.............................................................................................................. 10-11 Erosion and Sediment Control................................................................................... 10-13 Wetlands and Natural Resources ...............................................................................10-14 Recreation, Habitat, and Shoreland Management ....................................................10-15 Groundwater............................................................................................................... 10-15 Funding....................................................................................................................... 10-16 Education and Public Involvement............................................................................10-16 3. Implementation Discussion.................................................................................................................. .10-17 City of Golden Valley u..r Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 Section 1: Introduction resources include Bassett Creek, large recreational lakes, wetlands, wooded areas, and parks. As a result of the City's water management efforts, many of these areas have been preserved from development and other pressures. Part of the City's ongoing water management efforts involved preparing a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) in accordance with Minnesota Statute 103B.235 and Minnesota Rules 8410. Because this stand-alone document impacts land use planning and development within the city, it has been incorporated into Golden Valley's Comprehensive Plan through in-text references and as an appendix. This chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan summarizes the SWMP, including water resource management-related issues, goals, policies, and implementation activities (see Appendix A fQr the complete SWM:r). CG OLDEN VALLEY'S land and water Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) According to state statute, water management programs are meant to: 10-2 Chapter 10: Surface Water Table 10.1: Summary of Golden Valley Stormwater Issues Category Issue · Public education and outreach NPDES Stormwater · Public participation Pollution Prevention · Illicit discharge detection and elimination Plan (SWPPP) · Construction site runoff control · Post construction storm water management · Pollution prevention/housekeeping . Bassett Creek . Sweeney lake . Wirth lake Impaired Waters · Medicine lake . lake Hiawatha . lake Pepin · Other future listed waters Minnehaha Creek Watershed District · Phosphorus loading reduction requirement · Wetland protection Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Watershed · Flood control Organizations · lake water quality · Stream channel stabilization · Wetland protection · Erosion control · Groundwater protection · Water resources education · Reduction of storm water volume · Increasing storm water quality · Maximizing infiltration Metropolitan Council . Thermal pollution · Wetland management · Nondegradation goals · Water quality goals · Update of city-wide hydrologic modeling . Redevelopment . Interagency cooperation · Storm water system maintenance programming · Development of storm water ordinance . Storm water pond upgrades and sediment removal · Private storm water facility maintenance City Issues · Bassett Creek stream bank erosion · Public ditch maintenance/disposition . Flood protection of homes/land acquisition in flood prone areas . Public education . Decola Ponds flooding · Inter-community drainage · 1-394 Corridor Study · protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems . minimize public capital expendi- tures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems . identify and plan for means to effec- tively protect and improve surface and groundwater quality · establish more uniform local poli- cies and official controls for surface and groundwater management . prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems . promote groundwater recharge · protect and enhance fish and wild- life habitat and water recreational facilities · secure the other benefits associated with proper management of surface and ground water In short, the SWMP provides a com- plete and intensive guide and refer- ence for managing water resources within Golden Valley. It will assist the City with policy decisions, water resource management, implementa- tion priorities, regulatory program references, and capital improvement budgeting for water resource issues. Table 10.1 summarizes Golden Valley's storm water issues. The current SWMP replaces the 1999 "City of Golden Valley Surface Wa- ter Management Plan." It meets the requirements of Minnesota Statute 103B.235, Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410, and the watershed organizations with jurisdiction in the city, including the Bassett Creek Watershed Man- agement Commission (BCWMC) and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). City of Golden Valley 0<f' Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 Chapter 10: Surface Water 10-3 ReguLatory History and Background Besides the purposes and require- ments outlined in state statutes and rules, Golden Valley's SWMP reflects numerous other water resource-re- lated state and federal mandates* the City must meet. As state and federal laws have changed over the years, the City's role in water resource manage- ment has also changed. 1940s In 1945, the Minnesota Legislature authorized a new state Water Pollu- tion Control Commission because too many communities were dumping raw sewage into lakes and rivers. One of the Commission's jobs was to encour- age communities to build wastewater treatment plants to stop the flow of raw sewage into rivers and lakes. Three years later, the US Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), in response to the threat that polluted water posed to the public health and welfare. 1960s and 1970s In 1967, the Minnesota Legislature created the Minnesota Pollution Con- trol Agency (MPCA) in response to oil spills and other major environmental incidents. Its mission was to protect the air, land, and waters of the state. Five years later, in 1972, the US Con- gress amended the FWPCA to address the growing public awareness and concern for controlling water pollu- tion. This act became known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). Amendments to the CWA in 1977 ad- dressed "point source" facilities, such as municipal sewage plants and indus- trial facilities. The new program for regulation of point source pollution was called National Pollutant Dis- charge Elimination System (NPDES). As a "delegated permitting authority," the MPCA issues combined State Dis- posal System (SDS) and NPDES storm water permits. 1980s and 1990s In 1987, the Minnesota Legislature enacted laws to control polluted run- off, broadening attention from "point" source to "nonpoint" source pollution. Nonpoint source is the movement of pollutants from land to water, typi- cally in storm water or snowmelt run- off from streets, lawns, construction sites, farms, etc. Also that year, state regulatory authority for this program was delegated from the US Environ- mental Protection Agency (EP A) to the MPCA. A 1987 amendment to the federal Clean Water Act required im- plementation of a two-phase compre- hensive national program to address storm water runoff. In 1990, the EPAestablished the Phase I Stormwater Program. These federal regulations required that two general categories of storm water discharges be covered under a NPDES storm wa- ter permit. One involved 11 regulated categories of industrial activity, includ- ing construction activity that disturbs five or more acres of land. The other involved municipalities with separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) serving populations of 100,000 or more (in- cluding Minneapolis and St Paul). In 1994 and 1995, the MPCA estab- lished the Phase I Stormwater Pro- gram at the state level. Under Phase '" :r 9. o cT '< ~ ~. !: fr ~. ~ Stonn water pond at Brookuiew Park in 2000, before water quality initiatives I, Minneapolis and St Paul obtained individual permits and designed and implemented storm water programs. In 1999, the Phase II federal regula- tions were established, which expand- ed the scope of the NPDES Stormwa- ter Program to include smaller MS4s in urbanized areas, construction activ- ities that disturb between one and five acres of land, and smaller municipally owned industrial activities. The MPCA then promulgated rules related to the Phase II federal regulations to fulfill federal NPDES delegation responsi- bilities. The rules establish the NPDES storm water permit requirements for regulated MS4s, construction, and in- dustrial activities. 2000 To Present Phase II of the NPDES program began in 2003. Phase II is a broader program that includes smaller construction sites, municipally owned or operated industrial activity, and many more MS4s. Parties regulated under the "References: "Minnesota Environment," Minnesota Pollution Control A ( T pca.state,mn,us. and the City of P!v1l1outh's JlllvjAIWII"t "'007 J't'. . fg:Ency, MPCA), \ oltnne. 7, Number l-Summer 2007, the MPCA's website www, o . 