11-03-10 - CC Agenda PacketAGENDA
Regular Meeting
of the
City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
6:30 pm
The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6
prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7 pm
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
B. Oath of Office -Police Officer
C. Board/Commission Oath of Office and Presentation of Certificate of Appointment
2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Consent Agenda -All items listed under this heading are considered to be
routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests in which
event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its
normal sequence on the agenda.
A. Approval of Minutes -Council/Manager Meeting -October 12, 2010 and City Council
Meeting -October 19, 2010
B. Approval of Check Registers:
1. City
2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority
C. Licenses:
1. General Business Licenses
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1. Planning Commission -October 11, 2010
2. Environmental Commission -September 27, 2010
3. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission -September 23, 2010
E. Sale of Excess Equipment - 1994 Chevrolet Fire Vehicle 10-64
F. Sale of Excess Audio-Visual Equipment 10-65
G. Receipt of September 2010 General Fund Budget Report
H. Restricting Vehicle Stopping, Standing, or Parking -Portion of Noble Avenue North
10-66
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 PM
A. Public Hearing -Preliminary Design Plan Approval - PUD No. 75 Amendment #3 -
6800 Wayzata Boulevard - Menard, Inc., Applicant
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. First Consideration -Ordinance #450 - Adding a New Section 2.22: Domestic
Partnership Registration
B. Announcements of Meetings
C. Mayor and Council Communications
7. ADJOURNMENT
Council/Manager Meeting Minutes
October 12, 2010
Present: Mayor Loomis and Council Members Freiberg, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer, City
Manager Tom Burt, Assistant HRA Director Jeanne Andre, Finance Director Sue Virnig,
Public Works Director Jeannine Clancy, Police Chief Stacy Altonen, Park and Recreation
Director Rick Jacobson, Golf Operations Manager Ben Disch, Director of Planning and
Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom, and Administrative Assistant Lisa
Wittman.
The meeting began at 6:40 pm in the Council Conference Room.
Bottineau Transitway Alternatives Analysis Study Update
County Commissioner Mark Stenglein introduced Joe Gladke from the County's
Engineering and Transit Planning Division. Gladke gave a PowerPoint presentation
updating the Council on the Bottineau Transitway Alternatives Analysis Study. He referred
to a map of the 2030 Transitway System Plan and discussed the project development of
various transitways and the next steps and general timeline of the Bottineau transitway He
focused on the Golden Valley Road station characteristics and noted that there is a
preliminary estimate of 500 to 1,500 station boardings per day which is a combination of
walk-up, pick-up/drop-off and feeder bus transfers. He discussed noise and vibration and
explained that those issues will be considered in the next phase of the study. He discussed
the feasibility of a Highway 55 station and noted the limited service area, the potential of
limited connections the proximity to the Highway 55/Penn Avenue station and the grade
challenges as reasons why a station at this location is unlikely. He explained that the next
phase of the study will include an environmental impact study and that the County is at a
point where decisions will need to be made between the proposed D1 and D2 alignments.
The Council agreed that they would like to have a meeting or open house in order to hear
resident's opinions, especially if they are being asked to sign a resolution of support. They
suggested .having a meeting or open house at St. Margaret Mary Church. Gladke said he
would be willing to host meetings and/or open houses.
Jeannine Clancy noted that the City's expectation is that the project will pay all of the utility
and sidewalk costs associated with the Bottineau Transitway. Gladke agreed and stated
that is also his assumption. He added that ultimately the Metropolitan Council wants to see
agreement from all of the cities involved.
The Council discussed the inclusion of a park and ride facility and how apick-up/drop-off
area would work. They asked if there will be an opportunity to see what the station/platform
area might look like. Gladke stated that they are in the process of having animation done in
order to show how the station could look and informed the Council that he will keep them
updated on the progress of the study at future Council/Manager meetings.
Proposed Ordinance Amendment- Section 2.22 -Domestic Partnership
Registration
Stacy Altonen stated that the Human Rights Commission has approved a draft domestic
partnership registration ordinance. The Commission has agreed that the proposed
ordinance as written is now ready to be sent to the Council for consideration.
Council/Manager Meeting Minutes
October 12, 2010 -Page 2
The Council directed staff to remove from the ordinance Subdivision 3(E) regarding the
designation of family registration status.
Council Member Shaffer noted that the information provided on the application for the
domestic partnership status registry is public information and suggested that that be made
clear in the ordinance or on the application itself. Tom Burt indicated that the ordinance
would be placed on the agenda of an upcoming Regular Council Meeting for formal
consideration by the Council.
Dog Licenses
Stacy Altonen explained that the City currently licenses approximately 600 dogs per year
and the $6.00 annual registration fee does not offset the staff time involved in documenting
and tracking registrations.
The Council discussed if it makes sense to raise the registration fee, the helpfulness of
having dogs licensed and if other cities have been rescinding their dog license ordinances.
Altonen said she thought if the fee were raised even fewer people would register their dogs
and that some other cities have rescinded their dog license ordinances. The Council
agreed that it would consider rescinding the dog license registration ordinance at an
upcoming meeting.
Tom Burt stated that an ordinance discontinuing dog license registration will be placed on
an upcoming City Council agenda.
Official Zoning Map Amendments
Mark Grimes reminded the Council that the Comprehensive Plan update was approved in
May. He explained that by law, Zoning Map designations must correspond with the
General Land Use Plan Map designations within one year of its approval by the
Metropolitan Council.
Joe Hogeboom referred to a map of the areas that are required to be rezoned. He
explained that if the City Gouncil favors leaving the parcels in their existing zoning
categories, then the General Land Use Plan Map must be revised to reflect that decision.
The Council discussed various issues regarding rezoning the properties such as the land
uses and height allowed in various zoning districts and the density that would be allowed
under certain zoning designations. They also discussed what they thought the market
would support or would want to see in the various areas. There was a lengthy discussion
regarding Area 5 (southeast corner of Winnetka Avenue and Highway 55) and Area 6
(southwest corner of Glenwood Avenue and Highway 55) on the map and if those areas
would be an appropriate location for higher density or if they should be rezoned and
redesignated to a lower density category. The Council also discussed traffic and access
issues in those areas.
Mayor Loomis expressed concern over making significant changes in zoning designations
without any input from the property owners or nearby residents.
Council/Manager Meeting Minutes
October 12, 2010 -Page 3
The Council suggested having an open house for residents to try and explain the potential
changes and impacts that the rezoning of these properties could have on issues such as
land use, building height, density, traffic, etc. Tom Burt noted that it would be difficult to
have an open house because the City doesn't have good traffic data for the various types
of land uses that could potentially be proposed.
The Council came to the consensus that it is important to get input from residents and that
they would like to go through the public hearing process to either rezone the properties or
designate them differently on the General Land Use Plan map. Mayor Loomis stated that
she would like the public hearings on the various areas to come to the City Council at
different times and not all at one Council meeting.
Tom Burt said staff will review the traffic issues as they relate to various land uses and
clarify the potential changes that the properties in question may undergo and that this item
will come back to a future Council/Manager meeting for further discussion.
2011-2012 Proposed Budget -Other Funds
The Council reviewed the proposed budgets for the Water and Sewer and Brookview Golf
Course enterprise funds and the Vehicle Maintenance Internal Service Fund. Staff
addressed Council questions regarding specific projects. There was also discussion on
potential ways to increase the number of golf patrons at Brookview.
2011-2012 Capital Improvement Program
Sue Virnig explained that the proposed CIP would go to the Planning Commission for
review at its second meeting in October and would come back to the Council at its
November Council/Manager Meeting with comments from the Planning Commission. They
discussed the expenses related to trail and sidewalk maintenance, safety repairs, ADA
compliance and reconstruction.
The Council directed staff to delay the purchase of a regenerative street sweeper for
another year
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 pm.
Lisa Wittman
Administrative Assistant
Regular Meeting
of the
City Council
October 19, 2010
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota was held at 7800 Golden Valley Road in said
City on October 19, 2010 at 6:30 pm.
The following members were present: Freiberg,
present were: Thomas Burt, City Manager; Allen
Administrative Assistant.
Loomis, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer. Also
Barnard, City Attorney; and Judy Nally,
Approval of Agenda
MOVED by Scanlon, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the
agenda of October 19, 2010 as amended: Addition of Item -Authorization to Sign Law
Enforcement Services Agreement with Hennepin County for Interim Dispatch Services.
Approval of Consent Agenda
MOVED by Scanlon, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to approve the
agenda of October 19, 2010 as amended: Addition of Item -Authorization to Sign Law
Enforcement Services Agreement with Hennepin County for Interim Dispatch Services.
*Approval of Minutes -City Council Meeting -October 5, 2010
MOVED by Scanlon, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to approve the
City Council Meeting of October 19, 2010 as submitted.
*Approval of Check Register
MOVED by Scanlon, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to authorize
the payment of the City bills as submitted.
*Gambling Premises Permit Application -Crustal Lions 10-58
Member Scanlon introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 10-58
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT
FOR THE CONDUCT OF LAWFUL GAMBLING
(CRYSTAL LIONS)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Freiberg
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Freiberg,
Loomis, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer; and the following voted against the same: none,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Regular Meeting of the City Council
October 19, 2010
Page 2
*Solicitor's License -Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG)
MOVED by Scanlon, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to approve the
solicitor's license for Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG).
*Solicitor's License -Custom Remodelers Inc
MOVED by Scanlon, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to approve the
solicitor's license for Custom Remodelers Inc.
*Solicitor's License -Janet Havrish and Marie Mathay
MOVED by Scanlon, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to approve the
solicitor's license for Janet Havrish and Marie Mathay.
Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement -PRISM People
Responding in Social Ministry
MOVED by Scanlon, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to receive and
file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice requirement for
PRISM People Responding in Social Ministry.
*Minutes of Boards and Commissions
MOVED by Scanlon, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to receive and
file the minutes as follows:
Planning Commission -August 9, 2010
Joint Water Commission -August 3, 2010
Human Services Foundation -August 9, 2010
*Quotes -Extrication Equipment
MOVED by Scanlon, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to purchase
three sets of extrication equipment from the lowest responsible bidder, Emergency
Management Company for $60,980. The quotes were as follows:
Emergency Management Company $60,980
Jefferson Fire & Safety 70,546
Regular Meeting of the City Council
October 19, 2010
Page 3
*Approval of Fire Department Relief Association Bv--Laws and Policies
MOVED by Scanlon, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to approve the
Golden Valley Fire Department Relief Association by-laws and policies.
*Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments: 2010 Pavement
Management Program Driveways 10-59 and 2010 Pavement Management Program
Sanitary Sewer Repairs 10-60
Member Scanlon introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 10-59
RESOLUTION WAIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUTES 429.031 AND ORDERING CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
ON PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS THAT INVOLVE 2010(A) CITY STREET IMPROVEMENTS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Freiberg
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Freiberg,
Loomis, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer; and the following voted against the same: none,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Member Scanlon introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 10-60
RESOLUTION WAIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUTES 429.031 AND ORDERING CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
ON SANITARY SEWER REPAIRS INVOLVE 2010(A) CITY STREET IMPROVEMENTS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Freiberg
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Freiberg,
Loomis, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer; and the following voted against the same: none,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
*Call for Public Hearing - 2011-2012 Pavement Management Program - 11/16/10
Member Scanlon introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 10-61
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING
ON CERTAIN PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NO. 11-1
2011 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AND
PROJECT NO. 12-1
2012 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Regular Meeting of the City Council
October 19, 2010
Page 4
*Call for Public Hearing - 2011-2012 Pavement Management Program - 11/16/10 -
Continued
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Freiberg
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Freiberg,
Loomis, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer; and the following voted against the same: none,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
*Authorization to Sign Minnesota Water Agency Response Network (MnWARN)
Mutual Aid Agreement
Member Scanlon introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 10-62
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY TO BE A PARTY TO
MINNESOTA WATER AGENCY RESPONSE NETWORK (MnWARN)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Freiberg
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Freiberg,
Loomis, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer; and the following voted against the same: none,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
*Authorization to Sign Agreement with Hennepin County and MnDOT for
Maintenance of Traffic Signals - TH 100 and Glenwood Avenue
Member Scanlon introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 10-63
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT NO. 97240M
BETWEEN THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC
CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEMS - TH 100 AND GLENWOOD AVENUE
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Freiberg
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Freiberg,
Loomis, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer; and the following voted. against the same: none,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Regular Meeting of the City Council
October 19, 2010
Page 5
*Authorization to Sign Grant Contract with State of Minnesota for Highway
Enforcement of Aggressive Traffic (HEAT)
MOVED by Scanlon, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to authorize
the Mayor and City Manager sign the Highway Enforcement of Aggressive Traffic (HEAT)
Grant Contract with the State of Minnesota, Commissioner of Public Safety, State Patrol
Division for the state fiscal year of October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011.
*Authorization to Sign Law Enforcement Services Agreement with Hennepin County
for Interim Dispatch Services
MOVED by Scanlon, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to authorize
the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Law Enforcement Services Agreement with
Hennepin County for temporary 911 telecommunications public safety services and
computer aided dispatch from September 1, 2010 to April 30, 2011.
Announcements of Meetings
A Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission meeting will be held on October 21,
2010 at 11:30 am.
Some Council Members may attend the Bridge Builder meeting on October 23, 2010 at
10 am at Byerlys.
Some Council Members may attend Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
walk of creek on October 28, 2010 at 9 am.
The State General Election will be held on November 2, 2010.
The next City Council meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 3, 2010 at 6:30 pm.
The next Council/Manager meeting will be held on November 9, 2010 at 6:30 pm.
Some Council Members may attend the Taste of Golden Valley on November 10, 2010 at
5:30 pm at the Metropolitan Ballroom.
The City Offices are closed on Thursday, November 11, 2011 in observance of Veteran's
Day.
Some Council Members may attend the Golden Valley Historical Society Meeting on
November 11, 2010 at 7 pm at the Golden Valley Historical Society.
Manor and Council Communications
Mayor Loomis stated she attended the chimney swift tower dedication at Theodore Wirth
Park.
Regular Meeting of the City Council
October 19, 2010
Page 6
Adjournment
The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 6:37 pm.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant
~'.iCV~
Orf
o en a e
~0`0euce"Fr Public Safety
R yVarr ~
~. .. .~ .a. ~ ~ Lek.- ~ -
Police Department
763-593-8079 / 763-593-8098 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
November 3, 2010
Agenda Item
1. B. Oath of Office -Police Officer Matthew Boelter
Prepared By
Stacy Altonen, Chief of Police
Summary
Officer Matthew Boelter will be present to take his oath of office as a Golden Valley Police
Officer.
Recommended Action
Mayor Loomis administers the oath of office to Officer Boelter.
rit ~•
~~ ~ ~ Finance
763-593-8013 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
November 3, 2010
Agenda Item
3. B. 1. Approval of City Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley.
Attachments
Loose in agenda packet.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
Golden
galley
.m~~ __- ~ - __
Finance
763-593-8013 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
November 3, 2010
Agenda Item
3. B. 2. Approval of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of check register for various vendor claims against the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority.
Attachments
Loose in agenda packet.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
O ~j~ ~ (~ Inspections
j 1 v 763-593-8090 / 763-593-3997 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
November 3, 2010
Agenda Item
3. C. 1. General Business Licenses
Prepared By
Kathy Pepin and Jill Lund, Administrative Assistants
Summary
As per City Code, some businesses are required to be licensed by the City. Listed below are
the License Number, Applicant, License Type and Fee of those who have submitted an
application for approval.
#4538 Valley Community Presbyterian Church Christmas Trees $75.00
3100 Lilac Drive North
#4537 Premium Quality Trees
7825 Medicine Lake Road
Christmas Trees
$75.00
#4551 Feist Automotive
1875 Lilac Drive
#4557 Kabalan Company
9405 Medicine Lake Road
Cigarette/Tobacco
Cigarette/Tobacco
#4550 Holiday Station Store #130 Cigarette/Tobacco
7925 Wayzata Boulevard
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the issuance of licenses as recommended by staff.
$275.00
$275.00
$275.00
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
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,
October 11, 2010. Vice Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Kluchka, McCarty, Segelbaum
and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes,
City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner
Schmidgall was absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
August 9, 2010 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Eck referred to the first paragraph on page 6 and noted that the words "found in" were
used twice erroneously in the first sentence.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the
August 9, 2010 minutes with the above noted correction.
2. Informal Public Hearing -Planned Unit Development Amendment -
Preliminary Design Plan - 6800 Wayzata Boulevard -Menards - PU-75,
Amendment #3
Applicant: Menard, Inc.
Address: 6800 Wayzata Blvd.
Purpose: The applicant is proposing the replacement of the existing Menards
e store with a new 2-story Menards home improvement center.
Grimes explained the applicant's request to amend their existing PUD in order to tear
down the existing building and construct a new 2-level store on the same site. He gave a
brief history of the property and stated that Menards has been at this location since
1981.
Grimes referred to a site plan of the property and explained that the existing store is
approximately 128,000 square feet in area on one level and the proposed new store
would be approximately 250,000 square feet on two levels. The applicant is also
proposing a 42,000 square foot warehouse area along the north property line and a
garden center with both indoor and outdoor display areas on the east side of the store.
The garden center will eliminate the need to sell Christmas trees and landscape material
in the front parking lot as allowed in their current PUD Permit.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 2
Grimes noted that this property is currently zoned 1-394 Mixed Use. However, it is the
City Attorney's opinion that, because Menards is already an existing PUD, they can go
through the PUD amendment process with this proposal.
Grimes explained that one concern regarding this proposal is the issue of parking. He
noted that the size of the parking lot will increase by only 23 parking stalls for a total 376
spaces which is significantly fewer than what is required in the .Zoning Code. Menards
has stated that they feel 376 parking spaces will be adequate but staff is proposing that if
they need more spaces some of the yard space behind the building will have to be used
for additional parking.