0 '" ~ ~ e( I IOn 0 nVlronmental Extra' City of Golden Valley o...r Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 10-4 Chapter 10: Surface Water '" :0- S ~ 0- q ~ ~ Pond at Brookview Park after the City planted a native buffer zone to improve water quality Phase II program must develop storm water pollution prevention plans to address their storm water discharges. They also must determine the appro- priate pollution prevention practices, or best management practices (BMPs), to minimize pollution for their specific sites. Each of the three permit types (construction, industrial, MS4) has distinct requirements, and some regu- lated parties may require more than one permit. In 2003, the MPCA issued a MS4 Gen- eral Permit for municipalities with populations over 10,000, including Golden Valley. The permit requires cities to comply with six minimum control measures, which include pub- lic education, public outreach, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site storm water runoff control, post-construction storm water management, and pollution preven- tion/good housekeeping measures. The Phase II federal regulations man- dated that approximately 200 MS4s in Minnesota required NPDES permit coverage; these include municipalities located within the boundaries of an urbanized area. In 2006, the MPCA issued a new MS4 General Permit. The new permit iden- tifies a group of 30 selected MS4s that must complete a Loading Assessment and a Nondegradation Report as part of their MS4 Storm Water Permits. These MS4s must assess the volume of total suspended solids (soil, sand, and silt), phosphorus, and water in storm water runoff and establish a non-deg- radation plan to keep pollutant load- ings at 1988 levels. The City of Golden Valley is not part of this group of 30, although many neighboring cities are. The Clean Water Act (CWA) also re- quires states to adopt water quality standards to protect the nation's wa- ters. Water quality standards desig- nate beneficial uses for each water body and establish criteria that must be met within the water body to main- tain the water quality necessary to support its designated use(s). Section 303( d) of the CW A requires each state to identify and establish priority rank- ings for waters that do not meet water quality standards. The list of impaired waters, sometimes called the 303(d) list, is updated by the states every two years. In 2002, the MPCA began identify- ing surface water resources that are impaired for their identified uses (swimming, aquatic habitat, etc). As required by the Clean Water Act, if a water body is included on the im- paired waters list, it triggers an analy- sis called a total maximum daily load (TMDL) study. The TMDL analysis determines the impaired water body's capacity to assimilate specific pollut- ants and still meet water quality stan- dards. A TMDL also develops an al- location scheme amongst the various contributors-point sources, non point sources, and natural background-as well as a margin of safety. These regulations and requirements have led the City of Golden Valley and other similar cities to follow specific requirements for preparation of: · the MS4 General Storm Water Per- mit Application and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program City of Golden Valley e. <1" Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 Chapter 10: Surface Water 10-5 · the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) · future updates to the NPDES-MS4 permit and SWMP to address the requirements of future TMDL analyses. How The SWMP Is Organized Golden Valley's SWMP sets the course for the City's management of its wa- ter resources and storm water. It also provides data and other background information, outlines the applicable regulations, assesses city-wide and specific issues, sets goals and policies for the city and its resources, and lists implementation tasks to achieve the goals. The SWMP has six major sec- tions: Executive Summary, Goals and Policies, Land and Water Resource In- ventory, Assessment of Problems and Issues, Implementation Program, and References. Executive Summary Section 1 provides information about Golden Valley's location and history and summarizes the highlights of the SWMP, including its purpose and scope, goals, policies, and implemen- tation tasks. Goals and Policies Section 2 presents the City's surface water-related goals and policies, the regulatory framework, and other agencies' responsibilities. These goals and policies are also outlined starting on page 10-7. Land and Water Resource Inventory The first part of Section 3 provides technical information as well as maps and tables that describe the surface and subsurface conditions of the city, including land use, public utilities, cli- mate and precipitation, topography, soils, geology, groundwater, Minne- sota Department of Natural Resourc- es (MDNR) public waters, wetlands, surface water resource monitoring information, water body classifica- tion, floodplain information, unique features and scenic areas, pollutant sources, and major basins and overall drainage patterns. The second part of Section 3 presents an inventory of the major drainage basins in the city, including information about water- sheds, watershed area, land use, and other notable information. Assessment of Problems and Issues Section 4 assesses city-wide and spe- cific issues and problems under broad topic areas such as: · water quality, or general storm water runoff quality, including nonpoint source runoff and phos- phorus loadings, impaired waters and TMDL issues, and many spe- cific water quality issues · flood control, including general is- sues and specific flooding and rate issues · erosion and sediment control, in- cluding the general causes and impacts of erosion and sedimenta- tion, specific examples of erosion and sedimentation problems in the city, and the city's implementation and enforcement of its ordinances and approval processes · adequacy of existing programs, in- cluding the city's ordinances and official controls, the BCWMC and MCWD classification systems, the city's education and public involve- ment program, maintenance of the city's storm water system, ground- water protection, and the city's capital improvement and imple- mentation programs Implementation Program Section 5 of the City's SWMP de- scribes significant components of the implementation program, including Golden Valley's NPDES Phase II MS4 permit, operation and maintenance of its storm water system, education and public involvement, funding, or- dinance implementation and official controls, implementation priorities, and SWMP update and amendment procedures. The implementation pro- gram is also summarized starting on page 10-17. References This section lists the documents and other references used in preparation of the SWMP. City of Golden Valley o.r Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 Chapter 10: Surface Water 10-7 ';,1 Section 2: Goals and Policies 1 HE City of Golden Valley is proactive in the area of water resource management, reflecting the value the community places on natural resources. Its goals and policies are designed to continue to improve the quality and effectiveness of water resource planning and management in Golden Valley. The goals and policies are outlined according to 10 categories: Water Quality of Lakes and Streams; Water Quality of Storm Water Runoff; Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination; Streams; Flood Control; Erosion and Sediment Control; Wetlands and Natural Resources; Recreation, Habitat, and Shoreland Management; Groundwater; and Education and Public Involvement. Water Quality of Lakes and Streams Goals A. Manage Golden Valley's water resources with input from the public so the beneficial uses of wetlands, lakes, and streams remain available to the community. Such uses may include aesthetic appreciation, wildlife observation, swimming, boating, or others. 10-8 Chapter 10: Surface Water B. Improve the quality of Bassett Creek and city lakes to en- hance aesthetic viewing and recreational opportunities in Golden Valley. C. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and main- tain shoreland integrity. D. Meet current and future phosphorous and other pollut- ant load reductions (eg, TMDLs) required for the City of Golden Valley by the state or watershed management organizations. E. Manage Golden Valley lakes such that the more strin- gent of the BCWMC goals or the MPCA impaired waters criteria Oisted in Table 10.2) are met or exceeded. Policies 1. Develop objectives and guidelines to evaluate and pro- tect the natural aesthetics and attractiveness of lakes, ponds, and adjacent uplands. 2. Manage lakes and streams to meet or exceed BCWMC water quality goals and to exceed MPCA impaired wa- ters criteria. 3. Work with the BCWMC to implement the improvement options listed in its capital improvement program based on feasibility, prioritization, and available funding. 4. Give higher priority to water quality improvement proj- ects, including nonstructural measures and education, which are the most effective at achieving water quality goals. Sweeney Lake is 011 the MPCA's 303( d) list of current or future impaired waters. 5. Cooperate with the BCWMC, MCWD, MPCA, and other stakeholders in preparing and implementing TMDL studies for water bodies in the city, or water bodies that receive water directly from the city, that are on the MPCA's 303(d) list of current or future impaired waters (currently Sweeney Lake, Wirth Lake, Bassett Creek and Medicine Lake). 6. Continue to identify opportunities to maintain or im- prove the excellent water quality in Twin Lake. Table 10.2: BCWMC Goals and MPCA Impaired Waters Criteria Total Phosphorus Chl-a BCWMCl (uglL) (uglL) Secchi Depth (m) Quality BCWMC MPCA BCWMC MPCA BCWMC MPCA Water Body Category MPCA2 Class Goal Criteria3 Goal Criteria3 Goal Criteria 3 Medicine Lake4 Level I Deep 38 <40 10 <14 2.2 >1.4 Wirth Lake Level I Deep 30 <40 10 <14 2.2 >1.4 Twin Lake Level I Deep 30 <40 10 <14 2.2 >1.4 Sweeney Lake Level I Deep 30 <40 10 <14 2.2 >1.4 Westwood Lake Level II Shallow 45 <60 20 <20 1.4 >1.0 Bassett Creek Level III Stream 75 N/A 40 N/A 0.9 N/A W. Ring Pond Level III N/A 75 N/A 40 N/A 0.9 N/A E. Ring Pond Level III N/A 75 N/A 40 N/A 0.9 N/A Courtlawn Pond Level III N/A 75 N/A 40 N/A 0.9 N/A South Rice Pond Level III N/A 75 N/A 40 N/A 0.9 N/A 1 - Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission 2 - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 3 - From the Minnesota Proposed Rules Chapter 7050 (MPCA, July 16, 2007) 4 - Medicine Lake is located outside of Golden Valley, but a portion of the city is tributary to it. City of Golden Valley 0. <f'"' Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 Chapter 10: Surface Water 10-9 7. Quantify and implement BMPs that will reduce phos- phorus loading by two pounds per year to receiving water within the MCWD. 8. Develop a program to deal with tracking, inspecting, and monitoring private storm water facilities. 9. Continue to work with the League of Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition toward identifying and address- ing issues. 10. Continue to support water quality monitoring efforts in Golden Valley undertaken by other agencies and organizations. Water Quality of Storm Water Runoff Goals A. Improve the quality of storm water runoff by reducing non-point source pollution, including nutrients and sed- iment carried as storm water runoff. B. Maintain the nutrient and sediment removal efficiency of several key storm water ponds throughout the city, thereby improving the water quality of the receiving waters. C. Meet or exceed all applicable water-related regulations established by the Federal Government, the State of Minnesota, Hennepin County, the BCWMC, the MCWD, and the Metropolitan Council. Policies 1. Implement all aspects of the Golden Valley NPDES Phase II MS4 permit SWPPP. 