Grimes referred to the proposed landscaping and discussed storm water quality for the
site. He noted that staff has met with the applicant regarding Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission standards and they've agreed to meet the Level 1 standards
for water quality. He explained that Menards doesn't have their storm water plans
finished yet, but they will be available by the time the Final PUD Plan is approved. He
added that Menards has proposed the creation of bio-filtration ponds and an
underground storage system to help meet the Level 1 standards. The installation of the
bio-filtration ponds will require some trees to be removed along Market Street, Wayzata
Blvd and Hampshire Ave. He added that Menards will also have to do a tree preservation
plan and probably mitigation.
Grimes referred to the signage on the site and explained that the current pylon sign is an
existing non-conforming use so it can stay. However, the signage on the building will be
reduced by several hundred square feet.
Grimes referred to the elevation drawings and said that staff would prefer if all of the
sides of the building were done in the same finish material as is being proposed for the
front since all four sides of the property are visible. He added that staff is recommending
approval of this proposal with the conditions listed in his memo.
Waldhauser stated that in the I-394 Corridor Study one of the long-term goals was to
have another east/west street between I-394 and Laurel rather than having a "zigzag"
access to the business. She asked who would bear the cost if the City wanted to split
this property in half with a new east/west road. She suggested removing the frontage
road and having the warehouse and lumber yard on one side of a parkway/road and the
retail on the other side. She questioned the feasibility and the cost of such a
configuration. Grimes agreed that the I-394 Corridor Study does suggest an additional
east/west connection and ideally that is what the City would like, but at this time the City
could not pay the acquisition and utility costs. Waldhauser questioned the re-use of this
property as something other than a big box store if it is not split.
Cera stated that ideally one might want to match the plans in the I-394 Corridor study but
the Commission also has to look at what is realistic. He asked if variances can be
approved within a PUD or if they are subject to the same requirements as other variance
requests. Grimes stated that PUDs are a zoning issue and because this property is
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 3
already a PUD it can continue to be a PUD and they have the right to ask for an
amendment. He added that a PUD also allows the City to require certain things it may
not otherwise be able to, such as water quality improvements. He explained that there is
currently minimal storm water management on the Menards site so this proposal will be
a significant improvement in that regard.
Cera asked why the number of curb cuts on the east side of the parking lot has been
reduced. Grimes stated that reducing the curb cuts created more space for parking stalls
and also having fewer openings creates less confusion in parking lots. He added that the
City Engineer feels the proposed number of curb cuts will function well.
Segelbaum expressed concern regarding the driveways on Wayzata Blvd. He stated that
he agrees they may not need additional parking stalls, but they may need additional
access. Eck agreed.
Aaron Morrissey, Real Estate Representative, Menard, Inc., Applicant, referred to the
condition in Mark Grimes' report regarding the front facade material being mimicked on
all sides of the building. He stated that he thinks he'll have a hard time getting Menards
to go along with that, especially on the north side along Laurel, because it would be a
substantial cost and that side of the property won't be highly visible. Cera asked about
changing the east and west facades. Morrissey said he thought that might be feasible.
He referred to the site plans and noted that there will also be 14-foot high pallet stacking
fencing around the yard area to serve as screening and security. Grimes added that the
Zoning Code requires outdoor storage to be screened. Segelbaum questioned if the
fencing has to be 14 feet in height and asked if it could be 8 feet in height on the east
side along Hampshire Ave. Morrissey said the 14-foot fence height is consistent with
what they currently have and it allows for storage as well.
McCarty noted that size of the store is doubling. He asked Morrissey if they are planning
on doubling the types of products they carry or if they are going to double the amount of
the products they already sell. Morrissey said they are definitely going to increase the
variety of products they sell along with having a grocery segment, a showcase area for
kitchens and bathrooms and a garden center which is one of the main reasons for
redeveloping this property.
Eck asked Morrissey if the objective is to do more business with the same customers or
of they are hoping to attract new customers. Morrissey said they are hoping to keep their
existing customers and attract new ones.
Eck questioned how adding only 23 new parking spaces would be acceptable. Morrissey
said he finds most zoning codes require too much parking and that they typically ask
cities for parking variances. He stated that Menards doesn't have as many customers as
a retailer like Target or Walmart. They have a more steady flow of customers but not a
large number of customers at certain times of the year. He added that they have done
parking studies in the past and typically their stores require approximately 250 parking
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 4
spaces. Eck asked Morrissey if the current store has more parking spaces than they
really need. Morrissey said yes.
Segelbaum asked about Menards' plans in the event they don't have sufficient parking.
Morrissey said they would probably allocate employee parking spaces in the back
yard/warehouse area. Grimes noted that Menards could also have an off-site parking
arrangement with nearby businesses if needed.
Waldhauser asked if the footprint of the building is staying the same. Morrissey said the
new building's footprint will be similar to the existing building's footprint.
Waldhauser said she would like to see more trees on this site and that she doesn't
understand why there can't be trees located in the bio-retention ponds. Morrissey
explained that the bio-retention ponds have drain the buried underneath engineered
soils. He added that the ponds can't support a tree's root structure and only specific
plants will be used to help filter the water. McCarty questioned why the parking lot in
front of the store isn't using the same underground storage tank design that is being
proposed in the back lumberyard area. Morrissey stated that the bio-retention ponds are
preferred by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission and there isn't
enough room in the lumberyard area to install bio-retention ponds. Grimes added that
the soil types in the lumberyard area are more suitable for the proposed underground
tank system and the soil types in the front of the store are more suitable for the bio-
retention ponds. He said it is his understanding that the way the project is proposed is
the best way to get to the Level 1 standards for water quality.
Grimes stated that the Planning Commission could suggest that the parking areas be
reduced by 10 to 15 percent in order to allow for additional landscaping and to get the
space required to allow for another driveway access to be installed along Hampshire
Ave.
Waldhauser referred to the building materials proposed and asked if Menards has given
any thought to splitting or combining the types of materials used in order to break up the
facade. She asked if the wooden posts with the flags in the front of the store are
necessary. Morrissey stated that the building proposed is Menards' prototype and has
the identifiable Menards entryway. Waldhauser said the store is out of place in the city
and will look like Fort Apache. She said she would like to use any leverage the Planning
Commission has in order to get an attractive asset to the community. Morrissey stated
that this is a financially fragile project and discussed the high costs involved due to the
soil conditions. He said Menards is proud of the look of their stores and he would
appreciate some leniency regarding the aesthetics. He added he is willing to use the
brick stamped concrete on the south, east and west sides of the building which is an
upgrade. McCarty said he would be happy if the sides of the building were at least the
same color as the front and not necessarily brick stamped concrete. Cera agreed that
he'd like to see the buff color on the entire building and more trees.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 5
Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment,
Waldhauser closed the public hearing.
Grimes noted that the Commissioners' concerns seem to be additional landscaping, an
additional driveway on Hampshire Ave., and the aesthetics on the east and west sides of
the building. Waldhauser agreed and reiterated that the Commissioners concerns could
probably be addressed if Menards is able to reduce the number of proposed parking
spaces. She added that she would like to see center island plantings with large trees as
well.
McCarty stated that he is overwhelmed by the size of the lumberyard/storage/garden
center area and the 14-foot high fence. He suggested that area be reduced in size.
Morrissey referred to the site plan and explained that there needs to be adequate space
for cars to maneuver in the garden center area. Segelbaum agreed that the proposed
fencing will make the site look very enclosed. Waldhauser suggested installing a different
type of fencing along the east side of the building which would allow people to see
through to the garden center. She added that the Laurel side of the property is a parkway
and she doesn't want it to look industrial.
Cera said he feels the Commission has given Menards some good general guidance but
they don't need to micro-manage where the fences are located. Grimes reminded the
Commission that they are making a recommendation to the City Council and that
Menards can make the changes suggested by the Planning Commission or not.
Kluchka said he thinks the I-394 Corridor study has been set aside for this proposal and
he won't vote in favor of it without addressing how it aligns with the study.
Segelbaum expressed concern about the safety hazards of having two curb cuts along
Wayzata Blvd. and suggested having one driveway access on Wayzata Blvd. and one
driveway access on Hampshire Ave.
Waldhauser reiterated that she would like some trade-off regarding toning down the color
and updating the store to an urban setting.
Kluchka stated that Golden Valley is competing in this area with the West End
Development in St. Louis Park which is a very high end development. He asked how the
store in Eden Prairie was able to have its facade changed. Morrissey stated that the
Eden Prairie store is anon-prototypical store. He explained that they didn't have to deal
with the soil conditions in Eden Prairie that they are dealing with in Golden Valley which
is taking away a lot of dollars that could be used elsewhere. He added that the store in
Eden Prairie was also started in a better economic climate and reiterated that the Golden
Valley project is an economically fragile project.
Waldhauser reviewed the Zoning Code criteria used when considering a PUD. She said
she feels that the access to the site and the storm water treatment methods being
proposed are improvements and this proposal will be keeping a viable business in
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 6
Golden Valley. She stated that there is nothing inconsistent with this proposal
considering what is currently in the I-394 Corridor but it does not meet her criteria for the
planned land uses in the Corridor. She stated there is not much the City can do to
preserve trees on this. site and there is no positive enhancement, but the adjoining
wetlands are being preserved. She stated that this development precludes the
construction of any type of housing development or mixed use development in the future
which is something they can't control because it is an existing use, but it doesn't add to
the objectives for the area. She stated the proposal works and is functional, but she
doesn't see anything creative about it and it doesn't do anything to move the City toward
its mixed use vision. Rather, it is a big box with a stockade around it. She stated that the
proposal uses the existing infrastructure but it doesn't provide any open space or
enhance the street alignment. Kluchka added that any developer of property around
Menards could potentially say they don't have to use quality materials because of the
precedent Menards would set. Waldhauser said this development is helpful in that they
are proposing to build up with two stories rather than rebuilding a new one-story building
that wouldn't fit in with the community. She stated that the development isn't consistent
with the City's redevelopment plans and goals but it does create a building that is energy
efficient and encourages sustainability with the water retention and filtering.
Grimes reminded the Commission that this is an existing PUD so the criteria for meeting
the objectives to become a PUD don't really apply because this is an amendment and
they met the objectives when it originally became a PUD. He added that what Menards is
proposing is a legal use that is essentially the same use that has been there for a long
time. Kluchka said he feels the same criteria should be considered for an amended PUD.
Grimes noted that part of the I-394 Corridor study states that the City does not want
businesses to leave, rather it wants to help businesses enhance their property. He added
that the proposal on this site will improve the storm water management issues in the
Corridor. Kluchka stated that this is a large development in the Corridor and it bears a lot
of thought.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Eck and motion carried 4 to 2 to recommend approval of
the request by Menards -PUD 75, Amendment #3 to replace the existing Menards store
with a new 2-story Menards home improvement center with the following conditions.
Commissioners Kluchka and McCarty voted no.
The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. These
plans were prepared for Menards and include the following: existing pylon sign, front,
rear, left, right and wrought iron fence elevations, warehouse elevations, land survey,
grading, drainage and erosion control plan, demolition plan and utility plan.
2. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from City Engineer Jeff
Oliver, PE to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated October
5, 2010 shall become a part of this approval.
3. A final landscape plan shall be submitted with the Final Plan of Development and be
reviewed and approved by the City's Environmental Coordinator.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 7
4. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. The
existing pylon sign existing on the site may remain but cannot be moved or expanded..
5. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from Ed Anderson,
Deputy Fire Marshal to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, and
dated September 21, 2010 shall become a part of this approval.
6. The precast panels on the east, west sides of the building shall be the same buff color
as the panels facing Wayzata Blvd. The look of the warehouse wall along Laurel Ave.
shall be enhanced.
7. If the amount of parking on the site is inadequate as determined by the City Manager,
Menards will take immediate steps to convert a portion of the outside yard area to the
north or east of the store building to create additional parking. Evidence of inadequate
parking may be shown by customers parking on-street, number of cars parked in the
parking lot, and cars not parked in designated spaces within the parking lot.
8. The driveway access points shall be further studied to determine if there can be
another access added along Hampshire Ave. or have only one access on Hampshire
Ave. and one access on Wayzata Blvd.
9. The amount of parking stalls shall be further studied to determine if some of the stalls
can be removed so more landscaping can be included on the site.
10.This approval is subject to all other state, federal and local ordinances, regulations or
laws with authority over this development.
--Short Recess--
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Hogeboom reminded the Commissioners that there will be a presentation by
Hennepin County at the October 12, 2010 Council/Manager meeting regarding the
Bottineau Transitway Study.
Segelbaum discussed the September 28 Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meeting
and informed the Planning Commission that the BZA would like them to review the
language in the Zoning Code regarding the setback requirements for structures built
prior to 1982 (Section 11.21, Subdivisions 13 and 14). He stated that the BZA
would also like the Planning Commission to help clarify the definitions for porches,
stoops, landings and decks and the setbacks associated with them.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 8
Grimes stated that staff is working on some language revisions which will be
reviewed at a future Council/Manager meeting and will then come to the Planning
Commission for review and recommendation.
5. Other Business
Election of Officers
Eck nominated Waldhauser for Chair and Kluchka for Vice Chair.
Kluchka nominated himself for Chair.
Cera nominated himself for Vice Chair.
Upon a vote by the Commission the position of Chair will be held by Waldhauser
and the position of Vice Chair will be held by Kluchka.
6. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:02 pm.
Lester Eck, Secretary
GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Minutes
September 27, 2010
Present: Commissioners, Anderson, Baker, Gitelis, Hill, Pawluk, Stremel and Utt;
Jeannine Clancy, Public Works Director; AI Lundstrom, Environmental
Coordinator, Mark Grimes, Planning Director, Joe Hogeboom, City Planner and
Lisa Nesbitt, Administrative Assistant
Call to Order
Baker called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
2. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes -July 26, 2010
MOVED by Gitelis, seconded by Hill. Baker referred to the last sentence in 3. Residential
Solid Waste and Recycling Study, and requested that "and that staff failed to inform the
commissioners of the survey at any time since the decision was made during the first
quarter of the year" be added to the end of the sentence. Clancy will again pass along the
concerns from Commissioners about the survey, to the Manager's office. MOVED by Hill
and seconded by Gitelis, and the motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the
July 26, 2010 meeting as amended.
3. Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study
Baker, Gitelis and Lundstrom attended the City of Fridley's Environmental Commission
meeting earlier in the month. The topic of the meeting was the impacts of open vs.
organized hauling. Representatives from the U of M and Foth presented information on air
quality, noise pollution and street impacts with the two options.
The City of Karlstad MN sent an a-mail to the Mayor's Association asking how other cities
handle garbage/sanitation services. The City of Kimball responded to the a-mail and the
commissioners were given a copy of their response.
Baker proposed to the commission, that the focus of the solid waste and recycling study
move away from open vs. organized hauling and instead identify goals that will help
improve solid waste hauling and recycling practices in the city.
The commissioners brainstormed various goals and narrowed it down to:
1. Be at the forefront of new approaches
Encourage new approaches including
• educational efforts,
• collecting organics,
• recycling more types of materials,
• incentives to households,
• increased energy efficiency
through next recycling RFP (following state statute)
2. Use haulers licensing to encourage innovation in (e.g.):
• energy efficiency
• organics collection
• longer term contracts
Minutes of the Environmental Commission
September 27, 2010
Page 2 of 3
• yard waste collection
• collect on one day
• convenient drop-off for organics
• sell back of organics
• charging by weight
3. Reduce dumping in parks and open spaces by requiring participation in hauling.
• Pass an ordinance to require all households in the city to contract with a
licensed trash hauler.
4. Provide recycling at commercial entities and apartment buildings.
• Pass ordinance to require that new commercial buildings provide space for
recycling containers; and that retailers provide recycling containers.
Other goals discussed were:
1. Reduce impact on landfills
2. Reduce fuel consumption by shifting to larger recycling containers and bi-weekly
collection
3. Reduce cost of waste disposal without increasing long-term cost
4. Provide education, incentive and opportunity to provide better value and choices
5. Incentivize haulers to provide choice
6. Collect waste every week with as little fuss as possible
7. Insure that pricing is fair and competitive
8. Fewer vehicles per day on any one street
9. Encourage larger scale (county/statewide) efforts to reduce waste, spread cost
10. Reduce construction waste
The commissioners agreed that it is not the right time to hold an open house
4. Proaram/Project Uadates
A. TMDL - An open house for the Sweeney Lake stakeholder will be held Sept.
30th. The cities of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park were invited along with
MnDOT, Hennepin County and the Hidden Lake and Sweeney Lake
associations.
B. I/I -Letters have been sent to residents in the 2011 PMP. MCES has adopted
changes to the I/I program as recommended by a task force of public works
officials and MCES staff. The changes to the program allow cities to continue
to work on I/I related infrastructure concerns and replaces the demand charge
program with an on-going surcharge program. The program recognizes that
addressing I/I is a long term commitment for communities.
C. Private Development Update - Menards has re-submitted plans for the new
construction
D. EAB -Staff has mapped all the city's parks for dead or dying ash trees.
These will be the first trees to be removed. There has been recent articles
about a wasp that may assist in the fight again EAB. The current tree removal
plan will remain unchanged at this point.
Minutes of the Environmental Commission
September 27, 2010
Page3of3
5. Commission Member Council Reports
None
6. Other Business
Baker reported that an "energy neutral" home is being built in his neighborhood. It is the
first of its kind in the city.
7. Adjourn
MOVED by Stremel, seconded by Hill, and the motion carried to adjourn.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 pm. The next scheduled meeting will be October 25, 2010
at 7:00 pm.
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
Minutes of the Meeting of September 23, 2010
1. Call to Order
The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) was called to order at 11:35 a.m.,
Thursday, September 23, 2010, at Golden Valley City Hall by Chair Loomis. Ms. Herbert conducted roll
call.