2. Require all regulated storm water from new develop- ment projects to be treated to the BCWMC's Level I standards. For projects that fall within City-designat- ed redevelopment areas and that result in increased impervious surface, the City will require all regulated storm water to be treated to meet the BCWMC's non- degradation standard (no increase in phosphorus load). These policies are detailed in the BCWMC Watershed Management Plan, Section 4.2.2.4, "Policies Relating to Administration of BCWMC Water Quality Management Standards, Policy A"..calso available at City Hall). Ex- emptions to the nondegradation policy (as approved by the BCWMC at its January 18, 2007 meeting) include: · single-family homesites Table 10.3: Impervious Area Exemptions Project Site Size Exemption Applies If Added Impervious (Acres) Area Is No More Than: 0.5-1.0 1,000 square feet 1.0 - 5.0 2,000 square feet Over 5.0 10,000 square feet · project sites smaller than 0.5 acre . third exemption that varies by project size (see Table 10.3) 3. Continue forwarding proposed projects to the BCW- MC for review. The BCWMC's "Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals" (BCWMC, November 1998, as revised; also available at City Hall) outlines types of projects that must be submitted to the BCWMC for review as well as the BCWMC's review procedure, submittal requirements, guidelines, design criteria, etc. 4. Require developers to meet all BCWMC requirements, where applicable, and to consider/evaluate the use of BMPs in the "Requirements for Improvements and De- velopment Proposals" (see number 3 above). 5. Require developers to meet all MCWD requirements, where applicable. 6. As part of its development review and approval process, the City will continue to ensure that storm water dis- charges will not adversely affect endangered species, threatened species, historic places, and archaeological sites. 7. Continue sediment removal program for treatment and key ponding locations. 8. Continue program for removing sediment from the ex- isting storm sewer system. 9. Continue to explore implementation of emerging tech- nologies, BMPs, and methods as research develops. 10. Conduct a city-wide review of opportunities for BMP implementation, and develop a program for construc- tion of BMPs as funds become available. 11. Continue to require maintenance agreements for pri- vate water quality facilities and develop procedures and resources to enforce these agreements. 12. Coordinate with other cities and agencies to encourage ongoing maintenance of water quality facilities. 13. Continue implementing the City's pond bank stabiliza- tion program. City of Golden Valley....4" Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 10-10 Chapter 10: Surface Water ::- :'c. -".-r;-~' :~I' "~...-"~'~' ~ .~,:..... ....--~-.--,.-.- " .... ' . , . '" :or '" Ii: 0- '< Q " r; t:l: j ~ 1 ..'~", . ~~,~~;\,".-.... _, .. ___~.;....r.,.:..~~~-'~~i;?i.~~ -a.c~~... J'. ._' _ 4C'- :....,.-::;.....,.,.p~o4l';':'-' .- . ,_' ,--:.,::," _ _' .~~.11,' ' . " ' -4.... " ,- -,--,:': """ ;~i: . ..-!<.i....... ~~,.N'... . .r'~ ..~;;, ...~-~_.--. ~"... ' ~<'A-~/'< ~->~>:';~,.. 1: ~ _~ -.:?, .. ;(4- .,,-- - ,. , ,we.' , ~ , . "'.,;J.... - "..- ..>c..;.-. -", - - _. . ... . ~,- .' ,-" -- I'ft: ~. ' .~' ~. ~~- - . - . ....~~ . -,' .::J~ .... ...,,~--'~;;, , . -~ Vf!~ ~ ,--..~.- ,..~~~ : ',r. .~~. :;'I':;'l"~ ,"'.'" .1, .I~"~"'" ~ t.1"'. !!J" ":1. ,I ~. ., i- I, ~~, ,.1, .... . . ~-'-':. :-.1ir-ll,-,"'" .(,., _.!.._---"-~~' 0-~.:/. hf~~1 .' I . .~-'.. - - :..... ~:...J~~~:- :. Bassett Creek's Sweeney Branch before (left) and after a 2008 streambank stabilization project 14. Construct regional detention/nutrient removal basins as opportunities arise. 15. Increase public awareness of individual property own- ers' impacts on water quality. 16. Develop and implement a storm water management ordinance. 17. Encourage using vegetation to assimilate nutrients for storm water runoff. 18. Install sediment catching/environmental manholes where appropriate and feasible. 19. Implement Guiding Principle 8 of the 1:-394 Corridor Study, which encourages the application of green build- ing and infrastructure techniques such as Low Impact Development practices, including green roofs, rain gar- dens, bioswales, and pervious pavement, for the 1-394 Corridor. 20. Continue a targeted street sweeping and catch basin cleaning program. 21. Request MnDOT involvement in pond sediment remov- al within MnDOT right-of-way. 22. Continue to participate in and support the League of Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition. Goal A. Improve the pollutant removal effectiveness of storm water ponds within the city. Policies 1. Continue implementing the City's storm water pond functional improvement program, including sediment removal and BMP identification, to enhance the pol- lutant removal effectiveness of existing storm water ponds. 2. Fund this program systematically to complete the indi- vidual projects. III kit Discharge Detection and Elimination Goal A. Eliminate illicit discharge to the city's storm sewers and receiving waters. Policies 1. Continue to update the City's storm sewer system map that shows the location of significant storm sewer sys- tem components and receiving water bodies. The storm sewer map will help facilitate management of illicit dis- charge detection and elimination. 2. Continue to update the City's creek inventory, which identifies outfalls, culverts, significant erosion sites, and potential obstructions in the three branches of Bassett Creek within city limits. City of Golden Valley Go r Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 Chapter 10: Surface Water 10-11 3. Develop an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism prohibiting illicit discharges to the City's storm sewer system and implement appropriate enforcement proce- dures and actions. 4. Develop a program to detect and address illicit connec- tions to the City's storm sewer system and receiving waters. 5. Submit an annual storm water system inspection report and retain all required records according to the terms of the NPDES MS4 permit, including dates of inspection and responses to the inspections, the date of completion of repairs, and major additional protection measures. 6. Develop a program to prohibit illegal dumping and the disposal of waste in prohibited areas, such as backyards, stream banks, or other areas. 7. Develop a plan to inform public employees, businesses, and the general public of water quality hazards asso- ciated with illicit discharges and improper disposal of waste. Streams Goals A. Maintain or enhance the natural beauty and wildlife habitat value of Bassett Creek and its tributaries through Golden Valley. B. Implement stream restoration measures whenever nec- essary to maintain health, safety, and welfare. C. Minimize the volume of storm water runoff entering Bassett Creek. D. Increase the groundwater base flow of Bassett Creek. E. Reduce the frequency of bank full runoff events in Bas- sett Creek. F. Maintain the nutrient and sediment removal efficiency of key storm water ponds throughout the city. Policies 1. Support opportunities to enhance recreational opportu- nities on Bassett Creek. 2. Reduce areas of impervious surface through the consid- eration of changes to City ordinances and policies and encourage the use of innovative materials to reduce im- pervious surface and enhance infiltration. 3. Encourage restoration of stream and streambank ar- eas where the natural beauty of the creek has been compromised. 4. Implement a streambank stabilization program us- ing bioengineering and natural products, whenever possible. 5. Work to support legislation that eliminates the currently required cumbersome public ditch process to maintain and abandon public ditches. Flood Control Goals A. Reduce flooding along Bassett Creek and its tributaries. B. Protect the public from flooding through measures that ensure public safety and prevent inundation of occupied structures. C. Regulate storm water runoff discharges and volumes to minimize flood problems, flood damages, and the future costs of storm water management systems. Policies 1. Continue to implement the City's Flood Plain Manage- ment Zoning Regulations (City Code Section 11.60) and keep it current with BCWMC and MCWD Policies. '" [ o ~ ("J q a c:: Goldell Valley's surface water manaycmcllt policies provide storml!!~er stO!age !.O protect ~Ie pub~clrom[lood~~..9 City of Golden Valley Q. r Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 10-12 Chapter 10: Surface Water 2. Continue the City's maintenance and sediment removal program to provide clean sewers with maximum capac- ity for storm water conveyance. 3. Permanently protect storm water ponds and drainage systems by obtaining property land dedication and ease- ments with new development. 4. Design the City's municipal storm water system to con- vey no less than the 10% probability/1O-year rainfall event. 5. Maintain and inspect emergency storm water pond overflow routes and identify critical maintenance areas. 6. Continue to update the City's storm sewer map. 7. Implement the BCWMC's development policies. 8. Continue forwarding proposed projects to the BCWMC for review. The types of projects that must be submit- ted to the BCWMC for review, the BCWMC's review procedure, submittal requirements, guidelines, design criteria, etc are provided in the BCWMC's document "Requirements for Improvements and Development ..,. , .;" i. ...... .... ..... \""'. ." Golden Valley's water resouce management practices help maintain or enhance the natural beauty and wildlife habitat value of Bassett Creeks alld its tributaries. Proposals" (BCWMC, November 1998, as revised; also available at City Hall). 9. Require project proposers to apply BMPs to reduce the volume of storm water runoff to the maximum practical extent. Examples of storm water runoff volume reduc- tion methods include: . minimizing the amount of planned impervious surface as areas develop . minimizing the amount of impervious surface during redevelopment · promoting infiltration 10. Require that post-development peak discharge rates shall not exceed existing discharge rates for the two-year (50% probability), 10-year (10% probability), and 100- year (1% probability) critical duration storm events. The City will also require rate control in conformance with the BCWMC flood control project system design. 11. Enforce all aspects of the City's Flood Plain Manage- ment Zoning Overlay District Ordinance (City Code Section 11.60). 