Roll Call
Crystal Commissioner Pauline Langsdorf, Administrator Geoff Nash
Secretary
Golden Valley Commissioner Linda Loomis, Chair Counsel Charlie LeFevere
Medicine Lake Commissioner Ted Hoshal Engineer Karen Chandler
Minneapolis Commissioner Michael Welch Recorder Amy Herbert
Minnetonka Commissioner Bonnie Harper-Lore
New Hope Commissioner John Elder
Plymouth Commissioner Ginny Black, Vice Chair
Robbinsdale Not represented
St. Louis Park Commissioner Jim deLambert
Also present: Laura Adler, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of St. Louis Park
Derek Asche, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Plymouth
Pat Byrne, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Minneapolis
Jeannine Clancy, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Golden Valley
Jack Frost, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
Dave Hanson, Alternate Commissioner, City of Golden Valley
Guy Johnson, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of New Hope
Tom Mathisen, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Crystal
Richard McCoy, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Robbinsdale
Jeff Oliver, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Golden Valley
Jason Quisberg, City of New Hope
AI Sarvi, Alternate Commissioner, City of New Hope
Stu Stockhaus, Alternate Commissioner, City of Crystal
Liz Stout, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Minnetonka
Liz Thornton, Alternate Commissioner, City of Plymouth
Jeff Weiss, Barr Engineering Company
2. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda
Commissioner Black moved to approve the Agenda. Commissioner Elder seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor. Commissioner Black moved to approve the Consent
Agenda. Commissioner deLambert seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with eight
votes in favor.
3. Citizen Input on Non-Agenda Iterns<
No citizen input on non-agenda items.
4: Administration
A. Presentation of the August 19, 2010, BCWMC meeting minutes. Approved under the Consent
Agenda.
B. Presentation of the Financial Statement. Approved under the Consent Agenda.
The general and construction account balances as reported in the September 2010 Financial
Report:
Checking Account Balance 534,546.01
TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE 534,546.01
Construction Account Cash Balance 2,244,591.24
Investment due 10/18/2010 533,957.50
Investment due 5/13/2015 508,918.39
TOTAL CONSTR UCTION ACCO UNT BALANCE 3,287,467.13
-Less: Reserved for CIP projects 2,494,493.23
Construction cash/ investments available for projects 792,973.90
C. Presentation of Invoices for Payment Approval.
Invoices•
i. Kennedy & Graven -Legal Services through July 31, 2010 -invoice for the
amount of $1,169.65.
ii. Barr Engineering Company -Engineering Services through August 27, 2010 -
invoice for the amount of $39,866.15.
iii. Watershed Consulting, LLC -Administrator Services through August 31, 2010
- invoice for the amount of $3,000.00.
iv. Amy Herbert -August Administrative Services -invoice for the amount of
$2,288.38.
v. D'amico Catering -September 2010 meeting catering -invoice for the amount of
$378.25.
vi. Southdale MiniPrint -BCWMC Letterhead -invoice for the amount of $233.97.
Commissioner Welch moved to approve payment of the invoices. Commissioner Elder seconded
the motion. By call of roll. the motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor [City of
Robbinsdale absent from vote].
5. Public Hearing
Chair Loomis explained that today's public hearing was being held in order to receive public testimony
and comments of member cities regarding proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects in the
approved major plan amendment to the BCWMC's Watershed Management Plan. The projects in the plan
amendment include:
• Restore the Main Stem of Bassett Creek in the City of Golden Valley from Wisconsin Avenue to
Rhode Island Avenue and from Duluth Street to the Golden Valley -Crystal boundary.
#249830 vl 2
BCWMC September 23, 2010 Meeting Minutes
~ Restore the channel of the North Branch of Bassett Creek in the City of Crystal from 200 feet
upstream of Douglas Drive to 32"d Avenue North.
Chair Loomis introduced Mr. Jeff Weiss of Barr Engineering to present information regarding the
updated information in the second draft of the feasibility reports for the projects. Mr. Weiss presented a
PowerPoint presentation detailing the differences between the first version of the reports presented at the
August BCWMC meeting and the second version distributed as part of the BCWMC's September meeting
packet. He described updated figures, slightly decreased cost estimates for both projects, and additional
project details as requested by the Commission at its August meeting.
Commissioner Welch asked Mr. Weiss which tier of the MPCA's three-tier classification of contaminated
soil was assigned to the contaminated soil as a means of estimating the cost estimate of disposal. Mr. Weiss
explained that he did not use an MPCA classification tier to assign a cost to the disposal estimate and
instead he used historical information from the City of Golden Valley regarding levels of contamination
and the cost of the disposal of soils from other City projects.
Commissioner Welch commented that the reports don't address the need for a maintenance easement. He
asked if the assumption in the reports is that the maintenance will be done by the private property owner.
Mr. Weiss explained that maintenance of restoration projects can be divided into two types:
1. Maintenance that should fall under a warranty period regarding the plantings by the
contractor; and,
2. Routine maintenance such as surveying for or removing invasive plants that move into the
area.
Commissioner Welch asked Mr. Weiss about what type of warranty period he would recommend. Mr.
Weiss responded that atwo-year warranty is sufficient. Mr. Weiss recommended that the contract for the
maintenance under the warranty period be handled as a separate contract from the contract for the
installation. Commissioner Welch commented that the warranty would get the original installer back
onsite for continuity. He said that the cost isn't such a large cost that it significantly changes the cost
estimate for the projects but he believes that the Commission should include this information and cost in
future project cost estimates. Commissioner Black asked if the projects in front of the Commission include
or do not include the warranty. Mr. Weiss explained that he thinks it could be included and that the
reports request it be part of the project bids. Chair Loomis said she thinks the cities typically do include a
warranty period as part of the bid request process but the Commission could request the warranty be part
of the cities' bid process as a way of the Commission handling it as a more formal Commission policy. Mr.
Mathisen commented that he would suspect that atwo-year warranty is already built into the project costs
presented.
Commissioner Welch remarked that he would like the Commission to discuss at a future meeting its role
in the design of projects and the relationship between the implementing agency and the Commission.
Commissioner Welch commented that his preference is that restoration projects use bioengineering
whenever possible.
Commissioner Hoshal expressed his disappointment in the lack of public participation in this hearing and
the August public hearing. Commissioner Elder suggested that the Commission could communicate with
the cities in which the projects are being implemented to make sure the Commission's hearing notices are
posted on the cities' Web sites. Commissioner Black remarked that the Administrator has been hired and
one of the Administrator's tasks will be to document the BCWMC's processes and after the
documentation process, the Commission can review and discuss the processes to determine if changes
should be made.
Commissioner Hoshal asked if any agencies mandate the Commission to conduct an environmental
assessment or any type of inventory, such as a biota survey, prior to conducting projects like the ones
being discussed today. Mr. Weiss replied that an assessment of endangered species was conducted as part
#249830 vl 3
BCWMC September 23, 2010 Meeting Minutes
of the Commission's Resource Management Plan but there were no mandated assessments. Commissioner
Hoshal commented about his recent canoe outing along Bassett Creek. He added that monitoring is
paramount to projects and monitoring before and after projects is the way to discover the effectiveness of
projects.
Commissioner Welch remarked that the Commission should discuss in the future the idea of whether or
not it wants to conduct a voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) on future projects.
Chair Loomis commented that the EAWs are the responsibility of the Local Governmental Units (LGUs)
and that the Commission could recommend that cities undertake an EAW if the Commission wants to be
more stringent that the state but she doesn't see that the Commission could enforce such a request of the
cities. Commissioner Harper-Lore said that it would be nice for the Commission to document all of the
species by taking steps beyond just the required assessments and before projects move forward so that the
Commission can get a big picture view. Mr. Oliver stated that the Commission's Resource Management
Plan addressed some of the issues addressed in an EAW. He commented that EAWs are expensive and
drive project costs up significantly. He explained that the cost for basic, voluntary EAWs start at $25,000
and their costs can go up to as much as $150,000.
Commissioner Welch remarked that he has been increasingly uncomfortable with how early in the
process the Commission lets go of the wheel on their projects and would like the Commission to consider
its approach. He commented that the Commission should discuss a policy about property rights involved
in projects. Commissioner Welch added that the Commission should also discuss a policy about project
design and the involvement of the Commission with the cities in projects' design phase to ensure that the
Commission's goals are being met, which is the Commission's responsibility.
Commissioner Elder suggested that the Commission evaluate the processes of other watersheds in terms of
at what point they forward their projects on to cities. Mr. LeFevere remarked that there is another step in
the process of the two projects being discussed today. He explained that the Commission will need to
review and approve a contract with each of the cities undertaking the implementation of the projects. Mr.
LeFevere said that part of the contract includes the requirement that the projects' design and specs be
reviewed by the Commission. He said that the Commission Engineer reviews the design and specs to
ensure that it conforms to the Commission's Watershed Management Plan and that the Commission could
direct its Engineer to review the design and specs with additional concerns in mind that the Commission
has communicated to the Engineer. Mr. LeFevere added that if the Commission wants a bigger role in the
specifics of the design, the Commission could require the design and specs to come in front of the
Commission.
Chair Loomis opened the public hearing and called for comments. There were no comments. Chair
Loomis closed the public hearing. Chair Loomis added that handed out before the meeting was a copy of
the order by the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources approving the BCWMC's major plan
amendment.
6. New Business `
A. Commissioner Welch moved to adopt Resolution 10-07 approving the Watershed Plan
Amendment. Commissioner Black seconded the motion. The motion carried with eight votes in
favor [City of Robbinsdale absent from the vote]. Commissioner Black moved to adopt Resolution
10-08 ordering the following projects:
a. Restoration of the Main Stem of Bassett Creek from Wisconsin Avenue to Rhode Island
Avenue in the City of Golden Valley and from Duluth Street in Golden Valley to the
City of Crystal boundary.
b. Restoration of the channel of the North Branch of Bassett Creek from 200 feet
upstream of Douglas Drive to 32"d Avenue North in the City of Crystal.
#249830 vl
BCWMC September 23, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Welch seconded the motion. By call of roll. the motion carried with eight votes in
favor [City of Robbinsdale absent from the vote]. There was discussion of the City of Golden
Valley's annual creek inspection and several commissioners expressed interest in participating.
Commissioner Welch requested that Ms. Clancy send an a-mail to the Commission with the details
once the City works out its schedule. Ms. Chandler stated that the Commission's next step with the
two projects it just ordered is to proceed through the permitting process. She explained that the
Commission needs to forward the final feasibility reports to the Army Corps of Engineers and to
fill out the combined form and send it to the Department of Natural Resources, BWSR, MPCA
and the Local Governmental Units as part of BCWMC's Resource Management Plan process.
Commissioner Welch moved to direct staff to forward the feasibility reports to the necessary
parties. Commissioner Black seconded the motion. The motion carried with eight votes in favor
[City of Robbinsdale absent from vote].
B. Certification of Levy to Hennepin County. Mr. LeFevere reminded the Commission that it
approved the levy amount and the levy certification by adopting Resolution 10-08 and the
Commission just needed to direct staff to send the certification to the County. Chair Loomis
directed Ms. Herbert to send the certification and levy request to the County. Chair Loomis
commented that Administrator Nash and the Commission Engineer met to discuss how the annual
levy request is set each year and that it seems appropriate for the Administrator to assume
responsibility to create the memo to the Commission outlining the annual levy request. The
Commission agreed.
C. City of Plymouth Reimbursement Request for West Medicine Lake Park Pond. Chair Loomis said
that the BCWMC received this request from the City of Plymouth and that she directed staff to
forward the request to the Commission Engineer for its review of the request and its supporting
documents. Ms. Chandler stated that the request received by the Commission had a slight
typographical error in it and the requested amount of $199,081.71 has been corrected and
resubmitted by the City in the amount of $199,082.41. She said that the Commission Engineer
reviewed the supporting documents submitted by the City of Plymouth and found that everything
was in order. Ms. Chandler stated that the Commission Engineer recommends reimbursement to
the City in the requested amount of $199,082.41 and that the Commission notifies Deputy
Treasurer Sue Virnig of the change for the Commission's financial records. Commissioner Black
moved approval of payment of the reimbursement request in the amount of $199,082.41.
Commissioner Elder seconded the motion. By call of roll, the motion carried with eight votes in
favor [City of Robbinsdale absent from vote]. Commissioner Welch asked if the Commission and
staff could refer to the projects by using the same name that the cities use in order to minimize
confusion. Chair Loomis directed staff to use the same project names as the cities in
communications to the Commission about projects.
Commissioner Welch asked if the Commission would want to make more specific direction to staff
regarding the policy issues talked about earlier in the meeting. He said he thought it would make
sense for the Administrator to manage the work on the policy issues and perhaps the
Administrator could bring the issues to the Administrative Committee. Chair Loomis stated that
she and Administrator Nash could put together a proposal to bring back to the Commission with a
timeline on how to address the issues. Commissioner Welch recommended that the Administrative
Services Committee see and discuss the proposal first. Chair Loomis agreed that the proposal
would go to the Administrative Services Committee and would be headed up by the
Administrator.
7. OId Business
D. Commissioners' Roles in BCWMC Watershed Management Plan Revision. Chair Loomis
requested that this Old Business item be addressed first since Commissioner Welch would be
#249830 vl 5
BCWMC September 23, 2010 Meeting Minutes
leading the discussion and would also need to leave the meeting promptly at 2:00 p.m.
Commissioner Welch explained that the Watershed Management Plan is really at the heart of
what the Commission is meant to do. He said it is a goal- and policy-setting document. He said that
the goal in revising the Plan is to make sure that the commissioners come away with a primary
understanding of the goals and policies of the Commission because they help set the framework
for all of the decisions the Commission makes. He said that the Commission is required to update
its Plan every ten years and the next update is due by 2014. Commissioner Welch stated that the
current version of the Plan was adopted in 2004 and the make up of the BCWMC's Board was
very different during that revision process. He said that the roles in the process of updating the
Plan are not directed by statute and that the Commission can structure the process how it wants.
Commissioner Welch stated that in his mind one of the most important things in the process is that
the commissioners understand the Plan. He reminded the Commission that it has started the
process in that it has directed the TAC to start discussing Plan issues to start putting a framework
around them. He thinks that there will be a time when the Commission will want to make a
decision about what the process is and how it will be structured. Commissioner Welch said he
would like to hear today about what the commissioners would need in order to make decisions on
the process and structure and to put together a process flowchart for the 2014 Plan.
Commissioner Black commented that during the last revision there was a lot of unrest from the
residents of Plymouth regarding their requests to have Medicine Lake cleaned up and she doesn't
think there will be such a vociferous citizen push during this revision. She asked to hear from the
commissioners on how they would like the public to get involved in the process. Commissioner
Black said her thought is that the commissioners' comments on the process and structure would be
gathered and taken up by the Administrative Services Committee, which. would then develop a
proposal for a process to bring back to the Commission.
Mr. LeFevere added that during the last process the Steering Committee identified issues that
needed to be addressed and assigned priorities to the issues and assigned the issues to groups and
worked from there. Commissioner Welch stated that his expectation is that the Commission
Engineer would again during this revision do a lot of the so-called heavy lifting.
Mr. Mathisen stated that the last revision process was time consuming in number of hours and in
calendar years. He said that the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission set a budget of $100,000
for each of 2011 and 2012 operating budgets for its Plan update. He recommended that the
Commission figure out what it wants to address in its Plan but that the Commission also set a
budget and then make sure that both ends match.
Ms. Black said that the Commission has an Administrator to head up the project and do a lot of
the writing of the Plan. She said the Commission will bring in the technical staff but that the TAC
is an even more important technical component than the Engineer because of the CIP and the
TMDL implementation projects and the MS4 permits. She said that the last version was a very
thorough process and she hopes that a lot of that Plan can be used or reasonably updated.
Commissioner Black remarked that she doesn't want to see the Commission spending more than
$100,000 and that a share of that is the cost of the Administrator to coordinate the project.
Mr. LeFevere stated that Rule 8410 hasn't changed but it is undergoing an evaluation process and
may change at some point. He suggested that the Commission identify what parts of the Plan are
worth re-evaluating, which will help the Commission formulate a structure.
Chair Loomis commented that the Commission needs to make a decision on how to proceed.
Commissioner Black said the Commission could use the existing Administrative Services
Committee or could establish a separate Next Generation Plan Committee. Commissioner Welch
recommended establishing a fresh committee and set an initial meeting that would also include the
Commission Engineer, Administrator Nash, and Mr. LeFevere. Commissioner Welch asked if the
#249830 vl 6
BCWMC September 23, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Commission was interested in establishing a Committee of the Whole. Commissioner Black
commented that she doesn't want to exclude the TAC from the process but that she didn't think it
would need to be involved at this level. Chair Loomis directed Administrator Nash to organize a
Committee of the Whole, including the commissioners and alternate commissioners, and to setup
the initial meeting and directed the Commission Engineer to draft an outline of the public process
from the 2004 Plan.
A. TAC Recommendations.
i. Standardization of BCWMC and member cities data collection. Administrator Nash
reported that Greg Wilson of Barr Engineering gave a great presentation on data
collection practices. Administrator Nash said that the TAC discussed a concern about the
MPCA's use of CAMP data. He said that Mr. Wilson explained that the MPCA does not
rely solely on CAMP data for impairment listing purposes. Administrator Nash said there
were no TAC recommendations on this issue and that the TAC will have a future
discussion on standardization of stormwater modeling software such as between Barr
Engineering and the member cities.
ii. Sweeney Lake Outlet. Administrator Nash reported that the TAC recommends
that the structure replacement be considered a CIP project. He said that Commission
Engineer Len Kremer would check with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to
see if the project would be eligible for the Dam Safety Project. Administrator Nash said
that the issue will be raised again at the January CIP review. Commissioner Black asked if
the DNR has money for the project. Ms. Chandler said that a request would need to be
submitted. Commissioner Welch asked the City of Golden Valley what policy drives the
Commission's involvement in the project. Mr. Oliver said the construction of the flood
control structure is the responsibility of the Commission and is key to minimizing the risk
of flooding downstream in Minneapolis, which would be a risk if the control structure fails
in its entirety. Commissioner Welch wondered if this project fits under the Commission's
flood control emergency maintenance budget. Mr. Oliver remarked that the City is
planning to do short-term repairs later this fall when the water is easier to control but the
short-term repairs are only meant to be short-term repairs, not the long-term solution. He
said the appropriate thing to do to minimize risk is to replace the structure. He said it is
not urgent and doesn't represent ashort-term risk but represents amid-term risk.
iii. Next Generation Plan Issues Update. Administrator Nash reported that he sent the
TAC the first of several memos on issues to be raised during the Plan revision such as
education issues and public involvement. He said he will send out a reminder for the TAC
to return their comments since he has received only two so far. Commissioner Welch asked
Administrator Nash to copy the Commission on the a-mails he sends to the TAC regarding
the issues so that the Commission is informed on what issues the TAC are discussing.