12. Allow only those land uses in the BCWMC-established floodplain that will not be damaged by floodwaters and will not increase flooding. Allowable types of land use consistent with the floodplain include: recreation or open space areas such as golf cours- es, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, swimming ar- eas, parks, wildlife habitat, trails, nature preserves, and fishing areas . parking areas and heliports · public utility lines . agriculture and other open spaces . residential lawns, gardens, parking areas, and play areas . signs and signals delineating or accessory to parks, trails and other permitted uses as described in City Code Section 11.60 13. Prohibit permanent bridges, docks, storage piles, fenc- es, and other obstructions in the floodplain that would collect debris or restrict flood flows. Property owners who made any artificial obstructions to the beds, banks, waters, or channels of Bassett Creek or the floodplain after February 3, 1981 and without first obtaining a spe- cial permit or variance must remove them within 10 City of Golden Valley 0. d'" Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 Chapter 10: Surface Water 10-13 ~ ~~::. *'~-' . . ~r .~. 1. \ .~, q, .", '. ,:. -. ... ,1" 0::,:..1. ,,:. .T..... -, ...... ,.. days after notification from the Flood Plain Adminis- trator. If the property owner fails or refuses to remove the obstruction within said time (or cannot be found or determined), the City may remove the obstruction. Re- moval costs shall be paid by the owner on demand, or they may be assessed against the land and collected as prescribed by law for levying and collecting special as- sessments for municipal improvements. 14. Prohibit filling within the BCWMC-established flood- plain. Proposals to fill within the BCWMC-established floodplain must obtain BCWMC approval and provide compensating storage and/or channel modification so that the flood level shall not be increased at any point along the trunk system due to the fill. 15. Prohibit expansion of existing non-conforming land uses within the floodplain unless they are fully flood-proofed in accordance with existing codes and regulations. 16. As opportunities arise, consider dedicating funds to the purchase of homes that have less than one foot of freeboard from their lowest opening to the established lOa-year flood level, or that have an access that has a portion below the 100 year flood level. 17. Require that lowest floors of new permanent structures be at least two feet above the established loa-year flood- plain elevation. 18. It is the City's overall goal to prevent construction of new streets in the floodplain and to bring existing streets ... .... -:;,;." .. ,.,-.. .~~ . "h. ~ ~ ${ .~ .~. ~' ~ -- .---' .- -""'"- "/ - ... -- " ~ ~ 6 ~. ~.. Golden Vul~lI's Grudinf!. f}rai'!.uf!..e, une!. Erosion ~,'ontro'-0:dinunce helps proleC! wuter !:~s'!.urces. .. .~ out of the floodplain, if possible. The City will discour- age development where the sole access to the site is through the established loa-year floodplain. If such ac- cess is unavoidable, the City will require that any new roads into the site crossing the floodplain be above the regulatory floodplain elevation. The City will not build new streets within the established lOa-year floodplain, nor will the City allow new streets to be built within the established lOa-year floodplain unless the new street is above the regulatory floodplain elevation. Recogniz- ing that existing streets within the established lOa-year floodplain cannot be removed from the floodplain, the City will maintain and/or reconstruct such streets, and the City will allow such streets to be maintained and/or reconstructed. Erosion and Sediment Control Goals A. Prevent erosion and sedimentation to the greatest ex- tent possible to protect the city's water resources from increased sediment loading and associated water quality problems. B. Implement soil protection and sedimentation controls whenever necessary to maintain health, safety, and welfare. "" :T )? o ~ o. .:; ifr "" ~ ~ '" 1: ,~ ~. " [>0. t~. City of Golden Valley o..t?' Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 10-14 Chapter 10: Surface Water C. Reduce erosion from small construction and landscap- ing sites. Policies 1. Encourage land use planning and development that minimizes sediment yield, through compliance with es- tablished city, BCWMC and MCWD policies. 2. Review projects and developments for compliance with the city, MPCA, BCWMC, and MCWD erosion and sedi- ment control standards. 3. Require development to comply with and follow ap- propriate best management practices for erosion and sediment control as specified in the Minnesota Storm- water Manual (2005), as may be amended. 4. Continue to require permits and the preparation of ero- sion control plans for construction projects according to Golden Valley City Code Section 4.31. Erosion control plans shall show proposed methods of retaining water- borne sediments onsite during the construction period and shall specify methods and schedules for restoring, covering, or re-vegetating the site after construction. 5. Review the City's existing Grading, Drainage, and Ero- sion Control Ordinance for content and examine the effectiveness of enforcement efforts. 6. Implement a program to control construction site de- bris storage and waste disposal. The City will analyze how to inspect and enforce proper construction site waste management. 7. Continue to perform regular erosion and sediment con- trol inspections with coordination/cooperation with the BCWMC as appropriate. 8. Maintain a process for handling public complaints re- garding non-compliance issues. 9. Maintain a record-keeping process to store information regarding site inspection. 10. Continue the City's existing inspection programs and maintain an inspection log, elements to consider, fol- low-up procedures, and schedule guidelines for staff. Goal A. Remove sediment from catch basins before the sediment travels to water resources within the city. Policies 1. Continue to clean sump and problem catch basins in the spring and fall, and more frequently where needed. 2. Continue to perform targeted street sweeping. 3. Continue to explore implementation of emerging tech- nologies, BMPs, and methods as research develops. Goal A. Improve erosion and sediment control through aestheti- cally pleasing and environmentally friendly means. Policies 1. Continue to develop buffers of native and naturally ex- isting shoreline vegetation on city property. 2. Encourage and support the development of buffers of native and naturally existing shoreline vegetation on non-city property. 3. Continue to implement the City's tree preservation ordi- nance (City Code Section 4.3.2). 4. Consider the development of aesthetically pleasing new ponds in locations where feasible and appropriate. Wetlands and Natural Resources Goals A. Protect and restore wetlands to improve or maintain their functions and values in accordance with the Min- nesota Wetland Conservation Act. B. Protect and restore natural areas. Policies 1. Continue the City's role as the local governmental unit (LGU) for the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). 2. Continue to require wetland delineation with develop- ment proposals, as needed, and maximize buffer zones around wetlands where possible. 3. Continue to develop wetland banking credits within its wetland bank as opportunities arise. 4. Use all developed wetland credits for City of Golden Val- ley projects. 5. Continue to coordinate with other agencies that are also involved in the protection of wetlands. City of Golden Valley o..#" Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 Chapter 10: Surface Water 10-15 General Mills Nature Preserve -L:; 6. Continue to use the City's Natural Resource Inventory as a planning resource and update it on a regular basis. Recreation, Habitat, and Shoreland Management Goal A. Improve the quality of Bassett Creek and city lakes to enhance the aesthetics and recreation opportunities in Golden Valley. Policies 1. Support opportunities to enhance recreational opportu- nities on Bassett Creek. 2. Develop objectives and guidelines to evaluate and pro- tect the natural aesthetics and attractiveness of lakes, ponds and adjacent uplands. 3. Maintain control and responsibility for shoreland regu- lation by continuing to implement the City's shoreland ordinance (City Zoning Code Section 11.65). 4. Promote and encourage protection of non-disturbed shoreland areas and restoration of disturbed shorelines and streambanks to their natural state where feasible. 5. Encourage preservation of streambank and lakeshore vegetation during and after construction projects. Groundwater Goal A. Protect the quantity and quality of groundwater resources. Policies 1. Cooperate with St Louis Park, Robbinsdale, Plymouth, and Minnetonka regarding wellhead protection ac- tivities and these adjacent cities' wellhead protection programs. 2. Coordinate with the Minnesota Department of Health to determine if the City has areas within a source water protection area for surface water intakes and assist in addressing impacts if needed. 3. Encourage groundwater recharge and protect recharge areas from potential sources of contamination. The City will promote groundwater recharge by encouraging infil- tration of storm water runoff. The City will use available information and guidance (eg, Minnesota Department of Health guidance) to evaluate the potential impacts of storm water infiltration BMPs on groundwater. 4. Cooperate with efforts to educate the general public concerning the importance of and the use of BMPs to prevent contamination of groundwater supplies. City of Golden Valley er Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 10-16 Chapter 10: Surface Water Funding Goal A Provide sufficient funding to implement measures and policies contained in this plan. Policies 1. Continue to use the City's Storm Water Utility Fee pro- gram to fund storm water-related activities. The Storm Water Utility Fee is the primary funding source for all storm water improvements related to the city's Surface Water Management Plan, Pavement Management Pro- gram and NPDES Phase II MS4 requirements. 2. Continue to seek funding for storm water related pro- grams and projects from other sources including, but not limited to, the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, the Minnesota Department of Natural Re- sources, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. 3. Consider dedicating funds to purchase homes, as they become available, that have one foot or less freeboard to their lowest opening above the 100-year flood level, or that have access that has a portion below the 100- year flood level, or other properties below the 100-year mapped or unmapped floodplain. Education and Public Involvement Goal A Involve and educate Golden Valley residents in water re- source related issues. Policies 1. Maintain a public education program to distribute educational materials to the community or conduct equivalent outreach activities about the impacts of storm water discharges on water bodies and the steps that the public can take to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff. 2. Maintain the Golden Valley Environmental Com- mission to educate residents, raise awareness about environmental responsibility, and create a sense of col- laboration in the spirit of making and keeping Golden Valley an environmentally healthy city. 3. Continue to conduct an annual public meeting (with notice) to discuss the City's Storm Water Pollution t" , " :0- f? o ~ () Q:" l'l ..... !;:, IJUM,t Nn 'liMiTE ec un,u~ s Tn (~I\f.f.\~ Volunteers stencil messages near storm drains that lead to local waterways to increase awareness o/protecting water resources. Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and inform the public about storm water impacts. City staff will analyze comments and written materials gathered at the public meeting and adjust the SWPPP where appropriate. 4. Continue to provide support, where appropriate, for the development and distribution of educational materials and assist other agencies' efforts. 5. Continue to use volunteer groups to the greatest extent possible for public service projects such as catch basin stenciling, debris clean-up, stream bank erosion protec- tion, buckthorn removal, and vegetative buffer strips. 6. Continue to inform public employees, businesses, and the general public of the water quality hazards associ- ated with illicit discharges and improper disposal of waste. 7. Continue using demonstration projectsto educate the public on issues such as stream bank stabilization and aesthetically pleasing storm water ponds. 8. Continue to work with other agencies to develop an edu- cation program for schools in the city. 9. Continue to provide educational and informational ma- terials regarding storm water issues on the City web site (www.ci.golden-valley.mn.us) and cable TV channel. 10. Continue to include storm water-related information in packets to new residents. 11. Continue to dedicate at least one page to water or en- vironmental issues in Golden Valley's bi-monthly City newsletter to residents. 12. Establish programs to monitor storm drains for illicit discharge and stencil markings on storm inlets with as- sistance from public interest groups. City of Golden Valley e..r Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 Section 3: Implementation n MPLEMENTING the Golden Valley's SWMP U involves several significant components, including the City's NPDES Phase II MS4 permit, specific tasks required by the MCWD, operation and maintenance of the City's storm water system, capital improvement projects, studies, education and public involvement, funding, ordinance implementation and official controls, priorities, and SWMP update and amendment procedures. Golden Valley's current ordinances, official controls, and fu- ture needs are described in Section 4.6.1 of the SWMP (see Ap- pendix A). Some of the City's ordinances and official controls are tied with the implementation of its NPDES Phase II MS4 permit. The City's ordinance implementation is incorporated into Part C of Tables 10-4 and 10.5 below. To improve the City's efficacy regarding storm water man- agement, the City will develop a new storm water manage- ment ordinance. The new ordinance will deal with design requirements relating to the water quality aspects of ponding and other treatment devices and methods, along with water quantity requirements such as rate and volume controls and obstructions in the floodplain and floodways (docks, bridges, etc). It will codify the storm water design requirements of the BCWMC, Met Council, the City's NPDES permit, and City poli- cies. It will also address illicit discharges and new connections, as well as outline the process and roles of other agencies. 10-18 Chapter 10: Surface Water The implementation program is sum- marized in Tables 10,4 and 10.5 and at the end of Section 5 of the SWMP (see Appendix A). Each table is divided into five parts: · Part A-Capital Improvement Projects · Part B- Studies · Part C- Official Controls · Part D- Operation and Mainte- nance Programs · Part E-Public Education, Outreach, Participation, and Involvement Table 10.4 presents the details of the implementation program, including a project description, cost estimate, po- tential funding sources, and proposed years of implementation. Table 10.5 summarizes the implementation pro- gram year-by-year, listing the project number and estimated costs for every year from 2008-2017. Table 10.4: City of Golden Valley Water Resources Implementation Program Project Number Project Description Cost Estimate ($)* Potential Funding 50urces Proposed Year(s) of Implementation ~Part-A. -C~pitallmprovement profects _ _ - ~=-----_._~-_. ~__ I Contract or City 5taff 55-1 Residential Storm Sewer Improvements 5,500,000 Storm Sewer Contract 2009-2013 Utility Fund 55-10 Lakeview Park Wetland Restoration 150,000 Storm Sewer Contract 2012 Utility Fund 5S-11 Stormwater Improvements and Wetland Restoration 280,000 Storm Sewer Contract 2012 (with Pavement Management Program) Utility Fund 55-13 Western Avenue Marsh Restoration 55,000 Storm 5ewer Contract 2012 Utility Fund 55-16 Purchase Vacuum Street Sweeper 230,000 Storm Sewer Contract 2012 Utility Fund 55-18 Stormwater Ponds 500,000 Storm Sewer Contract 2009 Utility Fund 55-20 Streambank Stabilization 1,595,000 Storm Sewer Contract 2008-2012 Utility Fund (95,000) BCWMC (1,500,000) 55-21 Golden Valley Drive Storm Sewer 75,000 Storm Sewer Contract 2008 Utility Fund 55-22 Purchase Pickup Truck 26,000 Storm Sewer Contract 2012 Utility Fund 55-23 Stormwater Pond Dredging 350,000 Storm Sewer Contract 2009-2013 Utility Fund ~---------.. - . -- . n_.__.___. - ~- -----------.-. .. 1 ~B._Studie~__ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _____ ___________ _ _ 55-11 General Mills JFB Storm/Wetland Feasibility 20,000 Storm Sewer Contract 2012 Utility Fund SS-A Prepare Citywide Hydrologic Model (including Decola 100,000 Storm Sewer Contract 2008-2009 Ponds analyses) Utility Fund S5-B Hydraulic analysis for Wisconsin Ave control structure 5,000 Storm Sewer Contract 2009 in concert with SS-A Utility Fund 55-12 Brookview Buffer study 30,000 Storm Sewer Contract 2012 Utility Fund 5S-C Loading reduction review for MCWD portion of city 2,000 Storm Sewer Contract 2008 Utility Fund S5-D City-wide Water Quality BMP Implementation Study 10,000 Storm Sewer Contract 2008 Utility Fund *Cost estimates are based on 2007 dollars, do not account for inflation, and are for planning purposes only. City of Golden Valley 0. r Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 Chapter 10: Surface Water 10-19 Project Number Project Description Cost Estimate ($)* Potential Funding Sources Contract or City Staff Proposed Year(s) of Implementation ... . _._._ __ ._ _ . ._ ~k. ~m~___________ __ __._ - - - -- - - ----- - - _.~ ------- I Part C. Official Controls - -- --- - ~_.~ -- _ _ h - - - - I SS-E Develop and adopt stormwater management ordi- 15,000 General Fund City Staff 2008 nance SP 4.A.B Review/revise existing grading drainage and erosion 5,000 General Fund City Staff 2008 control ordinance SP4.F Establishment of procedures for grading drainage and 15,OOO/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 erosion control site inspections and enforcement. Utility Fund SP 3.B Develop regulatory mechanism prohibiting non-storm 5,000 Storm Sewer City Staff 2008 water discharges Utility Fund SP 3.C.2 Program to detect and address illegal dumping 5,OOO/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008.2017 Utility Fund SP 4.E Establishment of procedures for the receipt and con- 2,500/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 side ration of reports of stormwater noncompliance Utility Fund SP 6.B.4 Program to deal with stockpile, storage, and mate- 1,500/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 rial handling areas Utility Fund SP4.C Construction site waste disposal and debris storage 2,000/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund TOTAL ANNUAL: 26,OOO/yr ~________~_____ ___ - ________ - _.______u. ---~=~ Qperat~on a.n~ _M.~~~~-:~~~~~_Controls __ __ _ ------------- - SP 3.A.1 Maintain storm sewer system map. 5,000/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 3.C.1 Identification of illicit non stormwater discharge. 1,OOO/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 5.A Enforce/implement WMO BMP requirements. 1,500/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 5.C Private BMP maintenance agreements tracking. 1,000/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 6.A Training for city staff regarding storm water issues. 10,000/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 6.B.1B Street and parking lot sweeping program. 125,000/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 6.B.2 Annual inspection of structural pollution control 5,000/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 devices. Utility Fund SP 6.B.3 Inspect at least 20% of the ms4 outfalls, sediment 6,500/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 basins and ponds each year on a rotating basis. Utility Fund SP 6.B.5 Inspection follow up, determination of necessary ac- 20,000/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 tion and implementation of corrective measures. Utility Fund SP 6b-6 Inspection annual report. 2,000/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 6.B.7 Establish activity tracking. 2,000/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 6.B.1A Automotive spill and leak program. 1,000/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 6.B.1C Storm drain system cleaning. 50,000/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 6.B.1D Hazardous material management. 1,5oo/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 6.B.1E Road salt storage and handling review. 2,OOO/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund *Cost estimates are based on 2007 dollars, do not account for inflation, and are for planning purposes only. City of Golden Valley o.r Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 10- 20 Chapter 10: Surface Water SP Used oil recycling. 1,OOO/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 6.B.1F Utility Fund SP Develop/maintain spill response plan. 1,000/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 6.B.1G Utility Fund SP Annual MS4-SWPPP activities 3,OOO/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 2.A,B,C Utility Fund SS-F Annual report to the MCWD on task implemen- 1,000/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 tation Utility Fund SP 3.A.2 Bassett Creek Inventory 9,ooO/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SS-G Develop system inspection protocol & program 9,000 Storm Sewer City Staff 2014 Utility Fund SS-H Maintain 17 pond buffer areas 22,000/yr Storm Sewer Contract 2008-2017 Utility Fund TOTAL ANNUAL: 270,500/yr ~P~rt E~ Publi~ Education, Outreach, P~rticipation,--~~-d Involvement ~ -- ___m_ J I _ _ ____ __ ____ _____ _______ SP 1.A. 1 Implement storm water communications plan 2,OOO/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 1.A.2 Develop internet site information 1,OOO/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 1.A.3 Develop and distribute storm water educational 3,500/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 materials Utility Fund SP 1.A.4 Develop and distribute new resident packet 1,OOO/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 1.A.5 Local cable TV scroll 5oo/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 1.A.6 City Newsletter 500/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 2.B Conduct annual meeting 500/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 2.D.1 Volunteer storm drain stenciling program 1,300/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 2.0.2 Adopt-a-storm-drain program 1,000/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 2.D.3 BCWMC public meetings 1,000/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 2.0.4 Environmental Commission meetings 2,000/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 Utility Fund SP 3.0 Public and employee illicit discharge informa- 5,OOO/yr Storm Sewer City Staff 2008-2017 tion program. Utility Fund TOTAL ANNUAL: 19,300/yr .Cost estimates are based on 2007 dollars, do not account for inflation, and are for planning purposes only. City of Golden Valley -r Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 Chapter 10: Surface Water 10-21 55-1 900,000 900,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 55-10 150,000 55-11 280,000 55-13 55,000 55-16 230,000 55-18 500,000 55-20 535,000 471,500 588,500 55-21 75,000 55-22 26,000 55-23 75,000 105,000 170,000 Total CIP 1,510,000 1,475,000 1,571,500 1,435,000 2,299,500 1,370,000 ~---------------------- - -- --- -- -- ~-~ udies ---~-.----~--- - 55-11 20,000 55-A 50,000 50,000 55-B 5,000 55-12 30,000 55-C 2,000 15,000 55-0 10,000 25,000 Total 62,000 65,000 25,000 50,000 --~--~-- --- ---- ~-----_. - -- -l Part C. Official Controls -~-_.. --- ------ ---- 55-E 15,000 5P 4.A.B 5,000 5P 4.F 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 5P 3.B 5,000 5P 3.C.2 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5P 4.E 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 5P 6.B.4 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 5P 4.C 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Total 51,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 I Part D. Operation and Maintenance P~~g'~~~~ __~-~--==-~ ---- - - - -- - - -~ --- -~- ~---~- ---~-- ~_. . - --- ------------ - ~-- -- - - 5P 3.A.1 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5P 3.C.1 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5P 5.A 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 5P 5.C 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5P 6.A 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5P 6.B.1B 125,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 5P 6.B.2 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5P 6.B.3 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 5P 6.B.5 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 5P 6.B.6 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 *Cost estimates are based on 2007 dollars, do not account for inflation, and are for planning purposes only. City of Golden Valley <;Ar Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 10-22 Chapter 10: Surface Water Estimated Costs by Year ($)* SP 6.B.7 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 SP 6.B.1A 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 SP 6.B.1C 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 SP 6.B.10 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 SP 6.B.1E 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 SP 6.B.1F 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 SP 6.B.1G 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 SP 2.A,B 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 ac SS-F 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 SP 3.A.2 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 SS-G 9,000 SS-H 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 Total OaM 270,500 270,500 270,500 270,500 270,500 270,500 279,500 270,500 270,500 270,500 ~--- -------- -------- ------- --- ----- - --------"- - - lie Education, Outreach, Participation, and Involvement -~-- --- - ----~-_...- . .-- - ---- SP 1.A. 1 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 SP 1.A.2 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 SP 1.A.3 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 SP 1.A.4 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 SP 1.A.5 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 SP 1.A.6 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 SP 2.B 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 SP 2.0.1 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 SP 2.0.2 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 SP 2.0.3 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 SP 2.0.4 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 SP 3.0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 TOTAL 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 *Cost estimates are based on 2007 dollars, do not account for inflation, and are for planning purposes only. City of Golden Valley -r Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: January 8, 2009 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing-Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Imola Motorsports Inc., 721 Hampshire Ave. S. Kevin Tan is the owner of Imola Motorsports Inc. He has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to operate an auto repair business in the south portion of the building owned by Borton Volvo at 721 Hampshire Ave. S. This building is directly north of the Borton Volvo dealership. This property was purchased by Borton in June 2007 and has been renovated. The renovation included parking lot improvements and a new fac;ade on the front of the building. The look of the building and site is much improved since the renovation was completed. Borton plans to rent the south 70 ft. of the building to Imola. This portion of the building has been previously used for auto related businesses including Kennedy Transmission. According to the street file, there was also an auto and marine body shop in this building many years ago. The property is currently zoned Mixed Use. However, application for this proposed CUP permit was made on November 26, 2008. Since the Mixed Use district did not go into effect until December 1, 2008, the application for the auto related conditional use permit must be considered under the previous zoning of the property. The previous zoning was Industrial. Within the Industrial zoning district, automobile repair shops are allowed by conditional use permit. Within the area around this proposed auto use, there are other auto related uses including Borton Volvo, two auto body shops and several drive-through restaurants. Section 11.80 of the Zoning Code outlines the procedure for the evaluation of conditional use permits. It states the process for review and the factors that must be considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is asked to make a finding on these factors and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council also holds a public hearing on the CUP applications and the Council makes the final decision. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED USE OF SITE 1. Description of proposed business - Imola Motorsports Inc. plans to lease about one third of the building owned by Borton Volvo. The entire building is about 31,500 sq. ft. in area and the portion to be rented by Imola is about 10,500 sq. ft. in area. The remainder of the building is used for warehouse space by Starchtech. Starchtech manufactures packing 1 "peanuts" in the building directly to the east. The total size of the property is about 2.2 acres or 99,000 sq. ft. The space that they are renting was previously used by Kennedy Transmission. There is an overhead door in the front and rear of the space to be rented by Imola. Any alteration to the building necessary for carrepair will have to meet current building and fire code requirements. It is my understanding that the cars will only be stored inside the building when they are being worked on. Mr. Tan has told me that there will be minimal outside storage of cars other than employee cars due to the value of cars that are worked on by Imola. There will also be a small office for the business. It is my understanding that there will be less than five employees with the possibility of up to ten employees. The business is described in the attached narrative provided by Imola. I have also talked to Mr. Tan and a representative from Borton about the proposed business. Mr. Tan said that Imola will repair high end European and other foreign cars. Repairs would include standard maintenance with some installation of aftermarket parts. There would be a couple of lifts in the space for alignment, suspension and other work. The work done in this shop would be similar to the work done within the Borton Volvo shop. The repairs would not include any body work or painting. 