Administrator Nash said he will send the Commission the materials in an information-only
e-mail.
iv. New Hope Noise Wall and Culvert Replacement/ Pond Project. Administrator Nash
reported that the TAC requested that New Hope submit a formal request to the
Commission to add the project to its CH' and for the City to work with the City of
Plymouth for possible collaboration on one of its pond projects in the Four Seasons Mall
area.
v. Administrator Nash reported that the TAC would like to discuss at a future meeting ways
to revise the Commission's financial report to make the information more useable to the
cities.
#249830 vl 7
BCWMC September 23, 2010 Meeting Minutes
vi. Chair Loomis asked if the next TAC meeting will be held in October or in November. It
was decided that the TAC would meeting in November and then again in January.
B. TMDL Updates.
i. Sweeney Lake TMDL. Administrator Nash reported that Ms. Brooke Asleson of the
MPCA asked her supervisor for their comments on the Sweeney Lake TMDL. He reported
that the comments included a request for more information on a monitoring plan, and a
budget for the implementation strategy. Administrator Nash stated that Ron Leaf of SEH
is going to provide that information to the MPCA by tomorrow or next week and then the
TMDL will be sent to the Environmental Protection Agency. Administrator Nash
explained that the turn-around time by the EPA will be two to three months. He
announced that the technical stakeholder meeting will be September 30t" at 1:00 p.m. in
the City of Golden Valley's Council Chambers.
ii. Medicine Lake TMDL. Administrator Nash reported that the TMDL will be ready for
public notice in October.
iii. Wirth Lake TMDL. Administrator Nash reported that the public comment period on the
TMDL ended September 1st. He said that Greg Wilson of Barr Engineering sent the final
TMDL, which addressed Mn/DOT comments, to the MPCA and that Ms. Asleson said that
the TMDL would go to the EPA at the end of this month.
C. Ownership of the BCWMC's Web Site. Ms. Chandler said currently Barr Engineering owns
the domain name and the renewal date came up and Barr renewed it. She said the ownership of
the domain name can be transferred with a processing fee or the Commission could wait until next
year's expiration and take over the ownership at that time. Commissioner Black said if it costs the
same to do it now, then the Commission should go ahead and do it but if it would be more
expensive, then the Commission could wait until the next renewal date. Commissioner Harper-
Lore asked why the Commission wants to own it. Commissioner Black said because it is public
information owned by a private company. Chair Loomis directed the Commission Engineer to
verify the costs of transferring it now compared to at the next renewal date.
E. Working Paper on Possible Alternate Funding Methods for BCWMC's CIP. Chair Loomis
said that Administrator Nash had contact with the County who asked that the Commission not
take the issue out to the cities until after the County had discussed it. Administrator Nash brought
up information from Joel Settles of Hennepin County that the County Board asked its staff to
assemble a lake water quality report discussing if there is a relationship between funding levels
and water quality. Administrator Nash explained that Mr. Settles' research found no correlation
between the amount of money spent on water quality projects and the achievement of water
quality goals. Administrator Nash said he would provide that report to the Commission as he
receives it.
F. Education .and Public Outreach Committee. Ms. Langsdorf mentioned that the Committee's
report was included in the meeting packet. She reported that at its last meeting the Committee
worked on the education and outreach plan and then talked about the history project. She
reminded the Commission that there is a meeting of the history committee following today's
Commission meeting. Ms. Langsdorf announced that the next Education and Public Outreach
Committee meeting will be on October 8t" at 9:00 a.m. at Plymouth City Hall. She updated the
Commission on the most recent WMWA meeting and announced that the next WMWA meeting
would be held on October 12t" at Plymouth City Hall. Ms. Langsdorf mentioned that Nine Mile
Creek Watershed District has given permission for use of their salt brochure. Ms. Langsdorf asked
#249830 vl $
BCWMC September 23, 2010 Meeting Minutes
for ideas from the Commission on any changes to the brochure for cities' use. She announced that
there will be a salt workshop on November 3rd in the City of Plymouth.
7. Communications
A. Chair:
i. Chair Loomis asked Administrator Nash to run down a list of upcoming seminars.
B. Administrator: Administrator Nash reviewed his Administrator's Report with the Commission.
C. Commissioners:
i. Commissioner Hoshal commented that County Commissioner Stenglein's campaign flyer
noted the Bassett Creek restoration projects in Golden Valley and Plymouth.
D. Committees: No communications
E. Counsel: No communications
F. Engineer:
i. Ms. Chandler reported that the Commission Engineer submitted the three grant applications
for Bassett Creek restoration, North Branch restoration, and the Wirth Lake outlet
modification. She said the grant applications requested a total of $499,000 in Clean Water
grant funds and the decision date is mid-December.
ii. Ms. Chandler reported that the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board's consultant has been
in contact with the Commission Engineer regarding their proposed Wirth Park project.
iii. Ms. Chandler announced that the Bassett Creek Watershed isn't a targeted area for the
MPCA's Surface Water Assessment Grant opportunity.
iv. Ms. Chandler reported that the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board came out with a
draft plan and it is available online for public comment until October 1st.
9. Adjournment
Chair Loomis adjourned the meeting at 2:25 p.m.
Linda Loomis, Chair
Date Amy Herbert, Recorder Date
Pauline Langsdorf, Secretary Date
#249830 vl 9
BCWMC September 23, 2010 Meeting Minutes
'Golden Valley
Fire Department
763-593-8079 / 763-593-8098 (fax)
Executive Summary for Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
November 3, 2010
Agenda Item
3. E. Sale of Excess Equipment - 1994 Chevrolet Fire Vehicle
Prepared By
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections
Summary
The 1994 Chevrolet fire vehicle (Unit 335) was replaced with a new 2010 Ford F-550. This
vehicle was used for rescue and grass fire responses. The new vehicle has been designed
for similar responses. The 1994 Chevrolet will be advertised for sale in the League of
Minnesota Cities publication. Minnesota State Statute 417 requires that the City Council
adopt a resolution authorizing the sale of excess equipment.
Attachment
Resolution Authorizing Sale of Excess Equipment (1994 Chevrolet Fire Vehicle) (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Sale of Excess Equipment (1994 Chevrolet Fire
Vehicle).
Resolution 10-64 November 3, 2010
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF EXCESS EQUIPMENT
(1994 CHEVROLET FIRE VEHICLE)
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley has determined the need to sell excess
equipment consisting of the 1994 Chevrolet 4-door fire vehicle, Unit 335; and
WHEREAS, the equipment has become excess as a result of purchasing a new
2010 Ford F-550; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden
Valley, Minnesota that:
1. Staff is authorized to sell the 1994 Chevrolet 4-door fire vehicle; and
2. The equipment will be sold in compliance with all applicable State Statutes.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
`Golden Valley
City Administration/Council
763-593-8006 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
November 3, 2010
Agenda Item
3. F. Sale of Excess Audio-Visual Equipment
Prepared By
Cheryl Weiler, Communications Coordinator
Summary
After updating the City Council Chambers and Cable Control Room with state-of-the-art
audio-visual equipment, the City has more than 70 pieces of aged equipment that could be
used by another municipality or organization.
The audio-visual equipment will be advertised for sale to the Minnesota Government access
producers, Northwest Community TV public access producers, City web site and the League
of Minnesota Cities publication. Minnesota State Statute 417 requires that the City Council
adopt a resolution authorizing the sale of excess equipment
Attachment
Resolution Authorizing Sale of Excess Equipment (Audio-Visual Equipment) (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Sale of Excess Equipment (Audio-Visual Equipment).
Resolution 10-65 November 3, 2010
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF EXCESS EQUIPMENT
(AUDIO-VISUAL EQUIPMENT)
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley recently installed updated audio-visual
equipment to record and broadcast public meetings; and
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley has more than 70 pieces of excess audio-
visual equipment that are aged but useable; and
WHEREAS, municipalities and other organizations often purchase used audio-visual
equipment to build and/or supplement their cable TV recording systems; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden
Valley, Minnesota that:
1. Staff is authorized to offer for sale excess audio-visual equipment, that includes
video recording and broadcasting devices; and
2. The equipment will be sold in compliance with all applicable State Statutes.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Cif~~' ~ ~
v{ ~_~~.
~~ ~ ~ Finance
763-593-8013 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
November 3, 2010
Agenda Item
3. G. Receipt of September 2010 General Fund Budget Report
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The monthly General Fund Budget Report provides a progress report on the General Fund
operations for 2010. The revenues and expenditures show current month actual and year-to-
date actual compared to the 2010 approved budget.
The 2010 unallotment from the State is estimated at $369,240. The receipt of Market Value
Homestead Credit (MVHC) will not take place in October and December.
As of September 2010 the City is using $1,744,003 of fund balance to balance the budget.
Attachments
September 2010 General Fund Budget Report -unaudited (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to receive and file the September 2010 General Fund Budget Report.
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report -General Fund
September, 2010 (unaudited)
Percentage Of Year Completed 75.00%
Revenue:
Over
2010 September YTD (Under) of Budget
Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received
Ad Valorem Taxes $11,552,050 8,688 $5,767,470 ($5,784,580) 49.93% (1)
Licenses 151,865 2,858 189,624 $37,759 124.86%
Permits 703,000 82,598 496,846 ($206,154) 70.68%
Federal Grants 0 0 19,314 $19,314
State Aid 10,500 0 39,832 $29,332 379.35% (4)
Hennepin County Aid 0 0 1,266 $1,266 (5)
Charges For Services:
General Government 37,710 292 32,778 ($4,932) 86.92%
Public Safety 197,395 (2,709) 126,420 ($70,975) 64.04%
Public Works 114,000 (2,831) 92,586 ($21,414) 81.22%
Park & Rec 392,500 19,635 334,694 ($57,806) 85.27%
Other Funds 981,500 57,424 817,122 ($164,378) 83.25%
Fines & Forfeitures 250,000 20,347 181,166 ($68,834) 72.47% (2)
Interest On Investments 200,000 0 0 ($200,000) 0.00% (3)
Miscellaneous Revenue 216,675 7,296 208,622 ($8,053) 96.28%
Transfers In 175,000 0 175,000 $0 100.00%
TOTAL Revenue $14,982,195 $193,598 $8,482,740 ($6,499,455) .56.62%
Notes:
(1) The first half taxes were received in July.
(2) Fines and Forfeitures is through August.
(3) Investments will be booked at year end.
(4) State Training was received in August.
(5) Includes Active Living Grant from Hennepin County.
Percentage Of Year Completed 75.00%
(unaudited)
Expenditures:
Over
2010 Sept YTD (Under) Of Budget
Division Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend.
Council $307,455 38,441 195,355 ($112,100) 63.54%
City Manager 802,390 46,897 531,699 (270,691) 66.26%
Admin. Services 1,571,070 84,928 1,097,743 (473,327) 69.87%
Legal 115,000 15,235 90,760 (24,240) 78.92% (1)
General Gov't. Bldgs. 599,500 62,685 339,032 (260,468) 56.55%
Planning 333,550 20,442 203,793 (129,757) 61.10%
Police 4,562,995 335,806 3,221,943 (1,341,052) 70.61
Fire and Inspections 1,539,820 106,037 1,018,314 (521,506) 66.13%
Public Works Admin. 309,730 24,510 230,948 (78,782) 74.56%
Engineering 651,640 70,687 326,656 (324,984) 50.13%
Streets 1,371,495 113,362 821,637 (549,858) 59.91
Community Center 74,605 3,941 34,860 (39,745) 46.73%
Park & Rec. Admin. 639,845 47,501 452,485 (187,360) 70.72%
Park Maintenance 968,270 98,204 689,571 (278,699) 71.22%
Recreation Programs 427,910 34,947 294,364 (133,546) 68.79%
Risk Management 266,950 739 237,613 (29,337) 89.01% (2)
Transfers Out 439,970 0 439,970 0 100.00% (3)
TOTAL Expenditures $14,982,195 $1,104,362 $10,226,743 ($4,755,452) 68.26%
(1) This includes August YTD legal bill.
(2) Dividend is received in December. Three quarterly payments have been made.
(3) This expenditure was lowered due to the unallotment.
Golden galley
_ _
Public Works
763-593-8030 / 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
November 3, 2010
Agenda Item
3. H. Resolution to Establish a No Stopping, Standing, or Parking Zone on Noble Avenue
North
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Mark Ray, EIT
Summary
Over the past few years, City staff has been working with Noble Elementary School staff to
improve safety for pedestrians and vehicles around Noble Elementary School. The most
notable improvement was the Safe Routes to School grant that funded the implementation of
the radar speed feedback signs for both north and southbound Noble Avenue, improved
pedestrian crossing areas, and a new sidewalk on the east side of Noble Avenue between
Merribee Drive and Hampton Road.
Since the completion of the Safe Routes to School improvements, City and Noble Elementary
School staff have been discussing additional pedestrian and student safety concerns and
working to identify solutions. One of the solutions is to create a no stopping, standing, or
parking zone from the school's north property line, south to the centerline of Hampton Road.
This zone will be in effect Monday through Friday from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. The zone will
help improve the sight lines for vehicles entering and exiting the driveway to Noble
Elementary, allow drivers on Noble Avenue to see children and adults crossing in the
driveway crosswalk, and is intended to discourage use of the street as a "drop off" zone.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page, loose in agenda packet)
Resolution Restricting Vehicle Stopping, Standing, or Parking on a Portion of Noble Avenue
North (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Restricting Vehicle Stopping, Standing, or Parking on a Portion of
Noble Avenue North.
. ~ " y
~.7 1 [
4'd.. 5 7 1 P ~ ~ .~Y j.
p, ~ j ~ ; ~: biz ,~ f ~ N ~
i ~ ~ ~ ~~f ~, ~'
~ y- ~ 3 t ~ ~ ~ ,: /
?~ ~ r ~ `f ~ ~ ~~~ ;
~'~ ~J
i l~,.m"~ ~... !{.~ ~ . '~€ _ off.
"t ~ '
ix f 1~ , g
Q ~' ' 1 ~
' ~, ~ ~~~,
~~
i t t
T ~, ..i ~ . , i~. , + ~~~ ' ~•.~ SAY.
r'
. ~ .~ .. ~~
- ;
.
,. ,
. ~ ~ r
~~
w .~ ~' .,, • ,.~ ~~
.~, ~ ~ ' ~ ~
r ,.
,~
~,
` } pf Y
+
..
..
~ ,. , `
' ,. n - '
-1 .., .e4.:- -'G( ., -. .~ {f. t:. 1I ~h. .... i .-. !i ~~~ ~ >i _ 6.. l""i ~ ~:~ Y" .!r' n1~,~
._
_ . ' .'..
fI
x
:fit. ;~. ~: .r,. 9~ _ ~.S :§ :f ~ ':# '~ti aF` tr ;,{ ~ ~n~~:'.;.~ ~-. _.,_... ~i ~.i..f+.r~w~
.. .. 1.: _
J - ._ :, 1 6 '.. Cx'~ t' .. ~ f : /. ;, '+/~- ^~ r ~,` L.. `A ~. ^i. , f~::. ~ ~ ~ 9;^t-~. i w .~ q ..
1 .. d. ~ _ ~~~~~ ~;i7>..
,. _
. ~ .~
.. _. `.. .~: 0 -
7 gyp... ,
~ .. >.. _. - ~ ~. r { ~ V 3i'. .. ~ jar ~ 8 .u;
,.
F
+
4
' .. h. _ _
{4(`C,__
r. 111~~y
1. ~ ~.. .. 'M ~i
~.
.. };
r.
. .. .~ca
,~~r
~ . .u /
_. ;.
.' w"
i~ ~
° ~ ~ 6° ,Z° Noble Elementar Traffic Circulation Concept
A'` ~ MN p Figure A opt 20,0
feet Golden Valley,
Resolution 10-66 November 3, 2010
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION RESTRICTING VEHICLE STOPPING, STANDING,
OR PARKING ON A PORTION OF NOBLE AVENUE NORTH
WHEREAS, the City Council has the power and authority, pursuant to Chapter 9.06,
Subd. 2 of the City Code, to designate no parking zones and areas, and it appears that no
stopping, standing, or parking zones should be created on Noble Avenue North from the
north property line of Noble Elementary School and extending south to the centerline of
Hampton Road.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden
Valley that no stopping, standing, or parking shall be permitted Monday through Friday
from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm on the west side of Noble Avenue from the north property line of
Noble Elementary School and extending south to the centerline of Hampton Road.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Golden Valley
v ~p t..
Planning
763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
November 3, 2010
"60 Days" Deadline: November 9, 2010
Agenda Item
4. A. Public Hearing -Preliminary Design Plan Approval -PUD No. 75 Amendment #3 - 6800
Wayzata Boulevard - Menard, Inc., Applicant
Prepared By
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Summary
At the October 11, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held an informal
public hearing on the Preliminary PUD Plan for Amendment No. 3 to Menards PUD No. 75.
This amendment would allow for the teardown of the existing Menards store and the
reconstruction of a new, two-level Menards store. As indicated in the attached minutes of the
meeting, no one spoke from the public. After the hearing, the Commission discussed the
proposed preliminary PUD plan and voted to recommend approval. The vote was 4-2. As
indicated in the minutes of the meeting, the Planning Commission recommended ten
conditions. These conditions are listed below in the Recommended Action section.