2. Parking - There is more than adequate parking on the site for Imola and the Starchtech warehouse. There are approximately 90 parking spaces on the site. The warehouse portion of the building used by Starchtech requires only 8 parking spaces while the Imola portion of the building will require about 15 spaces based on four spaces per service bay. The existing parking lot was recently improved and it does meet the setback requirements on the north and west side of the building. Along the south and west side of the building, the parking lot is nonconforming but can remain "as is". If the parking lot on the south and west side of the building is reconstructed, it would have to meet setback requirements at that time. 3. Hours of Operation - The hours of operation will be from 9 am to 9pm. Due to its location, staff does not see any reason to restrict hours of operation. As with any auto repair use, the doors must be closed when cars are being worked on the minimize noise issues. FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION FROM SECTION 11.80 OF ZONING CODE In approving or denying a CUP, City Code requires that finding be made on ten specific factors. Staff evaluation of those factors as they relate to the current proposal is as follows: 1. Demonstrated need for the use: The City's standard basis for determining need is that an applicant has identified a market for the proposed good or service. In this case, the applicant believes that there is a market for high end auto repair in this location. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The plan map identifies the site for mixed uses. The previous designation for this area was Industrial. Because the application was made prior to December 1, 2008, the City must consider the application as the zoning and comprehensive plan were at that date. Auto repair and storage is considered a conditional use in the industrial zoning district. Many auto repair businesses operate in industrial areas throughout the city. 3. Effect of Property Values in the Area: The auto repair business will not have a negative impact on property values in the area. The proposed use is isolated from residential areas 2 and is adjacent to a railroad track and other auto uses. Auto oriented businesses are best suited for these types of areas that are isolated from other non-industrial uses. 4. Effect of any anticipated traffic generation upon current traffic flow and congestion in the area: This auto repair business will generate a limited number of trips. There is good access to this area due to its proximity to 1-394. 5. Effect on any increase in population: Staff does not believe that the number of employees (less than five) or clients that will be on site will cause a negative impact on the area. Since this is a nonresidential development, there will be no increase in population of the area. 6. Effect on noise levels in the area: There may be some noise level increase from the auto repair business although staff believes it will minimal. Due to the location of the business near 1-394 and railroad tracks, the noise from the business will not have a significant impact on adjacent neighborhoods. In addition, the overhead doors will remain closed during working hours. 7. Any odor, dust, smoke, gas or vibration caused by this use: Due to the location near 1- 394 and the railroad tracks, these issues will not be a problem at his location. 8. Visual appearance of the proposed structure or use: The building was recently renovated to improve the visual appearance of the building and site. The only change to the building will be signage. 9. Any increase in flies, rats, or other animals or vermin in the area caused by the use: With proper waste disposal, these pests should not be a problem. 10.0ther concerns regarding the use: Modifications to the inside and outside of the building will be addressed as part of the building permit process. If there is going to be a new dumpster on the site, it must be screened with materials approved by the building official. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the CUP for the operation of an auto repair shop in the south 10,500 sq. ft. of the building at 721 Hampshire Ave. S. The staff believes tliat this location is appropriate for a car repair operation. Staff does not see any need to limit hours of operation due to the location away from residences. There are several other auto oriented businesses in this immediate area due to its good access to the street and highway system. The staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Imola Motorsports Inc. will operate in the south 70 ft. by 150 ft. portion of the building at 721 Hampshire Ave. S. 2. All signage shall meet the requirements of the City sign code for the Industrial zoning district. 3. If there is an outside dumpster, it must be screened from view and be constructed of material compatible with the building as determined by the Building Official. 4. The applicant will keep the overhead door closed except when bringing vehicles into the building. 3 5. The memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson and dated December 8, 2008, is attached and his recommendations shall become a part of this approval. (Please note that the Deputy Fire Marshal mistakenly thought that there would be auto body work and painting done by Imola.) 6. Only auto repair shall be done by Imola. No body work or painting shall be permitted. 7. All other applicable state, local and federal requirements shall be met. 8. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated December 8,2008 (1 page) Applicant's Narrative (1 page) Site Plans (4 pages) Photos of the Property (3 pages) 4 145 Subject Property 101 69111 751 ll800 801 MARKET ST 6955 901 6944 We 1394ro L()OlSlA~ Aiit' S INTERSTA rE 394 INTERSTATE..3...94 . .... IwtHiiTOE6'1394 \,ovlStA.... <1) AWpcram:JvrifuMtiJMS" C~'fltC-} l.OQtSGts~ o ;/ o <I' II 0 '717 0 0 E) II 515 102 o 0 90S 850 900 6400 o 700 o 840 <II ~ < I g w 900 6300 6224 &nO $1.1 #ilW,tOg ,$,To l\'I 13", .. f!e 139., 1"0$11 ... ,.,.....: 00$ L 415ft ttlley M orandum Fire Department 763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax) To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning & Zoning From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Subject: Conditional Use Permit CU-124 Imola Motorsports Date: December 8, 2008 cc: The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the application for the conditional use permit for Imola Motorsports located at 721 Hampshire Avenue South. According to the application information, this proposed site will be used for automotive and marine repair, maintenance and auto body operations located within this building. The Golden Valley Fire Department will require the following Fire Code requirements for this proposed location: 1. The automotive and marine repair operation proposed for this site shall meet the requirements of the current Minnesota Fire Code. 2. The body shop operation proposed for this site shall meet the requirements of the current Minnesota Fire Code. 3. The current fire suppression system located in the building shall be re-evaluated for the proposed use by a Minnesota state licensed sprinkler contractor. 4. The use and storage of flammable and combustible liquids, including paints and other chemicals used for the auto body operations, shall meet the requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code. 5. The proposed use of an auto body operation, including the use of paint booth and other associated equipment, shall meet the requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065. Narrative for Imola Motorsports Inc. Hours of Operation: 9AM - 9PM Approximately 4-5 employees The primary use for this property will be for Automotive repair and maintenance. Approximately 80% / 8000 sqft of this space will be devoted to shop space in which there will be automotive lifts and an additional 2 lifts for storage lifts of project cars. The r~maining 20% / 2650 sqft of the space willbe dedicated to s~owroom / waiting lounge 'and offices of which 'there: will be a small amount'<)fretail sales. , As a startup, there will be about 5 employees initially with the possibility of expanding up to 10 employees. We expect the number of customers to vary from an estimated 5-20 customers daily. Parking of any customer vehicles will be primarily INSIDE the shop space. There will not be any vehicles parked outside the building except during business hours. This will be only in the spaces provided to us by the Borton Group. The type of use imposed by Imola Motorsports should be primarily the same as Borton Volvo and should be accepted around the area. The exterior of the building has recently been renovated and landscaped to Borton V olvos specifications earlier this year. The interior of the building is currently being renovated to comply with all zoning and city requirements. This is expected to be completed by February 1 st 2009. -n o '0 I.... i"'O liil ':J U iU tU i I \ \ n\ i : '" k : lir Ii Ii II ill iJi J" ~. Ii @) rr-- ~ : ! , ';- i '.'-D~'" ::;.; " '" ,Floor Plail )>, !" Warehouse Remodeling ...L i :~WllIlovU~ Cf 14fl1t:r ifJ ~ ~ ~ ~ H (' ~.. fr ~ .. ;, l ~ ./ '0 . - -.: .. \ 4" ;~ /gPr -~ I) ~ II~CdY-Wthisplan.--'--T~:NO.~~ specIlCatIonor report was pl'8p8red : Scale 1....1'*0"__-- :u"::I=::,~~['!~C~:== ArCtlitectunder\tlelawsofthe iDrawn Slate 01 Minnesota. , Checked :~'------- Date1~!".. ~.-~~- :"",-T ~,~- 1 I l :s i l- i 1-1' ! --- V1 t " Cf io.. I~! ti' , ~ ~ @ ~~~---- ~ ;0 '. RICE' STROMGREN ARCHITECTS! :--- 1- ; 711 West lake SIr8el #$OS _is.MN~ !!~-?~ - I \......~~"-'- ~/ ----/~'-- . . ~ to ~ 'f. '(' \ / / r1 ji" ~ ~ 1-<. ... . .,~ *',( ~ ~. . t, . " r- . ..... ; 1- ~ oJ r ,. c: '" ~ ,. z '" :J: ,. r ~ iii :.~.:t;>.::..,):.:~. .....- 61'UCQ)1W2" ........- """""""""""'" -.- CiClUI"te . IXIIT. emrr rT\Y/[ST ELEVAlION - SCHEME 1: RE-SKIN (fl<lst,~ 'Det'L ,,, 2/)D l/Z-b,o 0) e.,.~ i i T f i i i T [ bJ g g bJ g bJ g g ~ 1"'1 ~ g <!)::~l ELEVAlION - EXISlING ( otL..e.\t".t,,,,) " ~ . ;: 8!D" ~~ ~~ ~~ ~i ~~ ~; ~ ~"tl ,'~ i: :: I . p > . . . f ~ ~~ ~i ~ ~ ~ t" ;:r 1I ,. ~ 1- ~ f" ~ ~ !'".,( ~~ ~.~ 11 I'I~ e ~ V" i' ~r ~ ~ s ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ f - 0-1 ::: ...t~. 0 i~l~c~~~~ "I........ !II ~ : ~~ H -, S~ :~ ,. c i t; ~.i ~~ Si ~~ :~ ~~ ~-; o:!> ~ R :; ~ ~" .. "p "'-. " ~~ 't ~ :~ ; i~ .., ,. ~ "1 ... . ... -;; - <4 .,. <If .. .. "' - 0 - - ""~. ~, - .... ,.. - i;..rr':; ~t::I€t~ll'I!:,~I,o",,,,,,;:zf()~ ii 2 ~~ ii-; ~ r.::;: ~ ~ S s:: I;" ....~ .04f~~"ii!t"?;i..' :;: ;~:;: ~;i~~ ! if -- i ,. . . ,j . . ~ Ii ~ ~I. ~ : III c -j~ ~ ,l.. ,. ~ ~ ., I i I ~ '\l ~ il ij ! i ~ f. " : .- ! I r .. .. ~ it;! ~ 011'-4 E Z ~ r" ~ ,. 0 0 .. t ? ~6 =p. -~---r :t ~~ ;~ t . 1:..... .,'l; ;1' .. ,. ~ it ~ i r J ~ 3 z: ; .. . . . ,. .. .~- jI II r ~ .. . . z ~ r ~ ~ i e "'.'... ";. ,~ ~ ..r'l~ ., .f. ,.., ~- ~ ----~ o ,- Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: December 31, 2008 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Proposed Ordinance Requiring Paved Surface/Patio Setback Requirements in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District Currently, there are not setback requirements for patios in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District. For most patio designs, building permits are not required. To reduce potential for conflicts between neighboring property owners, the Planning Department requests the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the proposed ordinance requiring paved surface and patio setback requirements in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District. Currently a three foot setback for all new driveway construction is required in the City of Golden Valley. This requirement was enacted, in part, to mitigate negative impacts to neighboring property owners. Staff believes the same potential for negative impacts to neighboring property owners exist with patios and other paved surfaces as well. Staff has conducted an informal poll of other communities in the Twin Cities Metro Area with respect to patio setback requirements. The results of the poll from responding cities are illustrated below: City Side Setback Rear Setback Brooklyn Park 5 5 Buffalo 2 2 Chanhassan 5 5 Chaska 5 5 Columbia HeiQhts 0 0 Crystal 1 1 Hastings 5 5 Lino Lakes 5 10 Plymouth 6 6 Norwood - YounQ America 10 10 Saint Michael 5 5 Savage 5 5 ,Hoseville 2 2 I Watertown White Bear Lake I~ I~ Staff recommends requiring a three foot setback for patios, consistent with setback guidelines for driveways, and requests that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. Attachments Section 11.21, Subdivision 19 of City Code (1 Page) Letter from Ginger Dunlap to the Planning Commission received November 7,2008(14 pages, including photos) *Subdivision 19. Driv9'lIay Pavement Requirements Drive'Nays Paved areas. includinQ driveways. patios. and other bituminous paved land cover in the R-1 Zoning District are governed by the following provisions: A. Materials. Driveways built or reconstructed on or after January 1, 2005, shall be constructed of concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers. B. Setbacks. Drive'Nays built on or after January 1, 2005, Paved areas shall be setback three (3) feet from a side yard property line, except for shared driveways used by multiple property owners pursuant to a private easement. Source: Ordinance No. 311, 2nd Series Effective Date: 10-29-04 C. Coverage. No more than forty percent (40%) of the front yard may be covered with concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers. Source: Ordinance No. 382, :f1d Series Effective Date: 3-28-08 *Renumbering Source Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-28-08 Don Keysser, I wanted to bring to your attention a situation that has happened to me. I hope that some changes might be made to the Golden Valley City Code(s) so this won't happen to another person in our city. I live at 1720 Mendelssohn Av in Golden Valley, my neighbor on the north side; at 1800 Mendelssohn decided to do a lot of work on his property. He started all this work without saying anything to me. He also did not pull any permits; the city came by, noticed the work in front, and inquired about the work being done. The city ordered him to stop work on this project(s) until he had obtained the necessary permits. I contacted the city about the work he was doing between the two houses. I finally asked my neighbor what he was doing. He informed me that he was putting a driveway into his back yard and had plans for a new garage in the back. I called the city to get some building code information. The city told me that there is a three foot set back for driveways. I informed him about the driveway setback ordinance. He then told me: "To bad I will pour an eleven foot driveway and put gravel on the other three feet." I contacted the city again and was told that not only does new driveways have to be concrete it cannot have gravel on the sides; I informed him of this. By now my neighbor had been required by the city to explain his plans. He talked with Mr. Hogeboom and also informed Mr. Hogeboom that he was putting in a driveway. He again was told he needed a three foot set back. He then looked into Golden Valley building codes and found out that a concrete patio does not need any set back from the property line. It can legally be poured right up to the property line. He then changed the name of his driveway to "PATIO." He knows he can't park on it but he can drive across all day long which is exactly what he wants. Just to let you know he spent a month last summer putting a very nice large patio in his back yard. That's where they sit, cook and entertain. His new "PATIO" in between our houses will never be used as a patio. It's a DRIVEWAY. As you look at the pictures it's obviously an extension of his current driveway. The variance he applied for to pour right to the property line will line right up with his new "PATIO" It's very clear thatthis PATIO is really going to be a driveway. Of course I hope that the city will turn him down for the variance. At the start of this job he took steps off the side of his house approximately 9ft tall x 20ft long x 4ft wide. He put all this in his front yard and started digging between our houses. All the dirt he pulled out from between the houses is what he used to bury the torn out steps laying in is front yard. As you look at the pictures it is about a lOft drop outside his back door and about a 2ft drop right outside my door. We have about 20ft from my back door to his back door, 14ft is his. Which puts this giant hole right outside my back door. He says he is going to put up a retaining wall and a fence on top of it? I can't help but think he is going to put the retaining wall and fence on my property as he has done in the past. So I am hoping for a couple of things. 1) Concrete patios should have a set back. 2) If someone is going to start digging massive holes they should not be able to bring them right to the property line. 3) There should be penalties for doing work without permits. Thank You Sincerely, Ginger Dunlap, Homeowner, 1720 Mendelssohn Ave N. ::. ..-,-~ ,~ ~ ..., ., \ 1 \ ; \ ".' ~::,.'P: H:~te;:~,Gctt " ~~ bA4.K':' ,4~r';~ ,.' . '; I .. ~ a~ 4.,,~A: ~ J- ''''I. ~ '. : . :r , "fPtd ,,-. ,..." ~ . '\ "....; ~ .,,/\~ _ ~ .p-.., f ; . ":~f':~lC: "~,,. , .." .yi' i<..IWI' " 'l ' ':>~...:.t'P~ ,oJ, .' ~.- "r~!';",:,:\i'., l': " J.,l,,,, , -.- ">(.'a.,,':, : "., .... .. " . '. '\.. .' ..-,;;; \,. I .-. ,. ., ~ ~1' ~ ol: " . ( ,'t- ", '~tl , ... , "... ~ ....~ .1 ~ " :t!t,., , . ,-'. \'.." ."'1 1/" /~ j ~: 'J.~l...,," "/" ..("'~, 'l. "'\/,.(:.'~ 6'f. ",I', f. .- "'" ~~ " . . '" ~ 'Co ... " + . ' :' " ~ -- T-_u n "'. ,. ... I.t .} *f.' ..... . ,.*", .,', I t I ,"'- , \ I I \ \~ I II \ ,~ ~ 1~ , ~ - -l~ / /. '0' ~ ........ ~~.~. ':. ". t> .' i~.'';' '. J/ ' . ' ....; '...~ . ': ~ ..rt.;~ .-~ ....' jI,'\' I. { - ",.., ... ",-' ~ I I \ ;y I 1 . \ , .;., J I \' ~. . , ~ / \( I / I Ii> r \ , .. \ Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: December 23, 2008 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Request to Amend "Building Height" Definition in City Code The City has recently discovered a contradiction between the definition of "building height" in City Code, and the City's official survey requirements. Currently, City Code states that when a building has been removed from a lot, the average grade of the new structure must be the same, or no more than one foot above, the average grade of the preexisting structure. However, the Building and Inspections Department generally requires the garage floor elevation of new structures to be at least two feet above the centerline elevation of the street. This guideline has been established to help control grading and flooding issues that may occur if a garage is located down-slope from a street. The City is proposing to amend the definition of building height by no longer establishing average grade based on the grade of preexisting structures; instead allowing average grade to be determined by the Director of Public Works. The City will work to establish criteria to facilitate the Director of Public Works in determining average grade. Criteria will include consideration of the average grade of previous lot conditions. The proposed amended building height definition will create agreement between City Code and City survey requirements. Staff asks for your support in amending Section 11.03, Definition 12 of City Code to redefine "building height" by removing language pertaining to average grade determination for lots with preexisting structures. Attachment Section 11.03, Definition 12 of City Code (1 Page) 911.03 8. Automobile Wrecking: The dismantling or disassembling of used motor vehicles or trailers, or the storage, sale or dumping of dismantled, partially dismantled, obsolete or wrecked vehicles or their parts. Source: Ordinance No. 585 Effective Date: 1-14-83 8.5. Average Grade: The average ground elevation of a house or structure taken at three (3) points along a building line facing a street. If the house or structure faces more than one (1) street, the average grade shall be for all sides facing the street. Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-28-08 9. Basement: That portion of a building with at least three (3) walls having at least one-half (1/2) or more of their floor-to ceiling height underground. 10. Buildable Area: That area of a lot which is exclusive of all yards and within which the principal building must be constructed. Source: Ordinance No. 585 Effective Date: 1-14-83 11. Building: Any structure for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or property of any kind and when separated by dividing walls without openings, each portion of such buildings, so separated, shall be deemed a separate building. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 12. Building, Height: The vertical distance or height of a structure shall be measured from the average grade at the front building line (street side) to the average height of the highest pitched roof or the highest point of a flat roof structure. The grade or average grade of a lot is established at the time of subdivision approval by the City. If the grade or average grade was not established at the time of subdivision approval by the City, the Director of Public Works shall establish the average grade prior to construction of the structure. In thc c~se whcre ~ house or structure h~s been removed from .~ lot for the construction of ~ ne'N house or structure, the ~'v'erage gr~de for the ne'N house or structure shall bc no more than one (1) foot higher th~n the grade or ~ver~ge gr~de th~t existed for the house or structure th~t w~s removcd. In the case of a corner lot, the average grade is taken from all sides of the house or structure facing the str~et. Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-28-08 Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 17