The Commission spent almost two hours discussing the proposal. Commission member John
Kluchka will be attending the November 3, 2010 City Council meeting to outline the
recommendation of the Commission and answer any questions from the Council on the
Planning Commission deliberation.
The Commission did have several suggestions regarding the Menards plan. Based on those
suggestions, Menards has revised the site plan. These revisions are as follows:
An access drive to the south (main) parking lot from Hampshire Avenue South was
added. The Commission felt that this is the way that many people enter the existing
Menards lot from the north. The new access point has been reviewed by the City
Engineer and he has approved the location. The Commission had suggested that with
the addition of a Hampshire access, one of the two access points from Wayzata
Boulevard could be eliminated. Staff recommends that two access points from
Wayzata Boulevard remain.
2. The Commission recommended that there be landscaped islands added to the south
parking lot. This has been done in the revised plan. In addition, landscaping has been
added to the largest island in the parking lot that is the location of an emergency
generator for the store. (Staff has been told this is the only location for the generator
that will work because the main power comes into the store from the south side.) As a
result of the landscape islands and added driveway from Hampshire Ave South, the
number of parking spaces has been reduced in the south parking lot to 359 spaces.
The plan reviewed by the Commission on October 11, 2010 had 376 spaces. Menards
is comfortable with 359 spaces based on recent store counts. One of the
recommended conditions states that if parking is short, they will have to provide
parking in the north yard for employees or rent parking off-site.
3. Landscaping has been added along the north side of the property adjacent to the new
warehouse building. This will screen the back of the warehouse from traffic along
Laurel Avenue. Additional landscaping has also been added along Hampshire Avenue
South as recommended by the Commission.
4. Staff originally recommended that all four sides of the building have stamped brick
panels. Menards originally showed the stamped brick only on the front. After
discussion, the Commission decided to recommend that only the front should be the
stamped brick panels and the east and west sides should have a raked surface but be
a buff color. The north or rear side of the main building could remain the raked grey
panels because the north side will not be visible from the street.
5. The emergency access drive from Market Street was widened to 20 feet at the request
of the Fire Marshal.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Aerial Photo (1 page)
Planning Commission Minutes dated October 11, 2010 (7 pages)
Memo to Planning Commission dated October 6, 2010 (5 pages)
Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated October 5, 2010 (5 pages)
Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated September 21, 2010 (3 pages)
Applicant's Narrative dated September 9, 2010 (3 pages)
Exhibit "B" Variances and Explanations (3 pages)
Existing PUD Permit #75 (3 pages)
Site Plans that went to the October 11, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting (7 oversized
pages, loose in agenda packet)
Revised Site Plans dated October 25, 2010 (2 oversized pages, loose in agenda packet)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the Preliminary Design Plan, Menards PUD No. 75, Amendment #3
subject to the following conditions and findings:
Conditions
1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. These plans
were prepared for Menards and include the following: existing pylon sign, front, rear, left,
right and wrought iron fence elevations, warehouse elevations, land survey, grading,
drainage and erosion control plan, demolition plan and utility plan.
2. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver,
PE, and dated October 5, 2010 shall become a part of this approval.
3. A final landscape plan shall be submitted with the Final Plan of Development and be
reviewed and approved by the City's Environmental Coordinator.
4. All signs on the property shall meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. The existing
pylon sign existing on the site may remain but cannot be moved or expanded.
5. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire
Marshal, and dated September 21, 2010 shall become a part of this approval.
6. The precast panels on the east, west sides of the building shall be the same buff color as
the panels facing Wayzata Boulevard. The look of the warehouse wall along Laurel Avenue
shall be enhanced.
7. If the amount of parking on the site is inadequate as determined by the City Manager,
Menards will take immediate steps to convert a portion of the outside yard area to the north
or east of the store building to create additional parking. Evidence of inadequate parking
may be shown by customers parking on-street, number of cars parked in the parking lot,
and cars not parked in designated spaces within the parking lot.
8. The driveway access points shall be further studied to determine if there can be another
access added along Hampshire Avenue or have only one access on Hampshire Avenue
and one access on Wayzata Boulevard.
9. The amount of parking stalls shall be further studied to determine if some of the stalls can
be removed so more landscaping can be included on the site.
10.This approval is subject to all other state, federal and local ordinances, regulations or laws
with authority over this development.
Findings:
1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site
and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under
conventional provisions of the ordinance.
2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of
the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep
slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters.
3. Efficient -Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes
preservation) of the land.
4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals.
5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general
health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City.
6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all
other PUD ordinance provisions.
,il~i ' 10 i 6520!305 €0 ~ ~,~ ~_aso5 ~64i0 iitl l24~32#1 25
34 lions Park 71146 7000 ~ 5900r~~ 5s~.: rt- 45 Aso d ~. 4~ €s
' _. ............. Ii4tE5TERt+1 f1VE" .~._ ,.. .; ~ ~ s rn .,
.. ,..,~ ` ` ~,, 35 3E ~ ~ _...
y6 ~ ~ ua ~~ $(~ ,'~ 66~ 643U'SSG4M 160 y 6~1i ills 5237
~a ~i ~ S5 so 55 50 ~ ~ ii9 '' i20
110 „~ ii5 ' 114 ~ li5 ~ ? Ci?RT1.A1lYN C1It N ~€35 ii0 135
~> ~f !' €s~1 ~ ~5 130 ~? 115 1€0 = i>r5 i10 is59s~1~s5 5s2~' ; 55ot1 i~ i25 1AL1
-s ___,_ I,_ ar ~ 135 i32 ~ i33 330 ;~ ti49i1
€5fl ' i55 ~; +~ 359 ~' , i49 •5630 €5540 55171 130 i95
175 ( 15~ ~ 230 ~ i55 €Stl i55 i50 s~ 220
€74 t _,/ 2s .~.. ..._ ~#3RTLAW W LZR $ . _:a... ... „_ : ~r €
-.~ € _ ~ i70 175 ~ 235 210 ~ 235 210 ~ '-~'_7" i .7 ~ ~-~-'[-~ r 24E1
190:: 195 230 "`i ~ 12$ 4655 551565656535651S5aA5547554'l55aa5
_~ _ / 235 2~4 233 ~, ~" (I ~-- ~- - ~ ___. -~,I ~ i t -
210 _-- ,____. --
21s zsa _
230 ~5 Y ~ 255 ?SG ' 255 25{1 ~ ~-' ~ 82{I
` ~~~~~~
~ _ .^ t~ALON7kL RD `~ J - 134A
4V~*ai Rin Pond ~ T `"--- . 350
28, r ~, si5 Subject Property.. Fo~,t~; ,~
f ~ sas7 ~2fng~Tond ~~`
-.~r,r~i ~~~ ~~~,~~-~ ~~ ~ ~- ~~~~ ~~~~~~ _ 6800 Wayzata Blvd. ~1=%'
s
f F
~ 3 701 69D1 ~ 721 0 ~ o Elf;
7112 ~ ~ 70F1
3 f ~ G Gy G O ~,:.
g50 € Q 7'19 G Q G
... £ 751 50i
_.. ..., ._i... ._... }ggR1CET5'f _ ..... ... ,,. "S', 905 $50
5925 a;~;
5855
T~' 900 _... ..._ ..... .._. .., $40
7100 ~ 9101 ~ . Eri
5920 5650
a ~ 5944 ~~, 544E1 5400 ~ 900
_ ._ ~ 5300
~ - _ _ ,
...,..
.. .... .... ..._ .......
. ..... _ ~ -I~94 TO ~Ay7g7.~ ~ 5224 6210
LC1UI51A~fMdV AVE S
,.... __ _. _ IYifERST#TE 294 .,_ _ ..... 13lyty .. .. .,..
. .._ ~6
..~
TI~~rTERSTATE 394 _... ,
_ i~~~`NR A ErTCI i5 I3K3 .~.~ S~a7`(? ~ ~..
_.. ~ tgq,q'.._
I A9a~caaxrl w::~i Aa~~U~-,G~x~Y.;CalfiiS
g} ~a5~afi
s `~ ~ ~ 5 u a 4 >,'
~a ~~55 ~~~ ,d 2'a~ 55th ~f ~k 2~• -~ J fi T a ~y '~. ~ . 1 w~
le - } ~
i''..".~f N3Fs'lz=a.ta~Y.'ili,~'A'~:..~. _.:~: 5, a ,_ ...~:.,1Ya, f _ , ~c
\I L ! _
`- i , f-f-- ^~ Cortlawn Pond
~ sis ~~ ~~ ~ =+urel Ave Greenbelt (Cottlawn Pand)
Laurel Ave Greenbelt (E & W Ring Ponds) ~ ~ ~, -~
( Fast Ring Pond ~.~s ~ ~~ ` p ~ ~ ~ l
~__~-
~ R
' ~ ;~ ~~ -°- • ~ Subject Property:
~~~ ~,..~da~ a~~~~~« -~~~~ ~ __ 6800 Wayzata Blvd. .~...
~_
~~ _. -m _
_ ~• .
~ .f,~,,, :* . -:~ ~r t ~• ~,~, ~ *" STS` ~ ~.
t ,_-, ~ • _~ ,r
r 1 ' 7ollElrr r iE ~ G ~ ~ ~ • K i '"
r ~ ~,~
e. ` ~.-. r- -= !„ ADZ ~
- ~ ~,.-.
-- -~f tf
~ .. ~ .z:~ ~ ~ ' ..,
1/+ - ~~j'ri •-.~tt MHN fi/~ ~ +~`~~ :../ `~I ~'~'S\~ ~ ~ -', i tP h{tIFt3[.
' ~- LRR'fM~'M! ~ CRiH`FP'' A~ 8D1 .,r_i , > - s _ ~ ._.. ip .~ rt ~i F` ~.,
f 751 i~~ r.. - i'i~ " i ~~ ~' ~ ^a. i ~ '~? ~B
c*. lr a' -r Yrt FR •.4'. s~J ~, "' ;( q r!`~ ~~ F 1 ~tF r ( 1 t-..
4 ~
' fi~~-r ,ir .car ~n'rrys*',~ •. it .b: -Re•~1~i ~GBDD ~~ ~_ 1 1 ,.~
.-
..,
~:` .. _ <, : ` .. ` ,; • . ' ~ R~~ 90 ~~ 850 :.
1r s ens „•.. ~~'_ ~. I i z _ _ r -~ •~; ,5 ~.
~' ~
' °~ ~ ~.
}, i`.~~~ ~I' 6925 R.~ ' ~ ~t! ~h c' ant ` ` ~ .
6955 ~ ~ -
`, ~_ ~ - - -~ - ~ JHp ifi it' Hi Nf Ma4 9D0 ~
• ~ ~ ~.
_ n ~yy !
` `
901 ~- _ _.~ ~:. _ ~ ' " ..~. ',,I .~ ~. ~ t a T J ' _ - 1 t~~,
~.,
~ ~' M r 6920 t~ + ~ ~~' y ~ ~~ t ~ .. ~~ ~ ~rGGGO 1 .~ ~ w: _~/.
. _
,- i A ' , .
~~ - _ - _
• _~~~
..._ .. ti. -; .~. .. _.. ~ ;....
,~ k. •. .. ~ __
~ 1.
.
F r a
i ~ ~ .. i~' ,+~ar.«...k~.. _. .. ,,..,mot ,.... -__. ,._. °~" -
'~ - - ~
_ _.--_ - -
-- -
.+
_ _, _---- iiw41 i..
_. •- t
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
A egular meeting of the Planning C
C cil Chambers, 7800 Golden V.
Octo ' h.11, 2010. Vice Chair Waldl
Those pres ere Planning Com
and Waldhause . so present wa
City Planner Joe Ho ~ oom and
Schmidgall was absent.
1. Approval of Mi
August 9, 201 egular P
Eck referred a first paragrap
used twic oneously in the firs
1 by Eck, seconded by C~
9, 2010 minutes with the
mmission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
ley Road, Golden Valley, M' ota, on Monday,
auser called the meeti --order at 7 pm.
~issioners Ce °bk, Kluchka, McCarty, Segelbaum
director - 'nning and Development Mark Grimes,
mini ive Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner
,.
Wing C ~ fission Meeting
n page 6 and n ~ .hat the words "found in" were
:ntence.
and motion carried unanim rlo approve the
eve noted correction.
2. Informal Public Hearing -Planned Unit Development Amendment -
Preliminary Design Plan - 6800 Wayzata Boulevard -Menards - PU-75,
Amendment #3
Applicant: Menard, Inc.
Address: 6800 Wayzata Blvd.
Purpose: The applicant is proposing the replacement of the existing Menards
store with a new 2-story Menards home improvement center.
Grimes explained the applicant's request to amend their existing PUD in order to tear
down the existing building and construct a new 2-level store on the same site. He gave a
brief history of the property and stated that Menards has been at this location since
1981.
Grimes referred to a site plan of the property and explained that the existing store is
approximately 128,000 square feet in area on one level and the proposed new store
would be approximately 250,000 square feet on two levels. The applicant is also
proposing a 42,000 square foot warehouse area along the north property line and a
garden center with both indoor and outdoor display areas on the east side of the store.
The garden center will eliminate the need to sell Christmas trees and landscape material
in the front parking lot as allowed in their current PUD Permit.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 2
Grimes noted that this property is currently zoned I-394 Mixed Use. However, it is the
City Attorney's opinion that, because Menards is already an existing PUD, they can go
through the PUD amendment process with this proposal.
Grimes explained that one concern regarding this proposal is the issue of parking. He
noted that the size of the parking lot will increase by only 23 parking stalls for a total 376
spaces which is significantly fewer than what is required in the Zoning Code. Menards
has stated that they feel 376 parking spaces will be adequate but staff is proposing that if
they need more spaces some of the yard space behind the building will have to be used
for additional parking.
Grimes referred to the proposed landscaping and discussed storm water quality for the
site. He noted that staff has met with the applicant regarding Bassett Creek Watershed.
Management Commission standards and they've agreed to meet the Level 1 standards
for water quality. He explained that Menards doesn't have their storm water plans
finished yet, but they will be available by the time the Final PUD Plan is approved. He
added that Menards has proposed the creation of bio-filtration ponds and an
underground storage system to help meet the Level 1 standards. The installation of the
bio-filtration ponds will require some trees to be removed along Market Street, Wayzata
Blvd and Hampshire Ave. He added that Menards will also have to do a tree preservation
plan and probably mitigation.
Grimes referred to the signage on the site and explained that the current pylon sign is an
existing non-conforming use so it can stay. However, the signage on the building will be
reduced by several hundred square feet.
Grimes referred to the elevation drawings and said that staff would prefer if all of the
sides of the building were done in the same finish material as is being proposed for the
front since all four sides of the property are visible. He added that staff is recommending
approval of this proposal with the conditions listed in his memo.
Waldhauser stated that in the I-394 Corridor Study one of the long-term goals was to
have another east/west street between I-394 and Laurel rather than having a "zigzag"
access to the business. She asked who would bear the cost if the City wanted to split
this property in half with a new east/west road. She suggested removing the frontage
road and having the warehouse and lumber yard on one side of a parkway/road and the
retail on the other side. She questioned the feasibility and the cost of such a
configuration. Grimes agreed that the I-394 Corridor Study does suggest an additional
east/west connection and ideally that is what the City would like, but at this time the City
could not pay the acquisition and utility costs. Waldhauser questioned the re-use of this
property as something other than a big box store if it is not split.
Cera stated that ideally one might want to match the plans in the I-394 Corridor study but
the Commission also has to look at what is realistic. He asked if variances can be
approved within a PUD or if they are subject to the same requirements as other variance
requests. Grimes stated that PUDs are a zoning issue and because this property is
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 3
already a PUD it can continue to be a PUD and they have the right to ask for an
amendment. He added that a PUD also allows the City to require certain things it may
not otherwise be able to, such as water quality improvements. He explained that there. is
currently minimal storm water management on the Menards site so this proposal will be
a significant improvement in that regard.
Cera asked why the number of curb cuts on the east side of the parking lot has been
reduced. Grimes stated that reducing the curb cuts created more space for parking stalls
and also having fewer openings creates less confusion in parking lots. He added that the
City Engineer feels the proposed number of curb cuts will function well.
Segelbaum expressed concern regarding the driveways on Wayzata Blvd. He stated that
he agrees they may not need additional parking stalls, but they may need additional
access. Eck agreed.
Aaron Morrissey, Real Estate Representative, Menard, Inc., Applicant, referred to the
condition in Mark Grimes' report regarding the front facade material being mimicked on
all sides of the building. He stated that he thinks he'll have a hard time getting Menards
to go along with that, especially on the north side along Laurel, because it would be a
substantial cost and that side of the property won't be highly visible. Cera asked about
changing the east and west facades. Morrissey said he thought that might be feasible.
He referred to the site plans and noted that there will also be 14-foot high pallet stacking
fencing around the yard area to serve as screening and security. Grimes added that the
Zoning Code requires outdoor storage to be screened. Segelbaum questioned if the
fencing has to be 14 feet in height and asked if it could be 8 feet in height on the east
side along Hampshire Ave. Morrissey said the 14-foot fence height is consistent with
what they currently have and it allows for storage as well
McCarty noted that size of the store is doubling. He asked Morrissey if they are planning
on doubling the types of products they carry or if they are going to double the amount of
the products they already sell. Morrissey said they are definitely going to increase the
variety of products they sell along with having a grocery segment, a showcase area for
kitchens and bathrooms and a garden center which is one of the main reasons for
redeveloping this property.
Eck asked Morrissey if the objective is to do more business with the same customers or
of they are hoping to attract new customers. Morrissey said they are hoping to keep their
existing customers and attract new ones.
Eck questioned how adding only 23 new parking spaces would be acceptable. Morrissey
said he finds most zoning codes require too much parking and that they typically ask
cities for parking variances. He stated that Menards doesn't have as many customers as
a retailer like Target or Walmart. They have a more steady flow of customers but not a
large number of customers at certain times of the year. He added that they have done
parking studies in the past and typically their stores require approximately 250 parking
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 4
spaces. Eck asked Morrissey if the current store has more parking spaces than they
really need. Morrissey said yes.
Segelbaum asked about Menards' plans in the. event they don't have sufficient parking.
Morrissey said they would probably allocate employee parking spaces in the back
yard/warehouse area. Grimes noted that Menards could also have an off-site parking
arrangement with nearby businesses if needed.
Waldhauser asked if the footprint of the building is staying the same. Morrissey said the
new building's footprint will be similar to the existing building's footprint.
Waldhauser said she would like to see more trees on this site and that she doesn't
understand why there can't be trees located in the bio-retention ponds. Morrissey
explained that the bio-retention ponds have drain the buried underneath engineered
soils. He added that the ponds can't support a tree's root structure and only specific
plants will be used to help filter the water. McCarty questioned why the parking lot in
front of the store isn't using the same underground storage tank design that is being
proposed in the back lumberyard area. Morrissey stated that the bio-retention ponds are
preferred by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management. Commission and there isn't
enough room in the lumberyard area to install bio-retention ponds. Grimes added that
the soil types in the lumberyard area are more suitable for the proposed underground
tank system and the soil types in the front of the store are more suitable for the bio-
retention ponds. He said it is his understanding that the way the project is proposed is
the best way to get to the Level 1 standards for water quality.
Grimes stated that the Planning Commission could suggest that the parking areas be
reduced by 10 to 15 percent in order to allow for additional landscaping and to get the
space required to allow for another driveway access to be installed along Hampshire
Ave.
Waldhauser referred to the building materials proposed and asked if Menards has given
any thought to splitting or combining the types of materials used in order to break up the
facade. She asked if the wooden posts with the flags in the front of the store are
necessary. Morrissey stated that the building proposed is Menards' prototype and has
the identifiable Menards entryway. Waldhauser said the store is out of place in the city
and will look like Fort Apache. She said she would like to use any leverage the Planning
Commission has in order to get an attractive asset to the community. Morrissey stated
that this is a financially fragile project and discussed the high costs involved due to the
soil conditions. He said Menards is proud of the look of their stores and he would
appreciate some leniency regarding the aesthetics. He added he is willing to use the
brick stamped concrete on the south, east and west sides of the building which is an
upgrade. McCarty said he would be happy if the sides of the building were at least the
same color as the front and not necessarily brick stamped concrete. Cera agreed that
he'd like to see the buff color on the entire building and more trees.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 5
Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment,
Waldhauser closed the public hearing.
Grimes noted that the Commissioners' concerns seem to be additional landscaping, an
additional driveway on Hampshire Ave., and the aesthetics on the east and west sides of
the building. Waldhauser agreed and reiterated that the Commissioners concerns could
probably be addressed if Menards is able to reduce the number of proposed parking
spaces. She added that she would like to see center island plantings with large trees as
well.
McCarty stated that he is overwhelmed by the size of the lumberyard/storage/garden
center area and the 14-foot high fence. He suggested that area be reduced in size.
Morrissey referred to the site plan and explained that there needs to be adequate space
for cars to maneuver in the garden center area. Segelbaum agreed that the proposed
fencing will make the site look very enclosed. Waldhauser suggested installing a different
type of fencing along the east side of the building which would allow people to see
through to the garden center. She added that the Laurel side of the property is a parkway
and she doesn't want it to look industrial.
Cera said he feels the Commission has given Menards some good general guidance but
they don't need to micro-manage where the fences are located. Grimes reminded the.
Commission that they are making a recommendation to the City Council and that
Menards can make the changes suggested by the Planning Commission or not.
Kluchka said he thinks the I-394 Corridor study has been set aside for this proposal and
he won't vote in favor of it without addressing how it aligns with the study.
Segelbaum expressed concern about the safety hazards of having two curb cuts along
Wayzata Blvd. and suggested having one driveway access on Wayzata Blvd.. and one
driveway access on Hampshire Ave.
Waldhauser reiterated that she would like some trade-off regarding toning down the color
and updating the store to an urban setting.
Kluchka stated that Golden Valley is competing in this area .with the West End
Development in St. Louis Park which is a very high end development. He asked how the
store in Eden Prairie was able to have its facade changed. Morrissey stated that the
Eden Prairie store is anon-prototypical store. He explained that they didn't have to deal
with the soil conditions in Eden Prairie that they are dealing with in Golden Valley which
is taking away a lot of dollars that could be used elsewhere. He added that the store in
Eden Prairie was also started in a better economic climate and reiterated that the Golden
Valley project is an economically fragile project.
Waldhauser reviewed the Zoning Code criteria used when considering a PUD. She said
she feels that the access to the site and the storm water treatment methods being
proposed are improvements and this proposal will be keeping a viable business in
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 6
Golden Valley. She stated that there is nothing inconsistent with this proposal
considering what is currently in the I-394 Corridor but it does not meet her criteria for the
planned land uses in the Corridor. She stated there is not much the City can do to
preserve trees on this site and there is no positive enhancement, but the adjoining
wetlands are being preserved. She stated that this development precludes the
construction of any type of housing development or mixed use development in the future
which is something they can't control because it is an existing use, but it doesn't add to
the objectives for the area. She stated the proposal works and is functional, but she
doesn't see anything creative about it and it doesn't do anything to move the City toward
its mixed use vision. Rather, it is a big box with a stockade around it. She stated that the
proposal uses the existing infrastructure but it doesn't provide any open space or
enhance the street alignment. Kluchka added that any developer of property around
Menards could potentially say they don't have to use quality materials because of the
precedent Menards would set. Waldhauser said this development is helpful in that they
are proposing to build up with two stories rather than rebuilding a new one-story building
that wouldn't fit in with the community. She stated that the development isn't consistent
with the City's redevelopment plans and goals but it does create a building that is energy
efficient and encourages sustainability with the water retention and filtering.
Grimes reminded the Commission that this is an existing PUD so the criteria for meeting
the objectives to become a PUD don't really apply because. this is an amendment and
they met the objectives when it originally became a PUD. He added that what Menards is
proposing is a legal use that is essentially the same use that has been there for a long
time. Kluchka said he feels the same criteria should be considered for an amended PUD.
Grimes noted that part of the I-394 Corridor study states that the City does. not want
businesses to leave, rather it wants to help businesses enhance their property. He added
that the proposal on this site will improve the storm water management issues in the
Corridor. Kluchka stated that this is a large development in the Corridor and it bears a lot
of thought.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Eck and motion carried 4 to 2 to recommend approval of
the request by Menards -PUD 75, Amendment #3 to replace the existing Menards store
with a new 2-story Menards home improvement center with the following conditions.
Commissioners Kluchka and McCarty voted no.
1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval These
plans were prepared for Menards and include the following: existing pylon sign, front,
rear, left, right and wrought iron fence elevations, warehouse elevations, land survey,
grading, drainage and erosion control plan, demolition plan .and utility plan.
2. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from City Engineer Jeff
Oliver, PE to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated October
5, 2010 shall become a part of this approval.
3. A final landscape plan shall be submitted with the Final Plan of Development and be
reviewed and approved by the City's Environmental Coordinator.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 11, 2010
Page 7
4. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. The
existing pylon sign existing on the site may remain but cannot be moved or expanded.
5. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from Ed Anderson,
Deputy Fire Marshal to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, and
dated September 21, 2010 shall become a part of this approval.
6. The precast panels on the east, west sides of the building shall be the same buff color
as the panels facing Wayzata Blvd. The look of the warehouse wall along Laurel Ave.
shall be enhanced.
7. If the amount of parking on the site is inadequate as determined by the City Manager,
Menards will take immediate steps to convert a portion of the outside yard area to the
north or east of the store building to create additional parking. Evidence of inadequate
parking may be shown by customers parking on-street, number of cars parked in the
parking lot, and cars not parked in designated spaces within the parking lot.
8. The driveway access points shall be further studied to determine if there can be
another access added along Hampshire Ave. or have only one access on Hampshire
Ave. and one access on Wayzata Blvd.
9. The amount of parking stalls shall be further studied to determine if some of the stalls
can be removed so more landscaping can be included on the site.
10.This approval is subject to all other state, federal and local ordinances, regulations or
laws with authority over this development.
--Short Recess--
Reports on Meetin of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Wing Appeals and other Meetings
Hogeboom inded the ommissioners ere will be a presentation by
Hennepin Cou at the tober 12 Council/Manager meeting regarding the
Bottineau Transi Stu y.
Segelbaum discusse tember 28 Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meeting
and informed th nni C fission that the BZA would like them to review the
language in oning 'ode re ing the setback requirements for structures built
prior to (Section 1 .21, Subdi ns 13 and 14). He stated that the BZA
woul so like-the Plan .ing Commissio help clarify the definitions for porches,
s ps, landings and d ks and the setback ssociated with them.
''Golden Valley
Planning
763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date: October 6, 2010
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject: Informal Public Hearing-Preliminary PUD Plan for Amendment No. 3
to Menards PUD No. 75 (6800 Wayzata Blvd)-Menard, Inc., Applicant
BACKGROUND
Menard, Inc., represented by Aaron Morrissey, has requested a third amendment to the
Menards PUD No. 75. The purpose of the amendment is to allow for the demolition of the
existing store and the reconstruction of a two-level store on the same site. The plan is to
stop operation of this store early in 2011 and build a new store that will open in 2012.
According to City files, the existing store is about 128,000 sq. ft. in area on one level.
There is also a warehouse along the north property line along with storage of product
outside. This warehouse is not heated. The proposal is to construct a two story store with
about 250,000 sq. ft. of floor space on two levels. There would also be a 42,000 sq. ft.
warehouse along the north property line. There would also be outside storage of product
north of the store that is accessed from Hampshire Ave. New to this store is a garden
center with both indoor and outdoor display areas located along the east side of the
building. This garden center will eliminate the need to sell Christmas trees and landscape
material in the front parking lot. The site would have 370 parking spaces or 23 more than
the existing store.
The property is currently guided on the General Land Use Plan Map for Mixed Uses. This
Mixed Use category was created by the City several years ago after the I-394 Corridor
Study was completed. As a result of the Study, the City Council created a new I-394 Mixed
Use zoning district with three subdistricts. The Menard property is located in Subdistricts B
and C. The front (south) third of the property is within Subdistrict C that permits high rise
structures up to 10 stories. The rear two thirds (north) portion of the property is within
Subdistrict B that permits mid rise structures up to 6 stories in height.
However, since the Menards property is located within an existing PUD, it has been
determined by the City Attorney that the applicant may amend the PUD to allow for a new
Menards store on the site. According to the City Attorney, they are not subject to the
requirements found in the Mixed Use zoning district. They have the right to amend the
existing PUD to allow for the rebuilding of a similar type of store on the site.
The review of the General Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map indicates that all the
property north of Laurel Ave. is designated on the General Land Use Plan Map for Open
Space (Laurel Ave. ponds). North of the ponds, there is a single family neighborhood. The
properties to the west and east of Menards are guided for Mixed Use and zoned I-394
Mixed Use. Across I-394 is St. Louis Park where the land uses are commercial or office.
The PUD was first issued to Menards in1997. Menards has been at this location since
1981. The building was previously a car dealership and converted to the Menards store.
When Menards purchased the property, it was zoned Industrial. The zoning changed to
Mixed Use several years ago. Within the Industrial zoning district, lumber yards and
building supply stores were considered a permitted use. Menards subleased a portion of
the building to other users, including COMB (catalog/warehouse business), Zeo's
computers, a patio furniture store and MGM Liquor Warehouse. At the time of the 1997
PUD application, only MGM sublet space. At that time, Menards was told if they wanted to
expand their store, they would have to get a PUD that would permit two uses on the same
parcel. Also, the City insisted that the PUD phase out the MGM store by 2001. In 1997, the
Menards store was about 104,000 sq. ft., not including the unheated warehouse.
In 1998, Menards received its first PUD amendment in order to permit a reduction in the
size of the building additions permitted by the original PUD. (The additions permitted by the
original PUD were not started at the time the 1998 amendment was issued.) The 1998 PUD
amendment permitted Menards to expand to a building of 128,191 sq. ft. In 2009, Menards
received a second PUD amendment to permit the use of a portion of their parking lot for a
plant but in order to sell live plans from April to September of each year. The plant but was
located at about the same location of the Christmas tree sales area. With the new store,
there will be no temporary sales within the main parking lot.
DESCRIPTION OF PUD PROCESS and PUD ELIGIBILITY
There are two stages of approval for PUD approvals with the exception of minor PUD
amendments that may be approved solely by the City Council. This amendment proposed
by Menards is not a minor amendment so it must be approved by the two stage process.
This is the first or preliminary PUD plan stage. The purpose of this stage is two-fold: to give
broad concept approval to the proposal, and to call out issues that must be addressed in
detail as the proposal moves ahead to the Final PUD Plan, or the final stage of approval.
Preliminary plan approval does not guarantee that a proposal will become reality. It gives
an applicant some assurance of being on the right track, and some guidance on how to
proceed. In the case of the Planning Commission in particular, the limitation of the
preliminary plan approval is clearly laid out. City Code Section 11.55 Subd. 5(C) states that:
The Planning Commission shall hold an informal public hearing and consider the
application for consistency with the Intent and Purpose provisions and other PUD
requirements and principles and standards adhered to in the City. The Planning
Commission's report to the Council shall include recommended changes, conditions, or
modifications.
2
PUDs are regulated under City Code Section 11.55. In this case, Menards is included
within an existing PUD that has been amended twice. Since it is an existing PUD, it has
already been determined that it is considered to be eligible to be a PUD and can amended
with approval of the City Council.
It has been determined by staff that Menards has presented all information that is needed
for consideration of the Preliminary PUD plan by the City. This information is a part of the
information attached to this memo.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The proposal indicates that the existing Menards structure and site will be demolished.
This means that the buildings will be removed and the parking lots removed as shown on
the demolition plan. After the site is cleared, Menards plans to construct the buildings
shown on the attached site plan dated September 8, 2010. The main store has a building
footprint approximately the same size as the existing building (about 125,000 sq. ft.).
However, the new store will be two levels with 218,000 sq. ft. of floor space. In addition, the
site will have a 42,000 sq. ft. warehouse along the north side of the lot. This warehouse is
for the storage of materials sold to customers. The back area will be accessed through the
yard gate along Hampshire Ave. The new store also has a yard and garden center that is
located along the east side of the store. The two level store has been chosen for this site
because the 12.4 acre site is considered small for a new Menards store. The two level
design allows for the store area to be expanded by about 100,000 sq. ft.
The proposed store is a carbon copy of the Menards store that is located in St. Paul at
University Ave. and Prior Ave. I have been to that store many times and find it to function
well. The two level store was chosen for that site because of the small site.
The information that has been submitted by Menards gives the information and background
needed to review the site. There are two memos that are attached from City Engineer Jeff
Oliver, PE, and Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson regarding their review of the site. The
recommendations from each memo will become part of the recommendation for approval of
the preliminary PUD plan.
Planning staff has several concerns that need to be highlighted as part of this review. They
will be addressed in the following paragraphs:
PARKING-The size of the store has been increased by about 100,000 sq. ft. but the size
of the parking lot has been increased by only 23 parking stalls to a total of 376 spaces.
According to the City's parking code, over 700 spaces would be required to meet the
parking standard. Because Menards has been in this location since 1981, the City does
have experience with the parking needed for this type of store. Based on discussions City
staff has had with Menards, staff will recommend the amount of parking indicated on the
site plan (376 spaces). Staff thinks that the layout of the parking is better than the existing
parking lot and that the limiting of access points to two driveways from Wayzata Blvd. will
make it safer and better functioning lot. However, staff will recommend that if there is
inadequate parking on the site evidenced by illegal on-street parking or parking in
unauthorized .locations within the parking lot, the City will require that additional parking be
created within the outside yard area by eliminating some of the display or storage areas.
3
The amount of additional parking necessary shall be determined by the Director of Planning
and Development.
LANDSCAPING-The new site has essentially the same amount of landscaping as the
existing site. However, there are fewer trees on the site due to the creation of bio-filtration
basins along the setback areas along Market St., Wayzata Blvd. and Hampshire Ave. Due
to the nature of the bio-filtration basins, no trees can be planted in them. As stated in the
City Engineer's memo, Menards is required to meet the Basset Creek Water Management
Commission's Level 1 standards for water quality. The bio-retention basins help meet these
high standards. With the same amount of impervious surface today as there will be with the
new plan, the Level 1 standards are met. At the current time, the site does not come close
to meeting Level 1 standards because the great majority of the runoff is directed into the
storm sewer without any treatment.
BUILDING DESIGN-The proposed new buildings are typical for a new Menards. The front..
of the building facing Wayzata Blvd. is proposed to be made of precast concrete wall
panels with a buff aggregate and brick imprint finish. The standard green used by Menards
will be used for accent colors. The other sides of the buildings will be precast concrete wall
panels with a wide rack finish. Staff would like to see that the rear and two sides. of the
buildings have similar precast concrete wall panels to the front help improve the visual
appearance of the buildings. This is particularly critical along the Hampshire Ave.. and
Market St. sides that are visible from those two streets. The building will be taller than the
existing Menards. As shown on the plans, the building will be up to 36 ft. in height.
However, this is much less height than is now permitted in this area by the Mixed Use
zoning district (either 6 or 10 stories).
The rear of the site will be screened from view by the warehouse building that will be
constructed along the north property line parallel to the railroad tracks. The rear wall of the
warehouse building will be about 26 ft. high and provide screening from Laurel Ave. similar
to the existing fence that now screens the Menards rear yard. Menards is also proposing a
14 ft. high treated lumber fence around the outside storage yard area to screen it from view
from the east and west. This is the same height fence that now exists on the site.
SIGNAGE-Staff has met with the City Attorney and Menards about signage for this
redeveloped property. Menards will be leaving the existing pylon sign along Wayzata Blvd.
"as is". The sign is considered to be nonconforming but it can remain as long as it is not
moved or expanded. Menards will meet the sign code requirements for the remainder of the
site. On the existing building there is now a total of 706 sq. ft. of wall signage. Menards will
reduce this to 382 sq. ft. of wall signage on the new building. Staff encourages this net
reduction in signage for the site. Menards believes that the reduced signage will still give
them good visibility.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary PUD plan for Menards, PUD No. 75,
Amendment No. 3. The proposed redevelopment of the site will result in the construction of
a new two-level store with an additional 100,000 sq. ft. of building space. However, the site
plan does not show an increase in the amount of impervious surface from the existing 11.2
acres. The proposed site will have the exact same imperious surface area. (The total site
4
size is 12.4 acres.) In addition, the development will meet the Level 1 water quality
standards established by the Basset Creek Water Management Commission resulting in a
benefit to the water bodies downstream.
The recommendation of approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. These
plans were prepared for Menards and include the following: existing pylon sign, front,
rear, left, right and wrought iron fence elevations, warehouse elevations, land survey,
grading, drainage and erosion control plan, demolition plan and utility plan.
2. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from City Engineer Jeff
Oliver, PE to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated October 5,
2010 shall become a part of this approval.
3. A final landscape plan shall be submitted with the General Plan of Development and be
reviewed and approved by the City's Environmental Coordinator.
4. All signs on the properly must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. The
existing.. pylon sign existing on the site may remain but cannot be moved or expanded.
5. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from Ed Anderson, Deputy
Fire Marshal to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, and dated
September 21, 2010 shall become a part of this approval.
6. The precast panels on the east, west and north sides of the building shall be the same
buff aggregate and brick stamped design as the panels facing Wayzata Blvd.
7. If the amount of parking on the site is inadequate as determined by the City Manager,
Menards will take immediate steps to convert a portion of the outside yard area to the
north or east of the store building to create additional parking. Evidence of inadequate
parking may be shown by customers parking on-street, number of cars parked in the
parking lot, and cars not parked in designated spaces within the parking lot.
8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal and local ordinances, regulations or
laws with authority over this development.
Attachments:
Location map (1 page)
Aerial photo (1 page)
Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, dated October 5, 2010 (5 pages)
Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated September 21, 2010 (2 pages)
Applicant's Narrative, dated September 9, 2010 (3 pages)
Exhibit "B" Variances and Explanations (3 pages)
PUD Permit for Menards Addition PUD No. 75, Amendment No. 2 (3 pages)
Preliminary Plans (7 oversized pages)
5
Golden
Valley
~ ,~.
~,,
Public Works
763.593.8030 / 763.593.3988 (fax)
Date: October 5, 2010
To: vMark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Subject: Planned Unit Development 75, Menards
Amendment #3
Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Amendment # 3 submitted by Menards, Inc. for the construction of a new two-story
home improvement center at the location of their existing store. This site is located at
6800 Wayzata Boulevard, which is south of Laurel Avenue, west of Hampshire Avenue
South, and north of the I-394 Frontage Road (Wayzata Boulevard).
Site Plan
Access to the existing Menards store is provided by three driveways onto Wayzata
Boulevard, and two driveways onto Hampshire Avenue, one of which is the access point
to -the outdoor yard area on the north side of the building. In addition, there is an existing
emergency access driveway onto Market Street on the west side of the building. This
emergency access is currently controlled with a gate to limit the driveway use to
emergency vehicles.
The proposed site plan includes elimination of one of the driveways onto Wayzata
Boulevard and relocation of the two remaining driveways away from Hampshire Avenue
and Market Street. This relocation will improve sight lines and conflicts between turning
vehicles and is an overall safety improvement to the public streets.
As discussed above, the parking lot access onto Hampshire Avenue is being eliminated
as part of the reconstruction. Therefore, the only access onto Hampshire Avenue is into
the yard area. This yard area is the location of semi-truck deliveries and customer pick
up of large merchandise. The gate and security building for the yard entrance are
proposed to be approximately 65 feet from the west curb line of Hampshire Avenue
providing limited stacking area for vehicles entering the yard. While the proposed
construction of a right turn lane for southbound Hampshire Avenue will provide some
staging space, there are no accommodations for northbound traffic turning left into the
yard, which may result in queues on Hampshire Avenue, which is posted as No Parking
on both sides of the street. Based upon this discussion, staff recommends that the gate
G:\Developments -Private\Menards\Preliminary PUD Amendment Review # 2.doc
and security building be located as far west as possible to maximize the number of
vehicles that can stage for entrance.
The proposed site plan also includes reconstructing the emergency driveway onto
Market Street in its current location, which is acceptable as shown.
All work within the right-of-way for Wayzata Boulevard, Hampshire Avenue, and Market
Street must be performed in accordance with the City's Right-of-Way Management
Ordinance and City construction standards and specifications. This includes pedestrian
ramps, commercial driveway aprons, sidewalk, subgrade correction, curb and gutter,
and pavement. The developer will be required to obtain aRight-of-Way Permit for this
work.
Utilities
There is adequate capacity in the City's sanitary sewer and water distribution systems
that currently provide service to the site to accommodate the proposed land uses.
There is one existing sanitary sewer service extended into the subject property. The
existing service must be removed from the property line to the existing Menards building
and capped at the property line as part of the site demolition. The remaining portion of
the sanitary sewer service is subject to the City's Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) Ordinance.
In order to become compliant with the code, the developer must have the existing
sanitary sewer service inspected by the City and make any repairs deemed necessary
following inspection. The I&I Certificate of Compliance must be obtained prior to
occupancy of the new building.
The existing water services for consumption and fire protection are extended into the
site from Hampshire Avenue. The demolition plan indicates that these service lines will
be removed, .but the Utility Plan does not include the installation of new services. The
developer must include the location of the new service lines on the Utility Plan
submitted for the final PUD approval, and must utilize the existing service lines if they
are sized appropriately.
The Fire Department has identified the need for hydrants for fire protection within the
development site. Based upon this need, Public Works staff is recommending that the
existing 8-inch water service on the east side of the property be extended to the west in
front of the new building to connect to the City watermain in Market Street. A minimum
of two fire hydrants must be installed in the front parking lot. The location of these
hydrants must be shown on the Utility Plan submitted for final PUD approval.
City records indicate that an 8-inch diameter water line was extended under the railroad
tracks and into the subject property near its northwest corner in 1988. This service line
must be shown on the Utility Plan. In addition, the developer must install a fire hydrant
in the yard area north of the building utilizing this water service. The location of the
hydrant is subject to the approval of the City and must be shown on the Utility Plan
submitted for final PUD approval.
G:\Developments -Private\Menards\Preliminary PUD Amendment Review # 2.doc 2
The new watermain and fire hydrants to be installed as part of this redevelopment will
be owned and maintained by the developer. The developer will be required to enter into
a maintenance agreement for this watermain. This agreement will be prepared by the
City and recorded by the City, and the agreement must be signed by the developer prior
to forwarding the PUD Amendment to the City Council for final approval.
The developer will be required to obtain the appropriate sewer and water permits from
the Golden Valley Building Department for installation of the sanitary sewer and water
services to the new building.
Stormwater Management
The property being redeveloped is located within the Sweeney Lake subwatershed of
Bassett Creek. The redevelopment is therefore subject to the Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission's (BCWMC) Requirements for Improvements and
Development Proposals, which requires water quality treatment be provided to Level 1
standards. The developer must submit the plans for this project to the BCWMC for its
review and comments. The developer must modify the plans in accordance with the
BCWMC comments and submit the final plans to the City for its records.
Due to the size of the property and the lack of land availability for a traditional water
quality pond, the developer is proposing to meet the water quality goals for the site
using alternative methods of treatment that are included in the BCWMC water quality
standards. The proposed alternative methods include "bio-filtration basins" and
proprietary below ground "water quality units," or sedimentation basins.
The stormwater runoff from the parking lot in front of the building currently leaves the
site with no nutrient and sediment removal. The proposed plans include surface
drainage of the parking lot to the perimeter, where it will drain into the proposed bio-
filtration basins. These basins will have amended soils to facilitate drainage and asub-
surfacedrainage system that will convey the filtered runoff into the existing City storm
sewer system surrounding the site. The basins, as shown on the plans, will be located
in the boulevard between the parking lot on the south, east, and west sides.
The stormwater runoff from a portion of the roof and the emergency driveway on the
west side of the building currently flows into a constructed water quality pond on the
property to the west. This drainage and treatment will be maintained following
redevelopment.
Stormwater runoff from the yard area north of the building currently leaves the site with
no water quality treatment. The developer has proposed the construction of
underground sedimentation basins in several locations to provide the required nutrient
and sediment treatment.
Based upon the above discussion, it appears that the BCWMC Level 1 water quality
treatment standards will be met for this redevelopment.
G:\Developments -Private\Menards\Preliminary PUD Amendment Review # 2.doc 3
The stormwater system being constructed by the developer will be owned and
maintained by the developer. Therefore, the developer will be required to enter into a
stormwater maintenance agreement for this system, including the water quality
improvements. This agreement must be signed prior to City Council consideration of the
final PUD.
This redevelopment is also subject to the City's stormwater Management Ordinance.
Following approval from the BCWMC, the contractor must apply for a Golden Valley
stormwater Management Permit. This permit must be approved before any land
disturbing activities can be completed on the site.
The demolition plan submitted with PUD application indicates that all paved surfaces
will be removed:: However, the plan is not clear as to the timing of the pavement
removal. Staff recommends that the majority of the pavement on-site be left in place
during building construction to minimize the potential for tracking mud and materials
onto the adjacent street system. Construction of the new parking lots must be
scheduled to minimize the tracking of materials off-site and must be illustrated on the
stormwater management plan and the construction plans for the improvements.
Following construction, the developer will need to submit construction record plans for
the City to retain for its records.
Tree Preservation
This redevelopment project is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. The
developer must submit a tree preservation plan and removal/mitigation calculations as
part of the final PUD approval.
Summary and Recommendation
Public Works staff recommends approval of this proposed Planned Unit Development
subject to the comments contained in this memorandum, which are summarized as
follows.
1. The developer must relocate the gate and security building at the material
storage yard entrance as far west as practical in order to address the potential
access issues discussed in this review.
2. The sanitary sewer service to the property must be in compliance with the City's
Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
for the building.
3. The developer must construct all improvements within the right-of-way for
Wayzata Boulevard, Hampshire Avenue, and Market Street in compliance with
City standards and specifications and according to the Right-of-Way
Management Ordinance.
G:\Developments -Private\Menards\Preliminary PUD Amendment Review # 2.doc
4. The developer must submit a revised Utility Plan that incorporates the water
service and fire protection discussed within this review. This revised plan must be
included in the final PUD submittal.
5. The developer will own and maintain the watermains, water service lines, fire
hydrants, and gate valves within the property boundaries, and must therefore
enter into a maintenance agreement for these facilities.
6. The developer wilt own and maintain all storm sewer catch basins, manholes,
lines, and water quality features within the site boundaries and must therefore
enter into a maintenance agreement for these facilities.
7. Subject to the review and comment by the Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission.
8. The developer must comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance and must
submit a tree preservation plan with the final PUD submittal.
9. Subject to the review and comment of the Fire Chief, City Attorney, and other
City staff.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
C: Tom Burt, City Manager
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator
Mitch Hoeft, Engineer
Mark Ray, Engineering Technician
Gary Johnson, Building Official
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall
G:\Developments - PrivateWlenards\Preliminary PUD Amendment Review # 2.doc
City
°~ en'1CranCl
~aa~,.~ Fire Department
o en a e
Fire Department 763-593-8065 / 763-593-80981fax1
To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Zoning
From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal
cc: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections
Jeff Oliver, City Engineer
Subject: PUD 75 Amendment #3 -Menards
Date: September 21, 2010
The Golden Valley Fire Department staff has reviewed the application for the amendment
PUD 75, Menards home improvement site located at 6800 Wayzata Blvd.
This review will focus on the fire department requirements on demolition, fire department
apparatus access, utilities, landscaping and reasonable level of life safety for hazards of fire
or dangerous conditions and to provide safety to firefighters and emergency responders
during emergency operations to the site.
Demolition
1. The demolition of all the buildings located on the site shall be in accordance with the
Minnesota State Fire Code and the City of Golden Valley requirements.
2. The existing underground fire suppression water service lines shall be removed, not
to be salvaged or reused for this new development.
3. Removal of all existing fire suppression equipment located inside the building, the
main building and outside storage building shall be in accordance with the
recognized fire code standards.
Utility Plan
1. The current document does not indicate water mains for the on site fire hydrants, fire
suppression water mains or post indicator valves for this proposed site. Provide and
submit to the Golden Valley Fire Department a utility plan to identify the location of on
site fire hydrants and water mains.
2. The installation of the on site fire hydrants located on this proposed site shall be in
accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code and also in conjunction with the City
of Golden Valley engineering department. The installation of fire hydrants shall not be
installed near the building collapse zone area.
3. The underground water service for the fire suppression system and fire hydrants for
the site shall be installed with due regard of the installation under the buildings and
dead end water mains and fire hydrants.
4. The location of fire hydrants on the site shall not be obstructed in any manner or
materials including, but not limited to, landscaping, electrical equipment, gas meters
and other means that would hinder the fire department operation. Vehicle impact
protection will be required to protect the fire hydrants and the post indicator valves.
5. The water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow water for the fire
protection shall be provided to the premise upon which the facilities buildings or
portion of the buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the City of
Golden Valley.
6. The fire flow requirements for the building or portions of the building and facility shall
be determined by an approved method by the fire code official. The fire flow
requirements will be determined by the proposed facility building or portion of the
building location, type of construction, type of use of the building and all floor levels.
Civil Site -Provide and submit to the Golden Valley Fire Department a civil plan of the
proposed site to indicate the following requirements.
1. The fire department access road for this proposed site shall be in accordance with
the Minnesota State Fire Code. The fire department access road shall have a
minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet in the immediate vicinity of any building or
portion of the building more than 30 feet in height. The fire department access road
shall be posted "No parking fire lanes" in accordance with the City of Golden Valley
city ordinance.
2. The fire department access road shall be provided for every facilities building or
.portion of the building. The access road shall extend to within 150 feet of all portion
of the facilities or any portion of an exterior wall measured to an approved route
around the building. If the fire department access road cannot be installed due to
location of the property or other conditions, an approved alternate means of fire
protection or safeguards will be required. Fire protection or safeguards include, but
not limited to, fire suppression systems, Class I standpipe systems, fire alarm
systems and any other fire suppression or safeguard approved by the fire code
official
3. The fire department access road shall be designed and maintained to support the
imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather
driving capabilities. The fire department access to the lumber yard located on the
east side of the building site will need to be reviewed by the fire code official for
access into the lumber yard after hours. Emergency access gate may be required.
4. The fire department access road shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not
less than 13 feet -six inches.
5. The inside turning radius shall be a minimum of 20 feet, outside radius shall be a
minimum of 40 feet, and shall meet approval of the fire department and the turning
radius shall be identified on the submittal site plan for the fire department review and
approval
6. Dead end fire apparatus access roads exceeding 150 feet in length shall be provided
with an approved area for turnaround for the fire apparatus. Please submit a site plan
to the fire code official with the proposed selection(s) of fire apparatus turn around for
approval
Landscaping Plan
1. The landscaping materials that are designed for this site shall not be placed or kept
near fire hydrants. Fire department connections, post indicator valves or other fire
protection and control valves in a manner that would prevent such equipment or fire
hydrants from being immediately deterred or hindered from gaining immediate
access.
2. The landscaping materials located on the proposed site shall not be obstructed in
any manner or materials including, but not limited to, electrical equipment, gas
meters, required building egress and/or other means that would hinder the fire
department ground and aerial ladder operations. Please submit the information to the
Golden Valley Fire Department for review.
Miscellaneous Items
1. The fire department will require fire department rapid entry lock boxes for the.
proposed site. The rapid entry lock boxes will be installed on all fire, department
access exterior doors and exterior gates, identified to this plan. The rapid entry lock
boxes can be purchased from the Knox Box Company at www.knoxbox.com
2. The location of fire extinguishers throughout the proposed site will be in accordance
with the Minnesota State Fire Code.
3. The proposed above ground fuel tank proposed for this site shall be designed,
installed and maintained in accordance with Minnesota State Fire Code, City of
Golden Valley requirements for private fuel dispensing.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065 or eanderson(a~ci.golden-
valle~.
ea/jl
u l ~ : Y~1 ~~•~ ~
September 9, 2010
City of Golden Valley
Planning and Development Office
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Re: Preliminary PUD Narrative -Menards of Golden Valley Redevelopment Plan -REVISED
Dear Members of the Planning Commission and City Council:
This letter is being provided in support of the accompanying Application for Consideration of Planned
Unit Development Ordinance -Preliminary Design Plan. Menards has owned the proposed site for
approximately three decades. The subject property is currently zoned as the Menard Addition, PUD No.
75.
In accordance with Section 11.55 Sub 5(A)(3) of the City Code, a narrative statement must be provided
with the preliminary PUD application explaining how the proposed PUD will meet the purpose and other
provisions of the PUD Ordinance including how it will:
a. Encourage, preserve and improve the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City
by encouraging the use of contemporary land planning principles.
The proposed redevelopment of the existing store site will improve the health, safety and general welfare
of the people of City by providing an enhanced shopping experience at a new store with expanded
merchandising. The proposed redevelopment will also preserve the City's tax base by avoiding the need
to relocate to a larger site, potentially outside of the Golden Valley City limits.
b. Achieve a high quality of site planning, design, landscaping, and building materials which are
compatible with the existing and planned land uses.
The existing store site presented many redevelopment challenges to our design team. The current acreage
of the subject property would not fit our latest prototypical single-story Menards store footprint. Their
solution was to grow vertically and position our 2-story prototype on site. The proposed site plan,
landscaping and building elevations take similar design cues from neighboring properties to ensure
compatibility while preserving architectural features identifiable to a prototypical Menards store.
Encourage preservation and protection of desirable site characteristics and open space and
protection of sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, water
ways, wetlands and lake.
The proposed site plan attempts to preserve as many of the existing trees on site as possible given the
limited acreage for redevelopment. However, the proposed storm water management plan includes the
installation of bio-retention facilities surrounding the perimeter of the parking lot. As a result, several
trees must be removed to accommodate these facilities. We are proposing to replace some of these trees
in locations on site that will not interfere with the function of these environmentally friendly facilities.
5101 MENARD DRIVE EAU CLAIRE, WI 54703-9625 PHONE (715) 876-5911 FAX (715) 876-2868
d. Encourage construction of affordable housing and a variety of housing types.
Menards is the low price leader in building materials and home improvement supplies. The expanded
merchandising that the proposed new store can provide will guaranty more competitive options to the
citizens of Golden Valley, which will foster affordable housing and home improvement.
e. Encourage creativity and flexibility in land development.
The proposed site plan is a creative solution to redevelop an existing store site for a specific use -anew
Menards. However, in the event Menards were to vacate, the proposed site plan offers some flexibility to
other users. For example, the proposed 2-story building could be utilized by another retailer and the
proposed lumber yard could be striped for additional parking that is often necessary with higher traffic
volume retailers.
f. Encourage efficient and effective use of land, open space, streets, utilities and other public
facilities.
Due to the limited acreage of the subject property, creative design considerations had to be incorporated
into the proposed site plan. Construction of a 2-story Menards and subsurface storm water .quality
facilities were designed to limit any impact to existing landscaping, public streets and facilities...
g. Allowing mixing land uses and assembly and development of land to form larger parcels
Although a mixed use is not proposed for the subject property, at approximately 13 acres, there is plenty
of lot space to accommodate a more traditional mixed use development of the site in the future.
h. Encourage development in transitional areas which achieve compatibility with all adjacent and
nearby land uses.
Menards has a lot of history on the subject property and does not want to relocate despite the challenges it
faces with the proposed redevelopment of its current location. Menards has the philosophy of reinvesting
in its existing property whenever feasible. This philosophy is often contagious and the proposed
redevelopment may encourage the revitalization of the whole area.
i. Achieve development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Although the new Menards project does not propose a mixed use, as contemplated within the I-394
Overlay District, the proposed development does contemplate a multistory building and the .creative
redevelopment of an outdated Menards store. As such, the proposed project brings to light the spirit of
the intent of the I-394 Overlay.
j. Achieve development consistent with the City's redevelopment plans and goals.
Certainly the creative redevelopment of an outdated Menards store is consistent with the City's
redevelopment plans and goals, particularly given the history of its corporate citizenship.
k Encourage development that is sustainable and has a high degree of energy eff ciency.
Menards is proposing to use precast, insulated panels to form the exterior facade of the two-story
building. This building system achieves an extremely efficient R-value. The building will also utilize
several large skylights to capture natural light. Additionally, Menards recycles many different materials
both at the store level and at its headquarters in Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this Preliminary PUD Narrative. If there is any additional
information that I can provide to aid in your review of this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Menard, Inc.
~"\
Aaron M. Morrissey
Real Estate Representative
Phone: (715) 876-2177
Fax: (715) 876-5998
amorriss@menard-inc.com
EXHIBIT "B"
Variances and Explanations
Sig_nage (Section 4.20) -Subdivision 9(J)(3)(b) permits a maximum total signage of
400 square feet within Subdistrict "C" on the subject property. Menard, Inc. is
proposing to reduce its prototypical wall signage to 381.6 square feet. The existing
Menards store has 706.4 square feet of wall signage. However, Menards would like
to continue to use the existing Menards pylon sign with message board and reserve
the option to replace the face /panel of the pylon sign. Therefore, Menard, Inc. is
requesting a variance to permit the height and total square footage of the existing
pylon sign with message board (with existing setback) in addition to the proposed
381.6 square feet of proposed wall signage on the new 2-story Menards.
2. Fences (Section 11.72) -Subdivision 3(B)(1) does not permit fences exceeding eight
(8) feet in height. Menard, Inc. requests relief from the fence height requirements of
the Ordinance. The proposed fencing conforms to the 14' height in existence at the
current store. The 14' height, combined with the opaque, screening nature of the
treated lumber fence, provides external visual protection from Menard, Inc.'s outdoor
sales and storage area. As the 14' height is necessary to provide adequate screening,
it adds to the aesthetics of Menard, Inc.'s concept and justifies the grant of variance.
3. I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District (Section 11.47) - If approved, the proposed PUD
would vary from several code sections found within Section .11.47. Although the
proposed Menards store redevelopment does not conflict with the purpose outlined
within Subdivision 1 of this Section, the size and character of the subject property
presents many challenges. The specific physical conditions of the site and the
proposed buildings would make compliance infeasible or inappropriate.
Additionally, this Section of the code certainly does not contemplate the
redevelopment of a Menards store within the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. In
fact, on August 6, 2007 the Golden Valley City Council unanimously approved an
ordinance rezoning the subject property to the new I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District
and Menard, Inc. was present to voice its concerns with the impact the ordinance
would have on a potential Menards store remodel or redevelopment project. At the
meeting the City stated that Menards would be insulated (or even exempted) from the
new zone by virtue of our store's existing PUD and that the City wants to keep
Menards at its current location in Golden Valley. With the above reasoning in mind,
Menard, Inc. would require variances from the following specific code section of the
I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District:
A. Subdivision 4(B) -Need PUD to grant conditional use.
B. Subdivision 6(B) -Reduction of parking setback to zero feet as required on
the Southwest corner of the site.
C. Subdivision 6(F) -Permit one-story warehouse and yard gate buildings on
site.
D. Subdivision 6(G) -Increase impervious allowance to 91 %.
E. Subdivision 7(A) - Permit a single use on a site exceeding one acre.
F. Subdivision 7(B) -Reduce open space to 9%
G. Subdivision S(A) -Permit the building and parking layout as depicted on the
site plan.
H. Subdivision 8(B) -Permit the building facades as depicted on the elevation
plans.
I. Subdivision 8(C) -Reduce window and door openings as depicted on the
elevation plans.
J. Subdivision 8(E) -Permit the building materials identified on the elevation
plans.
K. Subdivision 8(F) -Permit the bright or primary colors identified on the
elevation plans.
L. Subdivision 8(G) -Permit off-street parking to be located as set forth on the
site plan.
M. Subdivision 8(H) -Reduce parking screening to zero feet as required on the
Southwest corner of the site and allow the proposed landscaping to satisfy the
required level of parking screening and minimum tree requirements elsewhere
on the site.
N. Subdivision 8(I) -Permit sidewalks and related landscaping as set forth on the
site plan.
4. Parkin (Section 11.70)
A. Per Subdivision 3, Menard, Inc.'s minimum number of required off-street
parking spaces are calculated as follows:
Inside (Store and Warehouse)
• Retail Store or Service Establishment: 158,263 sq. ft at 1:250 = 633
• Showrooms Other: 49,453 sq. ft. at 1:400 =124
• Warehouse and Storage: 64,075 sq. ft. at 1:3,000 = 21
Outside (Yard and Garden Center)
• Outdoor Display: 17,975 sq. ft. at 1:2,000 = 9
• Outdoor .Storage: 8,171 sq. ft. at 1:20,000 = 0
TOTAL CODE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES = 787
Obviously, neither Golden Valley nor Menards is aided by Menards
constructing a 787 parking space lot. Menard, Inc. often times discovers that
city zoning ordinances are not tailored to Menards use when it comes to
parking, and variances are necessary almost without exception. The site plan
depicts 376 parking spaces in its current form; thus, Menard, Inc. requests a
variance to 370 parking spaces to account for any further site plan changes
which may slightly decrease the amount of parking. There are currently a
total of 353 parking spaces at the existing store, of which, at least 16 parking
spaces are currently being occupied by a garden center located in the parking
lot (approved via Amendment No. 2 to Menards Addition PUD No. 75). As a
result, the existing parking lot has 337 parking spaces and Menard, Inc. is
proposing an increase of 33 parking spaces.
The nature of Menards' use justifies 370 parking spaces rather than a higher
number which would go unused. Menard, Inc. does not desire to pave several
acres of land for parking that will never be utilized, just as the City of Golden
Valley does not want several acres of unsightly, unused hard surface area
paved for parking. Whereas other retailers meet the Ordinance and construct
vast parking lots to meet the Christmas rush, Christmas is not Menard, Ind.'s
peak sales period. Menard, Inc.'s "busy season" is actually two seasons,
spring and summer, during which time we have a steady stream of customers,
and not a single spike as other retailers enjoy at Christmas.
As a retailer, Menard, Inc. is not about to under-park our use. Menards does
not generate the same type of high traffic volumes that would be expected
from a general retailer (Wal-Mart or Target). Its total floor area also includes
large display and warehousing areas as well as larger aisles- for maneuvering
bulky items. These features contribute to the large building square footage
and make building size a poor indicator of parking needs for this unique
facility. In addition, Menard, Inc. finds that typically 15 - 25% of our
customers are in the rear yard area at any given time, and do not require the
use of storefront parking. Finally, in the event the use of the store ever
changed to a more intensive use requiring greater parking, the 3.72 acre yard
area could be converted to parking.
B. Per Subdivision 2(I), Menard, Inc. is required to have at least four percent of
the interior of the parking lot landscaped with vegetation. Menard, Inc. would
require a variance to reduce this requirement to zero. Menard, Inc. requests a
variance to deem the proposed landscaping bio-retention around the parking
lot, as depicted on the site plan, satisfactory.
Amendment No. 2
Menards Addition P.U.D. No. 75
City Council Approval: July 15, 1997
Amendment No. 1 Approval: June 23, 1998
Amendment No. 2 Approval: April 7, 2009
City of Golden Valley, Minnesota
Use Permit
for
Planned Unit Development
Project Name:
Location:
Legal Description:
Applicant:
Address:
Owner:
Address:
Zoning District:
Permitted Uses:
Components:
Menards Addition, P.U.D. No. 75
6800 Wayzata Blvd, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Menards Addition P.U.D. No. 75, Lot 1, Block 1
Menard, Inc.
4777 Menard Drive, Eau Claire, WI 54703
Menard, Inc.
4777 Menard, Inc., Eau Claire, WI 54703
Mixed Use
Lumber yard and building supply store
A. Land Use Component:
1. The site/utility plan prepared by Menard, Inc. and dated 5/27/98 shall become a part of the
PUD approval. The building elevation plans dated 5/28/98, prepared by Menard, Inc. shall
also become a part of the approval. These plans shall be kept in the official City files on
P.U.D. No. 75 (Amendment No. 1), and these site and building plans shall be noted by
City staff as the plans submitted as part of the General Plan approval.
2. The existing building and the additions to the building shall only be used by Menard, lnc.
for use as a lumber yard and building supply store.
3. The landscaping/striping plan shall be completed as shown on the attached landscape
plan prepared by Menard, Inc. and dated 5/27/98. This plan shall be submitted to the
Building Board of Review for review and approval. Improvements and enhancements to
this landscape plan may be made by the Building Board of Review. The final landscape
plan approved by the Building Board of Review shall become a part of the General Plan
approval. The screening structure shown on the landscape plan along portions of the
north property line shall be constructed at the same time as the additions to
Menards Addition P.U.D. No. 75
Page 2
the building. The Building Board of Review may require that upgrades be made to the
existing fencing along Hampshire and frontage road.
4. The building addition shall be constructed as per the site plan and building elevations that
are attached.
5. Any new, outside lighting for the parking or storage areas shall be approved by the Chief
of Fire and Inspections. The Chief shall have the right to modify any lighting.
6. All signage on the site must meet the requirements of the City's sign code.
../Menards may sell Christmas trees in the parking lot as long as no more than 20 spaces
re used for the sales lot.
8. mendment No. 2 allows Menards to use a 36 ft. x 72 ft. area for live plant sales including
a plant but as shown on the site plan submitted March 27, 2009. The plant sale is allowed
to be held from April 1 to September 1 each year.
9. The westerly driveway going onto Market Street from the Menards site, as shown on the
site plan, is to be gated and used only for City emergency vehicles.
6. Circulation Component:
1. Access drives, parking and walkways shall be constructed as per the site plan.
2. If the Chief of Fire and Inspections determines that parking is not adequate for customers
in the front (south) parking lot, Menards will be required to review its parking arrangement
by changing employee parking areas or moving some employee parking off-site.
C. Services and Facilities
1. The drainage plan prepared by Menard dated 10/18/96 shall become a part of this
P.U.D. Permit. Any new or future connections to the City's storm sewer system shall
be done only with the approval of the City Engineer.
2. Any new sewer and water service connections shall conform to the City's utility
standards.
3. No outside speaker system shall be used to notify customers or employees.
It is hereby understood and agreed that this Use Permit is a part of the City Council approvals
granted on July 15, 1997, June 23, 1998 and April 7, 2009. Any changes to the P.U.D. Permit
for Menards Addition, P.U.D. No. 75 shall require an additional amendment.
Menards Addition P.U.D. No. 75
Witness:
Page 3
MENARD, INC.
By: ~
~eo~- ~11~1-~c
Title: L~ O• c~.
Date: !. ~~~.~ ~'
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
.~I~ ~'~ ~
Witness: v ~I By:
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
Witness:
Date: ~~ ~ U' U
By:
Tho as~JD. B~u1rt, y anager
Date: l ~' ~~/ ' U
Warning: This permit does not exempt you from all other City Code provisions,
regulations and ordinances.
C, i~t~~
or`
o en a e
~~~~ Public Safety
3 ..~... ~
~~
Police Department
763-593-8079 / 763-593-8098 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 19, 2010
Agenda Item
6. A. First Consideration -Ordinance #450 - Adding a New Section 2.22: Domestic
Partnership Registration
Prepared By
Stacy Altonen, Chief of Police
Summary
At the September 16, 2010 Human Rights Commission meeting Commissioners were given a
draft domestic partnership registration ordinance to consider. Commissioners were requested
to provide feedback to City Council on whether a domestic partnership ordinance should be
adopted and, if so, whether the draft language should be revised or adopted as presented.
At the October 7, 2010 Human Rights Commission meeting Commissioners discussed the
draft ordinance and unanimously agreed that the ordinance should be dent to the City Council
for adoption as written.
The ordinance does reflect the change requested at the Council/Manager meeting of October
12, 2010.
Staff is proposing that if the ordinance is adopted it would be effective on January 2, 2011.
The fees will be included in the Master Fee Schedule which will be considered at the
November 16, 2010 Council Meeting. Staff is working on the registration form which will be in
place when first registrations could occur on January 2.
Attachments
Ordinance #450, Adding a New Section 2.22: Domestic Partnership Registration (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt on First Consideration, Ordinance #450, Adding a New Section 2.22:
Domestic Partnership Registration.
ORDINANCE NO. 450, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Adding a New Section 2.22: Domestic Partnership Registration
The City Council of the City of Golden Valley ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code Section 2 is hereby amended by adding a new Section 2.22,
entitled "Domestic Partnership Registration" as follows:
Section 2.22: Domestic Partnership Registration
Subdivision 1. Purpose
The Golden Valley City Council recognizes that the concept of familial relationships may
extend beyond traditional marital and blood relationships. This expanded concept
recognizes the relationship of two (2) non-married but committed adult partners. In
order to provide such persons the opportunity to declare themselves as domestic
partners, thus enabling employers to voluntarily provide equal treatment in
employment benefits for such partners and their dependents, the City Council hereby
enacts a Domestic Partner Registry.
Subdivision 2. Definitions
A. Domestic Partners. For the purpose of this Section, Domestic Partners are two
(2) adults who:
1. Are both at least eighteen (18) years of age;
2. Are not related by blood closer than permitted under marriage laws of the
state;
3. Are competent to enter into a contract;
4. Are jointly responsible for the necessities of life;
5. Are committed to one another to the same extent as married persons are to
each other, except for the traditional marital status and solemnities, or, are
married under another state or foreign jurisdiction not operational in
Minnesota under Minnesota Statute 517.03 (1)(b);
6. Have no other domestic partner with whom the household is shared, or with
whom the adult person has another domestic partnership or a spouse
regardless of household status; and
7. Reside in Golden Valley.
B. Domestic Partnership shall include:
1. Any domestic partnership currently registered with a government body
pursuant to state, local or other law authorizing such registration, or
2. Marriages that would be legally recognized as a contract of lawful marriage in
another local, state or foreign jurisdiction, but for the operation of Minnesota
law.
Subdivision 3. Registration and Termination of Domestic Partnerships
A. Application Form. The City will provide an application. form, which Domestic
Partner applicants will submit to the City Clerk indicating that they meet the
definition of domestic partners as set forth in this Section. Forms will also be
provided for subsequent amendments and termination of domestic partnership
status.
B. Registration Certificate. The City Clerk shall keep a record of each domestic
partner certification as well as amendments thereto and termination thereof.
Certificates will be provided and records maintained in keeping with provisions
of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Such certificates may be used
as evidence of the existence or termination of a domestic partnership.
C. Termination of Domestic Partnership. Domestic Partnership registration
terminates when the earliest of the following occurs:
1. One (1) of the partners dies; or
2. Forty-five (45) days after one (1) partner sends the other partner written
notice, on a form provided by the City, that he or she is terminating the
partnership and files the notice of termination and an affidavit of service of
the notice on the other partner with the City Clerk.
D. Homestead Designation. The City will follow eligibility for the designation of
property as a homestead as set forth in State Statutes.
E. Fees. Fees shall be set forth in the City's Fee Ordinance for applications for
Certification, amendments to an application, notice of termination or providing
certified copies of any of these documents.
Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or other
portion of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be unconstitutional or invalid in whole, or
in part, by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion will be deemed severable and
such unconstitutionality or invalidity will not affect the validity of the remaining portions or
this law, which remaining portions will continue in full force and effect.
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and City Code Chapter 2,
Section 2.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by
reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4. This ordinance will be effective on and after January 2, 2011 upon
passage and publication in accordance with law.
Adopted by the City Council this 16th day of November, 2010.
/s/Linda R. Loomis
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/Susan M. Virnig
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk